Who said that?
VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Even if VAR could have looked at it, there's no guarantee the goal would have been allowed. He has kicked the ball from between the keepers hands which as far as I can remember has never been allowed. And some think he also stood on his hand.
If I were a Villa fan I'd be more upset with Martinez feeling the need to charge out of his box, clothesline Hojlund and get his team playing half the match with 10 men.
Last edited:
The second scenario is already mentioned in the rules:
- holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
- bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
I don't really agree that it's the case in the clip, Bayindir cocks up holding it, no hands touching and the ball is rolling and he then makes a second attempt at collecting it when he gets a hand on it and Rogers gets a touch. It's not really a part of one motion where there is a rebound/save and in the same instance the ball rolls via his hand/arm.
I think we can all agree that it's extremely soft and that the rules, as they are written, perhaps go a bit too far at protecting goalkeepers in situations where people would normally think it's fair game to challenge him for the ball. However, i'd still say that the rules were correctly applied when the freekick was awarded.
Rules are never applied consistently anyway, there's been plenty of situations where goalkeepers are getting freekicks without anyone actually being near them, simply the referee misjudging the situation, and on the opposite end of the scale there's been clear fouls being waved away because the referee just thinks the foreign goalkeeper is a bit soft. We've had plenty of those in the past, even in the same matches we've had goals disallowed for less of a foul than what was allowed for the goal scored against us.
The debate itself is laughable. It was not said directly, but when there are people who said it's a farce, mistake, etc., then they are actually insinuating that the foul didn't happen or didn't matter.
The ref whistled for a foul on the goalkeeper, so it doesn't matter if the ball was under control or not.
The ball is not really under his control, Rodgers has every right to go for it once he lets it go from his hands, which he does.
If that goes to VAR they might see the foul on his hand, they might not, but that's up to the communication, does the referee say he gave a foul on the ball or a foul for the foot to the hand.
Rightly or wrongly, goalkeepers always get the call when it's deemed that they were being fouled. Most of the time, the ball doesn't even need to be under their control.
Again, how does it matter if the call was for "a foul on the ball or a foul for the foot to the hand?" It's the correct call either way based on the rules, albeit soft and overprotecting the goalkeeper.
It's subjective, that's why there's so much back and forth over it.
The process is the problem, the referee blew the whistle and that means whatever happens after that doesn't matter. The question comes back to whether or not he should have blown the whistle or let it go and have VAR take a look.
If VAR looks they have to look for 2 things.
Either the goalkeeper is in control of the ball and it's a foul. He isn't really in control of the ball and Rodgers has every right to make a play for it. For me, there's no foul there.
Is there a foul on his hand? Probably there is, but whether or not that's included in the communication will determine if it's called after the fact.
I think the referee was right in real time, there is a foul there on the keeper. I also think he had a good game overall, but the discourse over this decision will carry on. It will be brought up next season when Villa are playing on Thursday nights and whenever this referee takes a PL game again.
Why isn’t he really in control of the ball, considering the rules stating that all he needs is his arm/hand touching the ball to be in control. All the replays would indicate that he has his left hand on the side of the ball when Rogers gets a touch
He's not in control because the ball is not really in contact with his hands and is still in motion. He initially goes to grab it, then let's it go and the ball is still moving when Rodgers comes across.
Which is subjective. So VAR would have gone within “referee’s call”.
Rules doesn’t say anything about the ball having to be completely still when you have a hand/arm on it. Goes to grab it, fumbles it, gets his left glove on it when Rogers comes in and gets a touch on it. The key would be identifying if his left glove is in contact with the ball when Rogers gets a touch on it, making it an illegal challenge, and all the replay seem to indicate that his glove is in contact with the ball.
No wonder these cnuts get all the decisions. Very cosy with the officials.
The way the rules are written is an attempt to codify that distinction. There are two scenarios. One where the ball is dead and in the goalkeeper's control. The purpose of the rule here is to ensure goalkeepers can release and kick it out without being challenged. It's to stop the Best on Banks scenario and to avoid the historical position where attackers could charge goalkeepers even when the ball was in their hands. The second scenario is where the play is live and it has not yet stopped dead. The Villa example falls squarely into that category for me. The goalkeeper hasn't killed the play by stopping the ball dead. It's still loose. The interpretation of the rule has always been distinct between the two scenarios.
