Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Albion] Premier League 4-6/12/21



O

One Love

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2011
4,377
Brighton
Acker79 said:
The Law says:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Seems pretty clear cut to me. As someone who had his fingers broken by a player trying to kick the ball while I had it in my hands (I caught it just before he got there, he would have been deemed to have had every right to go for it at the time this happened), I like this law.
Click to expand...

So Newcastle's goal yesterday should have been disallowed? Pope had both hands on the ball until the ball came in contact with Newcastle player's head and spilled.

Sanchez had the same earlier in the season that VAR didn't disallow.
 




Acker79

Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
R. Slicker said:
Did he though, It looked to me like he tried for a free kick by pretending his hand was kicked.
Click to expand...

Given that kicking the ball while it is in the keeper's hand is a foul and will result in a free kick, and that it's very hard to kick a ball out of someone's hand without also making contacting with their hand when they aren't already preparing to move their hand away (such as when a player punts in NFL), this feels like a bit of a discussion on semantics. While I suspect there was contact with his hand, I'm sure the exaggeration was more about 'the ball was in my hand so he can't kick it' than 'he kicked my hand'. It was to draw attention to what he knew was a foul.
 




R. Slicker

R. Slicker

Well-known member
Jan 1, 2009
4,486
Acker79 said:
Given that kicking the ball while it is in the keeper's hand is a foul and will result in a free kick, and that it's very hard to kick a ball out of someone's hand without also making contacting with their hand when they aren't already preparing to move their hand away (such as when a player punts in NFL), this feels like a bit of a discussion on semantics. While I suspect there was contact with his hand, I'm sure the exaggeration was more about 'the ball was in my hand so he can't kick it' than 'he kicked my hand'. It was to draw attention to what he knew was a foul.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying that the goal shouldn't stand, I just think people are possibly giving Schmeichel a bit too much credit, by saying he knew what he was doing.
 


PILTDOWN MAN

PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
18,724
Hurst Green
Pogue Mahone said:
Ashley Young, of all people, accusing someone of diving is irony personified.
Click to expand...

And his foot was trodden on. If it had been given no way would VAR reverse the decision
 






Durlston

Durlston

"Garlic bread!?"
NSC Patron
Jul 15, 2009
9,765
Haywards Heath
What a start for Stevie Gerrard! Three wins from four matches. Can't stand Aston Villa as a club but they've shown their worst and best sides as fans in the last week (booing Jack Grealish but paying tribute to that poor Birmingham lad that never had a chance at life :down:)

Leicester looked very weary. They're fighting in so many different cups and the league.
 


dazzer6666

dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,702
Burgess Hill
R. Slicker said:
Did he though? It looked to me like he tried for a free kick by pretending his hand was kicked.
Click to expand...

He had his hand on the ball for 1/12th of a second….hence the need for super slo-mo to confirm the right decision. Nothing to do with his hand being kicked - the ball was kicked out of his hand whilst he had it ‘under control’
 




M

m20gull

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2004
3,428
Land of the Chavs
Acker79 said:
The Law says:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Seems pretty clear cut to me. As someone who had his fingers broken by a player trying to kick the ball while I had it in my hands (I caught it just before he got there, he would have been deemed to have had every right to go for it at the time this happened), I like this law.
Click to expand...
That's such a badly drafted law. In the bit I have bolded it's hard to know where the "or"s and the "except" apply. In the final bullet there is another "or". Why it is not just:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands
  • the ball is between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)
  • touching the ball with any part of the hands or arms
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground
  • throwing it in the air
Then where do you put "except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save"? Does it go on the first three in my list, or just the third one?
And why do you need the first two if touching the ball with any part of the arm is enough?
Presumably "between" means touching as well, though it doesn't say so.

I'm not arguing the decision in today's match as the current law clearly implies you don't have to have both hands on the ball. Why are pundits so far from knowing the laws of the game they comment on?
 




clapham_gull

clapham_gull

Legacy Fan
Aug 20, 2003
25,447
m20gull said:
That's such a badly drafted law. In the bit I have bolded it's hard to know where the "or"s and the "except" apply. In the final bullet there is another "or". Why it is not just:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands
  • the ball is between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)
  • touching the ball with any part of the hands or arms
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground
  • throwing it in the air
Then where do you put "except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save"? Does it go on the first three in my list, or just the third one?
And why do you need the first two if touching the ball with any part of the arm is enough?
Presumably "between" means touching as well, though it doesn't say so.

I'm not arguing the decision in today's match as the current law clearly implies you don't have to have both hands on the ball. Why are pundits so far from knowing the laws of the game they comment on?
Click to expand...
It happens all the time, when I hear "last man" which you do without challenge across all the major mediums (Sky and BBC) I cringe.

I'm sure it was Clinton Morrison on the radio today who suggested the law had changed without him knowing.

Souness was equally ridiculous on Sky.

The law is badly drafted, who knows what the "save" clause means ? Possibly refers to a one handed save ? But that didn't happen did it ?

Many on Twitter suggesting that because the goalkeeper made a save "before" the control of the ball is irrelevant.

I'm sure the referees know what the rules mean.


Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:




M

m20gull

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2004
3,428
Land of the Chavs
m20gull said:
That's such a badly drafted law. In the bit I have bolded it's hard to know where the "or"s and the "except" apply. In the final bullet there is another "or". Why it is not just:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands
  • the ball is between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)
  • touching the ball with any part of the hands or arms
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground
  • throwing it in the air
Then where do you put "except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save"? Does it go on the first three in my list, or just the third one?
And why do you need the first two if touching the ball with any part of the arm is enough?
Presumably "between" means touching as well, though it doesn't say so.

I'm not arguing the decision in today's match as the current law clearly implies you don't have to have both hands on the ball. Why are pundits so far from knowing the laws of the game they comment on?
Click to expand...
I see it's been answered on another thread. The "except" applies only to my third bullet..
 




clapham_gull

clapham_gull

Legacy Fan
Aug 20, 2003
25,447
These debates remind of the "debate" whether Croydon and Barnet are in London, rather than the respective counties of Surrey and Hertfordshire.

Both are very much in London irrespective of the fact the post office:

1) Held onto historic post codes..
2) Bizarrely, the Post Office still uses the historic county names on their own Post Office addresses which refer to "sorting area" and not geographical / administrative location.

Twitter is having a debate on what "control of the ball means". You may have your interpretation of what "control means" (as well as which county you live in), but when the laws have defined it your personal view is completely irrelevant.
 














B

Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
11,947
Cumbria
One Love said:
So Newcastle's goal yesterday should have been disallowed? Pope had both hands on the ball until the ball came in contact with Newcastle player's head and spilled.

Sanchez had the same earlier in the season that VAR didn't disallow.
Click to expand...

I think the difference is that the Newcastle player didn't 'challenge' the keeper after he had it in his control. Pope caught it, and then his downward movement took the ball onto the Newcastle player's head and he spilled it. That is - the Newcastle player made no move towards Pope once he had the ball.
 


dazzer6666

dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,702
Burgess Hill
Tonights relegation prices

671D79AF-3A7A-44A4-AA15-3F9F8FE82B3B.png

…and for further perspective, top 4 finish

1F113ECC-7153-4EC7-A65E-AB71E3C4A223.png
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here