METALMICKY
Well-known member
- Jan 30, 2004
- 7,493
Oh well at least that's cleared that up then! Quick thinking not allowed and the defence or keeper should not be penalised if they are not switched on!
[Albion] The official reason the free kick goal was disallowed
- Thread starter METALMICKY
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Oh well at least that's cleared that up then! Quick thinking not allowed and the defence or keeper should not be penalised if they are not switched on!
Sirnormangall
Well-known member
- Sep 21, 2017
- 3,507
Then he shouldn’t have Effin blown for the first time
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
....then why did he then allow the goal the turnip
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
Exactly, if he had continued with disallowing the goal he might have got away with that answer but the second he changed his mind and allowed the goal proves he is a liar.
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
Where in the laws of the game does a player have to be ready?
If that’s the case; why was Dunks goal allowed at Liverpool? Or for that matter, any quick free quick in the history of the game.
This isn’t U9’s and we have to be fair.
The referee didn’t even sprint once today - watch the game back - he had an absolute stinker, and what’s worse, he tried to lie his way out of it before realising he had 2762 cameras zoomed onto his face.
If that’s the case; why was Dunks goal allowed at Liverpool? Or for that matter, any quick free quick in the history of the game.
This isn’t U9’s and we have to be fair.
The referee didn’t even sprint once today - watch the game back - he had an absolute stinker, and what’s worse, he tried to lie his way out of it before realising he had 2762 cameras zoomed onto his face.
Seagull1989
Well-known member
- Oct 31, 2011
- 1,206
Should he have blown the first time ? Probably not but once he has the ball is in play.
He then panicked blew again and then didn’t know what to do. It was quite funny seeing him trying to get away from the players and buy some thinking time to try and get out of it.
Ultimately, it was the two missed penalties that cost us, not this decision.
He then panicked blew again and then didn’t know what to do. It was quite funny seeing him trying to get away from the players and buy some thinking time to try and get out of it.
Ultimately, it was the two missed penalties that cost us, not this decision.
But what you say isn't right at all. We could have missed 6 penalties. The point is under the laws of the game when the ref indicates to the teams he will restart the game on the whistle once blown that's it. If you not ready tough. They weren't we were, yet he and Hopper made new laws up to stop us scoring. If anyone says the ball wasn't passed the goaline when he blew the second time is just lying, it was.
Skaville
Well-known member
I keep hearing this opinion. It’s nonsense. We scored a perfectly good goal that was chalked off due to a refereeing blunder. How did that NOT cost us?
The whole thing was farcical and I'm not sticking up for Mason one bit.
However Mason blew his whistle, the second time, to stop the game. VAR then had to determine whether the ball was over the line in order to allow the goal (ball was over the line, therefore the game was stopped anyway) or to disallow the "goal" (the ball was not over the line therefore the second whistle stopped the game).
The "error" was the first blow of the whistle since Mason did that believing West Brom were ready. When he saw they weren't he blew the second time. Whether the laws allow the defending team to be ready is neither here nor there really - Mason blew his whistle to stop the game, as any referee can do any time. They may get it wrong, but a blow of the whistle stops the game.
I believe he initially over-ruled himself and gave the goal because he realised, possibly with the help of Hoops in the VAR booth, that he HAD blown the whistle to re-start the game.
He then over-ruled himself, clearly with the help of our chum Hoops, when it was determined his second whistle blow took place while the ball had not crossed the goal line and was still live. The BBC MotD freeze of the action seemed to confirm that.
Why is VAR getting involved if the second whistle went before the ball crossed the line? If the play was dead before the ball crossed the line, no goal is awarded, and VAR can't get involved. (We were told that they couldn't get involved in the non-goal in the Sheffield United/Villa game last year because no goal was given).
If he realised he shouldn't have let the free kick be taken and he was blowing a second time, why all the faffing around why not simply 'Sorry Lewis, I didn't realise how out of position he was, I can't allow it, retake the free kick'.
If he has given the goal why? How could he not have known that he had changed his mind about allowing the quick free kick until the VAR review?
Given we've had a game where the full time whistle going meant nothing, because the offence occurred before the whistle went and had the referee known the offence had occurred he would have given the penalty before the whistle why does it even matter whether the second whistle went before the ball crosses the line or not? He knew he had changed his mind before awarding the goal, so shouldn't have awarded it.
I feel like this is an absolute clusterfudge and rather than just come out and say 'it was a mistake that was compounded by further mistakes. Sorry' there seems to be an effort to downplay it. I don't know if this is standard 'let's protect our own' or if there is an element of 'look lee is one of our senior guys, he's come in for a lot of flack recently we really need to protect him, particular after mike dean got those death threats. We've got Dermot Gallagher et al trying to downplay just how ridiculous it was. Seriously, Dermot? 'A momentary lapse, but he's done well to run over to the touch line to give himself thinking time' (paraphrased from here)? He's on a learning curve and will use this to improve? He's one of the older refs coming toward the end of his career, this isn't something he should jut be learning.
