I don't know, why would the defender try to read the intentions of the striker with the ball?
The curious case of Jon Moss
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
The amount of stretching here by some posters. Telles made no attempt to keep his arms close to his body. Clear pen, Was lazy defending. Dier he approaches the tackle with his arms tucked behind his back doing everything possible to not get his hands in the way, despite what happened. No pen.
Spoken like someone thats never played football. Try running alongside someone and tryin to stretch to block a cross with your arms tucked in to your side and see if you don't fall in a heap
Then you fall over in a fecking heap and take the L for not stopping a cross. What you don't do is leave your arm sticking out in the path of the ball especially when in the penalty area. And i am not buying it for one second that it isn't possible to just stretch a leg out when running down the wing at speed. He's made no attempt to hide his arms.Plenty of footballers manage to not wave their arms around like a fanny when blocking crosses. Just because your 7 a side league of fat boys can't manage it doesn't mean a pro can't.
You need your arms to balance, its as simple as that. He's not tryin to make himself bigger and its drilled from a yard away at him. Lindelof defends everything with his arms behind his back (like Erik Dier) and it makes him ridiculously easy to turn in the box. Telles is unlucky, his arms are there solely for balance and therefore a natural position
Again, this: https://www.premierleague.com/news/2204759
The second clip in the video is literally the situation with Telles, explaining by Riley and kavanagh
The second clip in the video is literally the situation with Telles, explaining by Riley and kavanagh
That's remarkable, actually. Almost identical to the situation yesterday in terms of power, distance and arm position.
So, when will this guy be either too old or too fat to referee in the PL?
Thanks! The second clip is for those who said that Telles' one should be penalty.
Both were penalties. Difference is one was given on-field and one wasn’t.
There's a bit of difference in the situations though. The ball in that clip hits the arm, without the defender moving the arm. Telles has his arm along his side when the ball is struck only to move it towards the ball as it goes by. Blatant penalty.
As for the Dier one, if my memory serves me right it's hit from a lot closer range, he doesn't move his arm towards the ball and the arm is in a natural position. Would have been harsh to award that penalty.
Last edited:
Both were absolutely blatant penalties tbf. Can’t see how anyone can have a complaint that Telles was given outside of “well how wasn’t Dier’s?”
Both were pens but to be fair the telles one was a bit more blatant.
Christ
You need to actually listen to what he says though. He specifically mentions the defender didn't move his arm towards the ball there, whereas Telles absolutely did. Therefore, while they hit the arm in similar ways, Kavanagh's reasoning in that video does not apply to the Telles situation.Christ
Telles doesnt move his arm towards the ball
He’s rotating his body towards the left. JesusWhatever you say. When the ball is struck he has his arm along his side more or less and then when it hits his arm it's almost 90 degrees out from his body. You can spin it with him rotating his body all you want, but the arm has defninitely moved towards the flight of the ball. Not saying it was done intentionally, but it did happen and therefore it's not the same situation as the one in the video even though they are similar.Telles doesnt move his arm towards the ball
That's honestly remarkable. I'm sure we will receive a public apology from Mike Riley right? Whoever was on VAR needs some sanctioning; If anythings the clip in the first video is not too far away from what Dier did too and he's saying it should be a penalty. Referees stepping on their own feet again.
Both situations deserved an identical outcome. Shit refereeing by him.
Telles situation is penalty in the same way as it is in Dier situation. You can’t have different outcome for pretty much similiar offence. Outstreched arms blocking potential goalscoring opportunity. If you don’t think Dier was penalty the same should apply to Telles. And if you don’t think Dier is penalty then it is just free for all players to flex around with arms like bird and call it natural position.
How many criterias do you want to make up now
As the interpretation of handball incidents has not always been consistent due to incorrect applications of the Law, the members confirmed that not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence. In terms of the criterion of the hand/arm making a player’s body “unnaturally bigger”, it was confirmed that referees should continue to use their judgment in determining the validity of the hand/arm’s position in relation to the player’s movement in that specific situation.
Following this clarification, it is a handball 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; or
- scores in the opponents’ goal:
- directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper; or
- immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental.
The replay clearly shows Telles move his right arm towards the left and closer to his body, and his left arm up and towards the left as he rotates his body towards the left. Not sure why it's not considered justifiable by the body movement.
They are fairly fecking identical, the Wolves one even looks worse but according to Kavanagh it shouldn't be given.
Don't agree with that at all, they differ in important ways. As far as the linked video goes, it actually applies to the Dier situation and not the Telles situation.
I'm not gonna argue this anymore, because I actually can't do so, but anyway my final say is this: in the upper one the arm is in an almost identical position when the ball is struck and when it hit the hand, whereas it's pretty clear that Telles hand has moved. Whether this is a natural movement or not I won't comment but the fact that it has moved into the trajectory of the ball makes the situations different. You can't say that Kavanag's words "there's no movement towards it it just purely hits the arm" is true when based on the still you have, the arm clearly isn't in the same position when the ball is struck as opposed to when it hits the hand (in the first example between still two and three there's basically no difference in arm position). Again, it might be a natural movement of the arm, but nevertheless it is a movement of the arm.The replay clearly shows Telles move his right arm towards the left and closer to his body, and his left arm up and towards the left as he rotates his body towards the left. Not sure why it's not considered justifiable by the body movement.
They are fairly fecking identical, the Wolves one even looks worse but according to Kavanagh it shouldn't be given.
I would have agreed with you if he only listed situations that should or shouldn't be a penalty, or even if he had omitted the thing I quoted before, but since he said that that makes the situations different in the way they interpret these situations.
Last edited:
It's not "my" magic number. I'm just talking about what we've seen applied by the officials throughout the season.
We're fecked today.
How many times have we had him this season?!
Seems like every other week or so!
Seems like every other week or so!
2 mins added on time but then blows on 46 after spending the best part of a minute sorting out some pushing and shoving. Curious indeed. cnut.
Stream I was watching had one minute and he blew just as Gordon was about to cross into the box so weird thing to be offended by being a Man. United fan.
Free kick for the ball hitting Matic under the armpit
Free kick for Fred not being anywhere near Iwobi's face
Fat cnut needs to retire
Free kick for Fred not being anywhere near Iwobi's face
Fat cnut needs to retire
Implementation of added on time is one of my biggest gripes. Rather that than talk about the actual footballing stuff right now too...Stream I was watching had one minute and he blew just as Gordon was about to cross into the box so weird thing to be offended by being a Man. United fan.
He's not been bad today tbh
Not sure how a professional ref blows his whistle one minute early, not something I remember seeing very often at all.
TV got the time wrong, it was one minute.
Though most of the minute the ball was out of play...
Fat old cnut.
5 minutes is a pisstake the way Everton players, ball boys and stewards have been wasting time all half. feck off you fat wanker
Probably because the game was played at a snails place, our walking football style suits him.
Thank feck, just read he's retiring at the end of the season
About at least 8 years too late. He hasn't been fit enough to referee Professional football in almost a decade.