+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 953
Latest: Yorksref
New This Month: 21
New This Week: 3
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 75117
Total Topics: 5528
Most Online Today: 273
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 8
Guests: 188
Total: 196

Author Topic: M OLIVER: SAINTS V PALACE (Also Discussing Spurs v Bournemouth)  (Read 1133 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Adam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
Michael is the best in Europe of fading into the background and letting the game running its course. However you could've put a schoolboys Referee on this game. He only blew his whistle 4 times in the 1st half, a false tip, tip, an offside and HT blow. Meanwhile, I think I heard a delighted squeal nearby on the South Coast from BMB towers!
« Last Edit: Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:14 by Adam »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Funny Funny x 1 View List

Adam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
Re: M OLIVER: SAINTS V PALACE
« Reply #1 on: Sat 15 Apr 2023 17:16 »
I think I now just heard an even louder scream all the way here in Dublin!
Funny Funny x 1 View List

bmb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,047
  • Gender: Female
  • Causing mischief & mayhem!!
  • Location: Somewhere between Poole & Budapest!
    • View Profile
    • Hungarian Football
  • Referee Level: Observer/Mentor.
Re: M OLIVER: SAINTS V PALACE
« Reply #2 on: Sat 15 Apr 2023 17:52 »
As if Missy bmb would take great delight in our nearest neighbours edging ever closer to being relegated...

Thank you Crystal Palace & Fulham for the help today!

Andy Madley wore blue in our game & we won - coincidence? I think not!

Be interested in non AFCB fans views on Spurs 2nd goal. Kane was about 3 miles offside, the question is was he interfering with the GK line of vision? Cracking strike from Danjuma though regardless.
Hajrá Lilák. Csak a Kispest. Hajrá Magyarok! Hajrá játékvezetői csapat! Soha ne add fel. Nincs sárga kérem!!! No Chris Kavanagh doesn't live in Ashton or even in the Greater Manchester area!!
Like Like x 1 Funny Funny x 1 View List

Adam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
Re: M OLIVER: SAINTS V PALACE
« Reply #3 on: Sat 15 Apr 2023 17:56 »
As if Missy bmb would take great delight in our nearest neighbours edging ever closer to being relegated...

Thank you Crystal Palace & Fulham for the help today!

Andy Madley wore blue in our game & we won - coincidence? I think not!

Be interested in non AFCB fans views on Spurs 2nd goal. Kane was about 3 miles offside, the question is was he interfering with the GK line of vision? Cracking strike from Danjuma though regardless.

I switched on after watching this game. Saw the goal, I think it was best to leave it based off of other calls this season that were similar, most notably the 1st goal for Spurs at Chelsea in GW2.
Like Like x 1 View List

bmb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,047
  • Gender: Female
  • Causing mischief & mayhem!!
  • Location: Somewhere between Poole & Budapest!
    • View Profile
    • Hungarian Football
  • Referee Level: Observer/Mentor.
Re: M OLIVER: SAINTS V PALACE
« Reply #4 on: Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:00 »
As if Missy bmb would take great delight in our nearest neighbours edging ever closer to being relegated...

Thank you Crystal Palace & Fulham for the help today!

Andy Madley wore blue in our game & we won - coincidence? I think not!

Be interested in non AFCB fans views on Spurs 2nd goal. Kane was about 3 miles offside, the question is was he interfering with the GK line of vision? Cracking strike from Danjuma though regardless.

I switched on after watching this game. Saw the goal, I think it was best to leave it based off of other calls this season that were similar, most notably the 1st goal for Spurs at Chelsea in GW2.

The key thing for me was that Neto didn't complain at all & he would be the one and only person who would truly know if his view was blocked. I wasn't surprised it was not chalked off - absolute screamer from Arnie. I wish he had decided to come back to Bournemouth.
Hajrá Lilák. Csak a Kispest. Hajrá Magyarok! Hajrá játékvezetői csapat! Soha ne add fel. Nincs sárga kérem!!! No Chris Kavanagh doesn't live in Ashton or even in the Greater Manchester area!!
Like Like x 1 View List

MCPridz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: M OLIVER: SAINTS V PALACE
« Reply #5 on: Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:29 »
As if Missy bmb would take great delight in our nearest neighbours edging ever closer to being relegated...