The general problem seems to be that you, and other people for that matter, are making things up. There's nothing in the rules about the ball having to be stopped dead for the goalkeeper to be in control, that would negate the purpose of the rules which are to protect the goalkeeper in general. The rules are as below:
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
Holding the ball in the outstretched open hand, bouncing on the ground or throwing it in the air, covers the segment about releasing and kicking it without being challenged.
The scenario where play is live is covered by the first sentence:
- 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
Framing it as "touching it" doesn't really indicate in any way whatsoever that their intention is that the ball has to be stopped dead
I'm not sure why there's so much debate about the ball being under control when there's been a picture released showing the player trodding on Bayindir's hand?
The issue here is requiring absolute codification of the rules so they can be interpreted literally. But if we go down that route, the ball has clearly rebounded off his hand and Rogers has kicked it from there, so I find it hard to justify the case that he is in control.
But there are different interpretations because the rule is poorly written and that puts referees in a difficult position. For example, 'by touching it with any part of the hands or arms' should mean the first part of that statement ('between the hands or between the hand any surface') is unnecessary. Yet it's included, duplicating the first part of the rule (between hands/surface) and conflicting the third part of it (rebounds).
So given the vagaries of how different words are interpreted, it is helpful to have an understanding of how the game has been refereed over the years as it helps to inform those grey and debatable decisions.
Going literally by the rules, is different to watching the video. He's clearly not in control of the ball. Rodgers had every right to challenge for it. I've played in goal my whole life, when you get robbed like that, you know you've f*cked up, but still look for the foul anyway. It happens, it's not a foul. He gave the player a chance at the ball and lost.
There is a foul on his hand, which is where the attention should be.
Ultimately the referee was right.
I think they'd have given the goal.
Your opinion again but it’s literally subjective and PGMOL guidelines this season is to go with the referee’s call unless it’s clear and obvious. The debate around this shows it’s not clear and obvious in any way so the likelihood is that VAR would have had to go with VAR’s call.
It hasn't. Bayindir tries to collect the ball. Fumbles the ball and completely loses it, ball is on the ground without Bayindir touching it. Makes a second attempt at collecting it, gets his left hand on it when Rogers kicks it and steps on his hand. It's two sequences. The rebound/save would come into play if Bayindir tried to collect it, fumbled it out of control and in the same movement Rogers came in.
I don't think it's poorly written or puts the referee in a difficult position, they're mentioning as much as possible to keep all grounds covered rather than trying to summarize it into one sentence and perhaps allowing too much interpretation.
In terms of understanding how the game has been refereed, goalkeepers generally being overprotected isn't anything new. Fairly beating them for a cross has been punished more often than not. Contact is generally punished.
The rules are there to define when the goalkeeper is in control, not entirely sure why you don't think they should be taken literally.
Quite clearly a rebound/save to me. He fumbles it as he comes out to dive on the ball and never gets proper control over it. Possibly having a finger of his left hand on the ball (which I’m unconvinced he actually does) at the point Rogers kicks it away should definitely not be sufficient to be seen as “control” in that circumstance.
I agree there is enough wiggle room in the rules that VAR may well have said it’s not a clear and obvious error. In my view though, even under the rules as they stand, it was the wrong decision. There’s no way it would have been overturned if the ref’s decision was the other way.
A rebound/save?! He’s scooping up a ball rolling away from goal on the edge of his area. He’s got his body behind the ball and he’s trying to cushion it into body.
Lets not kid ourselves into thinking a competent keeper wouldn't have had that ball on the first attempt.
What is proper control? Judging by the video clips, he seemingly has the majority of his left glove on the side of the ball when Rogers comes in, which the rules clearly define as "in control".
Nothing in the rules about judging the rules differently depending on competence.
No, but getting the ball under your control is a skill.
The rule exists because challenging goalkeepers is dangerous. They have to put their hands and sensitive areas of the body in the firing line of players competing with their feet.