If he realised he shouldn't have let the free kick be taken and he was blowing a second time, why all the faffing around why not simply 'Sorry Lewis, I didn't realise how out of position he was, I can't allow it, retake the free kick'.
If he has given the goal why? How could he not have known that he had changed his mind about allowing the quick free kick until the VAR review?
Given we've had a game where the full time whistle going meant nothing, because the offence occurred before the whistle went and had the referee known the offence had occurred he would have given the penalty before the whistle why does it even matter whether the second whistle went before the ball crosses the line or not? He knew he had changed his mind before awarding the goal, so shouldn't have awarded it.
I feel like this is an absolute clusterfudge and rather than just come out and say 'it was a mistake that was compounded by further mistakes. Sorry' there seems to be an effort to downplay it. I don't know if this is standard 'let's protect our own' or if there is an element of 'look lee is one of our senior guys, he's come in for a lot of flack recently we really need to protect him, particular after mike dean got those death threats. We've got Dermot Gallagher et al trying to downplay just how ridiculous it was. Seriously, Dermot? 'A momentary lapse, but he's done well to run over to the touch line to give himself thinking time' (paraphrased from here)? He's on a learning curve and will use this to improve? He's one of the older refs coming toward the end of his career, this isn't something he should jut be learning.
Nope - that's not an error.
You don't have to wait until a side is fully ready to blow your whistle - see Dunk's goal against Liverpool last season, Adrian clearly wasn't ready (his own fault, obviously).
Imagine the absolute lunacy and ludicrous timewasting, if such a rule existed. If they've had ample time to get ready, then as soon as the whistle blows, if they're still not ready that is 100% on them. The second whistle is irrelevant, as this is a made up rule that doesn't exist. I can't wait to see the official reason for the 2nd whistle, as if it's "he wasn't ready", Lee Mason has started his own rulebook, of a different sport. Also that doesn't even make sense as he then changed his mind and chose to give the goal...
If you say the second whistle was before it crossed the line it was milliseconds, if at all. That just doesn't wash in the scheme of things.
It was an error, not in allowing the kick as that's perfectly clear in the laws, it's the complete **** up afterwards. He shouldn't referee again imo
I agree with all of that and as I've posted several times, I completely agree there is no rule that a defending team have to be permitted to get ready. However, for whatever reason, that largely has become the protocol.
When I said "error", I meant in terms of Mason's intentions, not in terms of the laws of the game. He has the ability to re-start the game with his whistle at the time he chooses to.
He thought WBA were "ready" and blew his whistle to re-start the game. Almost immediately he then saw that Johnstone was still on his near post lining up the wall, so blew again. The error was his own in blowing that first time as I believe that had he noted Johnstone's position, he would not have re-started the game when he did.
So the first blow was his error (but not against the laws of the game) which he attempted to remedy with his second blow, to stop the game.
...and the second blow is not irrelevant.
First blow: re-start the game.
Second blow: stop the game.
His reason for wanting to stop the game may be wrong, but when the referee blows his whistle when the ball is live, and it was due to the first blow, the game stops.
First blow: re-start the game.
Second blow: stop the game.
His reason for wanting to stop the game may be wrong, but when the referee blows his whistle when the ball is live, and it was due to the first blow, the game stops.
According to the rules of the game, it should therefore have been a drop ball on their goal line (if the ball really hadn't crossed it, which I'm not convinced by at all) to restart the game, not another free kick. So it's still incorrect.
He can't choose to rewind time to the free kick. The free kick had already been taken when he realised the issue, and the ball was in play. The free kick is in the past at that point. By the laws of the game, I don't think it can't magically be rewound into being a freekick again - the freekick has been taken in accordance with his whistle.
His main error was a lack of conviction.
If he blew the whistle a second time to stop play he shouldn't have awarded a goal and then gone to VAR, regardless of whether it went in before he blew or not. The intent was to indicate the free kick was allowed to be taken in error, fine. The Man U game shows that it doesn't matter when the whistle goes if the ref believes a decision would have been made before it went. He should have had the conviction to turn to the players and say so. Not say no goal, then award the goal, then walk off to give himself time to think, then let VAR take the flack. His indecision and flip-flopping is what has caused the embarrassment and confusion.
I'm interested to see what will happen to him after this considering he was 'stood down' mere weeks ago for his shocking decisions. Odds-on he'll be given the weekend off until it's blown over and he can go back to being a useless **** again. Prick shouldn't even be reffing Sunday league but these inept wankers really look after their own. Looking forward to his fellow **** Gallagher defending him and saying how he did everything by the book in the coming days.