Thank you Crystal Palace & Fulham for the help today!

Andy Madley wore blue in our game & we won - coincidence? I think not!

Be interested in non AFCB fans views on Spurs 2nd goal. Kane was about 3 miles offside, the question is was he interfering with the GK line of vision? Cracking strike from Danjuma though regardless.

It’s Kane enough said
« Last Edit: Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:41 by MCPridz »

Leggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: East Grinstead
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Long Retired Level 3
Re: M OLIVER: SAINTS V PALACE
« Reply #6 on: Sun 16 Apr 2023 13:03 »
As if Missy bmb would take great delight in our nearest neighbours edging ever closer to being relegated...

Thank you Crystal Palace & Fulham for the help today!

Andy Madley wore blue in our game & we won - coincidence? I think not!

Be interested in non AFCB fans views on Spurs 2nd goal. Kane was about 3 miles offside, the question is was he interfering with the GK line of vision? Cracking strike from Danjuma though regardless.


I think he would have had needed Mr. Tickle's arms to reach the ball and whether (or not) his vision was impeded by Kane would not have mattered to where the ball was going.

edited to fix the quote thingamajigga, bmb
« Last Edit: Sun 16 Apr 2023 16:47 by bmb »
Like Like x 1 View List

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,602
    • View Profile
The wording of the law is key here, which is (bold added by me) ..

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

If you freeze it at the time of the shot then Kane isn't directly between the ball and Neto, it is actually an AFC Bournemouth player that blocks his view of the ball.  Kane is definitely in his eyeline, there is no doubt about that, but he hasn't prevented him from being able to see the ball.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Seagull

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Maidstone
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired 1998 (old Class 2)
I've been giggling all weekend that the AFCB GK's name is Neto.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

ChippenhamCherry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
The wording of the law is key here, which is (bold added by me) ..

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

If you freeze it at the time of the shot then Kane isn't directly between the ball and Neto, it is actually an AFC Bournemouth player that blocks his view of the ball.  Kane is definitely in his eyeline, there is no doubt about that, but he hasn't prevented him from being able to see the ball.

Whilst I think allowing the goal is consistent with how this law is normally interpreted, I would point out that there is nothing in the wording of the law you've highlighted that says the only point that matters is the freeze frame from when the shot was taken. The ball passes on the opposite side of Kane to Neto and so for a large amount of the time that the ball was heading towards goal, Kane will have been obstructing Neto's line of vision to it, which will have had an impact on his ability to save it. If anything the law you've highlighted suggests that it should technically have been disallowed.

Leggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: East Grinstead
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Long Retired Level 3
The wording of the law is key here, which is (bold added by me) ..

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

If you freeze it at the time of the shot then Kane isn't directly between the ball and Neto, it is actually an AFC Bournemouth player that blocks his view of the ball.  Kane is definitely in his eyeline, there is no doubt about that, but he hasn't prevented him from being able to see the ball.

Whilst I think allowing the goal is consistent with how this law is normally interpreted, I would point out that there is nothing in the wording of the law you've highlighted that says the only point that matters is the freeze frame from when the shot was taken. The ball passes on the opposite side of Kane to Neto and so for a large amount of the time that the ball was heading towards goal, Kane will have been obstructing Neto's line of vision to it, which will have had an impact on his ability to save it. If anything the law you've highlighted suggests that it should technically have been disallowed.


I watched this again on Ref Watch today and there was a deflection (by a AFCB defender) before the ball passed Kane and Neto was already wrong footed.  I do not think Kane can claim (or be charged with ) having any impact on this goal.

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,602
    • View Profile
The wording of the law is key here, which is (bold added by me) ..

