[Albion] The injustice against Brighton

[Acker79]

I liked the fact everyone went mental for the pen shout even if it turns out it wasn’t as it came off his thigh. Fired everyone up a bit and stoked the crowd.

This is the law for 2023/24 https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2023-24?l=en

Handling the ball​

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of​

the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a​

player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.​

​

It is an offence if a player:​

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the​

hand/arm towards the ball​

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body​

unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body​

unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence​

of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By​

having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their​

hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised​

• scores in the opponents’ goal:​

• directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the​

goalkeeper​

• immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental​

​

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other​

player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their​

penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but​

there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a​

second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches​

another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a​

promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an​

obvious goal-scoring opportunity.​

This is the law from 2019-2020 https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2019-20?l=en

Handling the ball​

It is an offence if a player:​

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the​

hand/arm towards the ball​

• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm​

and then:​

• scores in the opponents’ goal​

• creates a goal-scoring opportunity​

• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if​

accidental, including by the goalkeeper​

It is usually an offence if a player:​

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:​

• the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger​

• the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player​

deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)​

​

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm​

directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is​

close.​

​

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches​

a player’s hand/arm:​

• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)​

• directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close​

• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally​

bigger​

• when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to​

support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body​

​

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other​

player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their​

penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but​

there is no disciplinary sanction​

You'll note those bold exceptions do not exist in the current laws of the game. They were specifically removed. It's why the Luton were given a penalty v Wolves - because according to the current laws of the game, there is no 'it came off my own body' exception.

 

[Farehamseagull]

As others have said, I thought the ref had a good game.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

My, how we laughed.

Anyway, when is Liverpool's last contentious decision game going to be replayed? Hang on.....oh. Never.

f***ing hell. There are better things to get worked up about than clippety, in this world. Today.

Sometimes humour is a release from the utter shit that is happening in the world right now, today.

 

[halbpro]

So on Gross, just run through the DOGSO check list

• distance between the offence and the goal - This is pretty obviously met, he's inside the box
• general direction of the play - While the pass from Nunez is away from goal, the general direction of the play is that they're in the final phase of an attack
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - Does he have the ball? Obviously not. Is he likely to gain control of the ball? I'd say probably yes, I don't think Verbruggen reaches him in time
• location and number of defenders - Yes someone is steaming into the goal line but I don't think they're there in time. Maybe?

I'd say it probably meets the threshold for DOGSO. Not absolutely, and I don't know if there's enough of an error for VAR to intervene, but on the balance of probability yes it is.

So then, is Gross trying to play or challenge for the ball? I'd say no, particularly as the law specifically mentions "holding" as a reason for a DOGSO red card and Gross does have a pretty firm grip on the collar.

All taken into account? We probably got away with that, and I think we'd be frustrated if it was the other way.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sometimes humour is a release from the utter shit that is happening in the world right now, today.

Very good point.

I've just got back from visiting my old PhD supervisor (he's 83). He's on the Alzheimer's threshold. I mentioned a case that's annoying me about a pregnant person I know whose smoking. My pal's missus (she's 86) said 'my mother smoked throughout her pregnancy with me'. My pal replied 'Is that why you're a f***ing midget?'.

They have been married 61 years so I allowed myself a snigger.

I hope you're all good

 

[Guinness Boy]

Give it a rest. FFS.

 

[Sheebo]

This is the law for 2023/24 https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2023-24?l=en

Handling the ball​

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of​

the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a​

player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.​

​

It is an offence if a player:​

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the​

hand/arm towards the ball​

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body​

unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body​

unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence​

of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By​

having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their​

hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised​

• scores in the opponents’ goal:​

• directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the​

goalkeeper​

• immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental​

​

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other​

player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their​

penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but​

there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a​

second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches​

another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a​

promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an​

obvious goal-scoring opportunity.​

This is the law from 2019-2020 https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2019-20?l=en

Handling the ball​

It is an offence if a player:​

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the​

hand/arm towards the ball​

• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm​

and then:​

• scores in the opponents’ goal​

• creates a goal-scoring opportunity​

• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if​

accidental, including by the goalkeeper​

It is usually an offence if a player:​

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:​

• the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger​

• the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player​

deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)​

​

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm​

directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is​

close.​

​

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches​

a player’s hand/arm:​

• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)​

• directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close​

• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally​

bigger​

• when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to​

support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body​

​

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other​

player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their​

penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but​

there is no disciplinary sanction​

You'll note those bold exceptions do not exist in the current laws of the game. They were specifically removed. It's why the Luton were given a penalty v Wolves - because according to the current laws of the game, there is no 'it came off my own body' exception.

So how was that not given? And why was Taylor pointing to his thigh? According to those rules it has to be a pen then - his arm was out and stopped the cross…!

 

[Sheebo]

Very good point.