Cech was a victim of this and fractured his skull so Goalkeepers are afforded extra protection. He already handled the ball once and the ball was in the process of nestling further into his body. It wasn’t bouncing away from him. Rogers kicked it from underneath him when he was down collecting it and subsequently stepped on his hand. That’s exactly what referees are encouraged to discourage players from doing.
Why did he need to reach for it twice if it didn't? It was a classic fumble in my opinion. We can argue whether stepping on the hand after playing the ball is a foul but if he had the ball under control he wouldn't have needed a second attempt at it.
(and I don't think the Cech comparison is apt either. There was no knee to the head, they were running in the same direction at a slow speed, it's not similar beyond it being a player and a keeper going for the ball).
Last edited:
The shitstorm being created over a decision which had minimal impact on the games outcome is the reason why we never get 50-50’s or 60-40’s in our favour anymore. The referee will always take the easier route of not giving the decision in United’s favor. What with half our fanbase including opposition fans vilifying him for giving a marginally correct decision in our favor. If it was the other way round not a single eyelid would have been batted.
This is all incredibly vague and irrelevant. I could argue that a goalkeeper jumping towards a corner kick is also "in the process of collecting it", so at what point does it become a foul when you touch the ball as an attacker? There was air on both sides of the ball when Rogers touched it (significantly so that it's obvious on first replay), so the GK didn't have possession when the touch occurred.
Well it was a decision which had minimal impact as they lost the game 2-0. They had a total of 1 shot on target. And were down to 10 men. So yeah the game was decided by the red card much earlier.
Admire the optimism, but you don't need to be a pessimist to imagine United folding after going a goal down in a game they were dominating
They would've gone 0-1 up with less than 20 minutes to go if the goal had stood - the decision had a major impact on the outcome, let alone that you can argue it had "minimal impact".
Still has nothing to do with the rules. Again, people seem to be commenting on the situation on the basis of their personal interpretation of what is control and what isn’t control, skills this and skills that, yet the rules are quite clear about when the goalkeeper by definition has the ball under his control and it being illegal to challenge him for it.
In this specific case, Bayindir tries to collect but fumbles the ball, it’s completely free on the pitch, he goes in to make a second attempt at collecting it, gets his left hand on the side of the ball and Rogers comes in and gets a touch.
As long as Bayindir gets his left hand on the ball, wherever it may be, before Rogers touches it, the rules as they are written stipulate that he’s by definition in control of the ball and challenging him for it is not allowed.
The key here being that there’s two seperate incidents, the fumbling -> ball free -> another attempt at collecting.
If you just read and understand the rules, it’s fairly easy.
Perhaps it’s easier if people don’t think of it as actually having control of the ball, but simply being in a position where the rules deem that challenging the goalkeeper isn’t allowed
All hypotheticals. They could have gone up and we could have beaten them 4-1 too. So no point debating what impact ot would have had on the game. The more important point is that VAR wouldn’t have overturned the decision as it wasn’t a clear and obvious error if at all you can call it an error.
You started doing that by saying it had no impact on the game.
I'm starting to get the "Emperor's new clothes" feeling here about this whole thing. There's a clear image that has been shown of Rogers stamping on the keeper's hand - whether he's in control of the ball (which is a worthy debate to have, why not) or whether he blew too quickly (ask rimaldo for his feedback on this) is irrelevent with that in mind. And yet it's being presented as an outrage, the conversation on the Athletic podcast about this had a guy saying it was a decision that was "99.99% wrong" (completely unchecked) and people are still debating this 3 days on. This is without even contextualising this kind of foul and realising these are almost always given in the keeper's favour as they are (rightly or wrongly) more protected than other players on the field. I guess I must be missing the obvious mistake somewhere.
The only thing is the n0bheads on tv have been calling on refs to blow early all season because of the chance of injury. When the ref blows early, the same n0bheads on tv are going you should have waited.
Totally agree, if it wasn't last game of the season would be long forgotten already.
The Mings jaw breaker elbow was a much, much worse call and everyone forgot already.
No my point was that a marginally right call is being dissected endlessly resulting in united not getting decisions in our favor. You latched on to one part of my whole post making it as the crux of the post which it wasn’t.