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

If you freeze it at the time of the shot then Kane isn't directly between the ball and Neto, it is actually an AFC Bournemouth player that blocks his view of the ball.  Kane is definitely in his eyeline, there is no doubt about that, but he hasn't prevented him from being able to see the ball.

Whilst I think allowing the goal is consistent with how this law is normally interpreted, I would point out that there is nothing in the wording of the law you've highlighted that says the only point that matters is the freeze frame from when the shot was taken. The ball passes on the opposite side of Kane to Neto and so for a large amount of the time that the ball was heading towards goal, Kane will have been obstructing Neto's line of vision to it, which will have had an impact on his ability to save it. If anything the law you've highlighted suggests that it should technically have been disallowed.

At no point was Kane directly between the ball and keeper, therefore he hasn't prevented Neto from being able to play the ball.  The only reason Neto doesn't have full view of the ball is because his own defender was in the way.  The fact he didn't complain about it says it all, keepers are coached to appeal if they think a player who might have been offside was blocking their view.

bruntyboy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
    • View Profile
I've been giggling all weekend that the AFCB GK's name is Neto.

Is he related to Pascal Gross(o)?
Like Like x 1 Love Love x 1 View List

ChippenhamCherry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
The wording of the law is key here, which is (bold added by me) ..

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

If you freeze it at the time of the shot then Kane isn't directly between the ball and Neto, it is actually an AFC Bournemouth player that blocks his view of the ball.  Kane is definitely in his eyeline, there is no doubt about that, but he hasn't prevented him from being able to see the ball.

Whilst I think allowing the goal is consistent with how this law is normally interpreted, I would point out that there is nothing in the wording of the law you've highlighted that says the only point that matters is the freeze frame from when the shot was taken. The ball passes on the opposite side of Kane to Neto and so for a large amount of the time that the ball was heading towards goal, Kane will have been obstructing Neto's line of vision to it, which will have had an impact on his ability to save it. If anything the law you've highlighted suggests that it should technically have been disallowed.

At no point was Kane directly between the ball and keeper.

You are aware we've all got access to video highlights. You can't just get away with saying something that's easily disprovable with a simple screenshot.
As I said, I've no problem with the goal being allowed (although that's a lot easier to say when it had no effect on the result). As others have said it's unlikely Neto would have got there anyway, particularly with the deflection.
But your use solely of the point at which the ball was kicked as a frame of reference is just wrong. Kane blocked Neto's view as that shot passed him and the law makes no reference to him needing to block the view only at the point the ball was kicked.

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,602
    • View Profile
The wording of the law is key here, which is (bold added by me) ..

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

If you freeze it at the time of the shot then Kane isn't directly between the ball and Neto, it is actually an AFC Bournemouth player that blocks his view of the ball.  Kane is definitely in his eyeline, there is no doubt about that, but he hasn't prevented him from being able to see the ball.

Whilst I think allowing the goal is consistent with how this law is normally interpreted, I would point out that there is nothing in the wording of the law you've highlighted that says the only point that matters is the freeze frame from when the shot was taken. The ball passes on the opposite side of Kane to Neto and so for a large amount of the time that the ball was heading towards goal, Kane will have been obstructing Neto's line of vision to it, which will have had an impact on his ability to save it. If anything the law you've highlighted suggests that it should technically have been disallowed.

At no point was Kane directly between the ball and keeper.

You are aware we've all got access to video highlights. You can't just get away with saying something that's easily disprovable with a simple screenshot.
As I said, I've no problem with the goal being allowed (although that's a lot easier to say when it had no effect on the result). As others have said it's unlikely Neto would have got there anyway, particularly with the deflection.
But your use solely of the point at which the ball was kicked as a frame of reference is just wrong. Kane blocked Neto's view as that shot passed him and the law makes no reference to him needing to block the view only at the point the ball was kicked.

That doesn't matter, the ball has gone past Kane so quickly it can't possibly have stopped him seeing it, or his ability to try and save it.  If Kane had made a motion to play it then yes, would be far more likely to be offside, but he didn't.