I've just got back from visiting my old PhD supervisor (he's 83). He's on the Alzheimer's threshold. I mentioned a case that's annoying me about a pregnant person I know whose smoking. My pal's missus (she's 86) said 'my mother smoked throughout her pregnancy with me'. My pal replied 'Is that why you're a f***ing midget?'.

They have been married 61 years so I allowed myself a snigger.

I hope you're all good

That will 100% still be my humour if I make 80s

 

[monty uk]

Can't find the Injustice Against Liverpool thread....

I was quite surprised, given the enormity of the game to the TOP6 club, that there were only four minutes of added time.

Particularly with the obvious timewasting when it was 2-1 clocking up the minutes.

Surely 9 or 10 minutes would be more correct.

Scream INJUSTICE.

Scream CORRUPT OFFICIALS.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

View attachment 167810

Right you, outside.

Just let me finish me pint.

 

[Acker79]

So how was that not given? And why was Taylor pointing to his thigh? According to those rules it has to be a pen then - his arm was out and stopped the cross…!

I have no idea why it wasn't given.

Conspirational - giving them one for last week's mistake.

Negative about refereeing - he just got it wrong because his (and/or VAR's) understanding is as outdated as a lot of fans who all believed the thigh thing to be an explanation.

Over-thinking - Maybe it's like when they point at the ball after a physical challenge, even though there's nothing in the definition of the law that says getting the ball means it can't be a foul, but it's a visible shorthand for everyone to just point at the ball to say 'no foul', saying it came off the thigh was his short hand for saying it was too close for him to avoid (even though that isn't in the law either)

 

[Terry Butcher Tribute Act]

Absolutely ridiculous how reluctant he was to card anyone but we got away with one with Gross

Not sure how people are coming away thinking it was a good refereeing display

 

[studio150]

If this game had been played as one of the first 2 or 3 games of the season, Liverpool would have had at least four players yellow carded for delay of game. However since the clampdown at the start of the season this seems to have ditched by all referees, or is it just for traditional top 6 teams time wasting.

 

[American Seagle]

Ref got everything pretty much spot on IMHO.

Apart from the penalty and I recall diaz kicking the ball away at the start and not getting booked.

 

[Bodian]

The Baleba yellow was odd. He let so much go and didn’t book players for more obvious & worse fouls, and then books Baleba for a shoulder to shoulder one. It was barely a foul, certainly not yellow card worthy.

I think it's because it was premeditated. He got up from cramp, was never going to catch him for pace - so blatantly decided to stop him by fouling. Many of the Liverpool ones were snidey, and 'looks accidental'.

Apart from the penalty and I recall diaz kicking the ball away at the start and not getting booked.

Yes - very early on. Annoyed me!

 

[jessiejames]

So on Gross, just run through the DOGSO check list

• distance between the offence and the goal - This is pretty obviously met, he's inside the box
• general direction of the play - While the pass from Nunez is away from goal, the general direction of the play is that they're in the final phase of an attack
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - Does he have the ball? Obviously not. Is he likely to gain control of the ball? I'd say probably yes, I don't think Verbruggen reaches him in time
• location and number of defenders - Yes someone is steaming into the goal line but I don't think they're there in time. Maybe?

I'd say it probably meets the threshold for DOGSO. Not absolutely, and I don't know if there's enough of an error for VAR to intervene, but on the balance of probability yes it is.

So then, is Gross trying to play or challenge for the ball? I'd say no, particularly as the law specifically mentions "holding" as a reason for a DOGSO red card and Gross does have a pretty firm grip on the collar.

All taken into account? We probably got away with that, and I think we'd be frustrated if it was the other way.

Gross not last man. We had defender on the line plus Bart could have saved it. Not a sending off offence.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Ref had an awful game. Obviously happens in same way as when a player has a bad game.

Shockingly poor decision to give us a free kick in front of baying NS after Solly dived down a blind alley. Ref actually thought for an extra split second "Can I give that? Oh, go on then.."

 

[luge]

Great game of football. I left the ground incensed at the referee's performance, but having just watched Match Of the Day 2, i think he got the big calls spot on. This is exactly why decisions need to be shown in the stadium. Gross could have seen red looking at it, but i can see why it is not considered a clear goal scoring opportunity - Verbruggen may have got that ball, there is a defender on the line and he was actually running backwards. If i was a scouser, I would have been pissed though.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

On a general refereeing point, what's happened to getting tough on time-wasting, dissent and multiple players surrounding the referee? Saw examples of all three go unpunished yesterday - and numerous other 'offences' being ignored in other games.

 

[Berty23]

Never a pen for handball.

Alexis did three bookable offences but none were given. Pretty remarkable. Baleba’s booking was identical to Alexis’s first one on mitoma.

Why do players get booked for kicking the ball away to slow the taking of a quick free kick but not for being in the way to stop taking off a quick free kick?