+-

+-User
Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock
Members
Total Members: 1328
Latest: Ann Frank
New This Month: 9
New This Week: 3
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 97913
Total Topics: 7218
Most Online Today: 286
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 8
Guests: 166
Total: 174

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ChippenhamCherry

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
General Discussion / Re: Crystal Palace v Chelsea - D England (VAR M Donohue)
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 13:43 »
Quote from: Failed Ref on Mon 26 Jan 2026 12:45
Andy Davies agrees with the decision too. Before we start slating people like Dermott Gallagher who deserves respect, we should be sure of the facts, the LOTG and relevant guidance.

The laws of the game are very clear. It's 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

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"

That's it, those are the three situations in which handball can be penalised.

The change to the DOGSO handball law, that some are quoting as justification for this penalty;

"Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned."

appears in the "Disciplinary Action" section of the law and relates to what disciplinary action you are supposed to take once you've identified a handball offence that is DOGSO. It doesn't create a new type of accidental handball offence that applies only in DOGSO situations, which is what Gallagher and Davies seem to think. It's aim is to ensure that, if an offence occurs under the existing non-deliberate handball offence definition (the "unnaturally bigger" second criteria in the list) that is DOGSO, only a yellow should be given.

Anybody, Davies, Gallagher, Donohue, England, who is paid to understand those laws and has failed to do so, doesn't deserve respect.

2
General Discussion / Re: Crystal Palace v Chelsea - D England (VAR M Donohue)
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 11:44 »
Quote from: Claretman on Mon 26 Jan 2026 10:00
Quote from: Marvin Grapevine on Mon 26 Jan 2026 09:59
Ref Watch is stating that it's the correct decision because it's stopped a goal.

Gallagher saying that the laws were changed a season or so ago.

DERMOT SAYS: "The law was changed in August 2024. It was felt that if a player stops the ball accidentally with his hand from going in the goal, it isn't about handball, it's about stoping a goal. That's the difference, it's a different part of the law.
"When you look at this incident from behind the goal, it is quite clear it is going in the goal. There is no doubt whatsoever it's going to be a goal. The goalkeeper is out."

That's absolutely appalling from Gallagher. He's completely misunderstood the law change and mislead any fan that watches.
It's a different part of the law, but it's not supposed to be read in isolation or supercede the definition of handball.
The law change was about defining what sanction to apply to a DOGSO handball offence. You're still supposed to determine whether it's a handball offence using the existing law.

3
General Discussion / Re: New possible laws - bbc vid
« on: Wed 21 Jan 2026 19:30 »
I'll be interested to see at what point referees will be expected to start counting for the countdown for goalkicks and throw ins. It can't be as soon as the ball goes out of play because balls can take a while to be retrieved at some levels of football. If it's when the ball is deemed playable by the ref that could lead to some very slow retrieval efforts by some players and some inconsistent application by refs.

4
General Discussion / Re: Brighton vs Bournemouth - Paul Tierney (VAR - Jarred Gillett)
« on: Tue 20 Jan 2026 08:15 »
I thought he was good. Aside from the penalty, which I'm really unsure about, didn't see any decisions for either side to be unhappy with. Wellbeck lucky to escape a booking for jumping into a tackle a bit two footed in the first half, perhaps the only non-decision of note.
A tired, depleted Bournemouth side did what they could to slow it down and he proactively dealt with it using the only tools at his disposal. Immediately talked to the captain when Hill took a long time over a long throw in early in the second half. Petrovic wasn't allowed to have too many slow goal kicks before the card came out. Plenty of time was added on. Chris Kavanagh could learn a thing or too.
The penalty is a tough one. Adli has clearly gone down easily, which he has a habit of doing. But he does take a kick in the thigh, which isn't enough to fell him but is clearly foul contact. I'd actually lean the opposite way to ajb95 and say it's both a dive and a penalty.

5
General Discussion / Re: Brentford v Sunderland - Matthew Donohue
« on: Thu 08 Jan 2026 01:29 »
Quote from: rustyref on Wed 07 Jan 2026 22:36
Quote from: Joecphillips on Wed 07 Jan 2026 20:18
I'm not sure time keeping is his biggest strength, 1 minute injury time was less than it took brentford to take a corner then the entire minute consisted of brentford taking a free kick that hit the bar and went straight out.

Time isn't added for restarts, there is a set list of what time can be added for and that isn't one of them.

That list contains the bullet points "wasting time" or "any significant delay to a restart" either of which could be applied to add time on for restarts where necessary.

6
General Discussion / Re: C Pawson- Fulham v Liverpool
« on: Mon 05 Jan 2026 14:11 »
Quote from: El Referee on Mon 05 Jan 2026 12:03
Quote from: Joecphillips on Mon 05 Jan 2026 11:53
Another thing that hasn't really been mentioned if a decision falls into this 5cm tolerance then surely there's no clear and obvious error and should be the footballing version of umpires call?
Completely and utterly agree. Not only is it not a C&O error, its not an error!

Unfortunately, we are still doing our own thing. Whether that be PGMOL, FA or English football in general. Most other countries have these issues ironed out, but we insist on doing our own thing with our own technology

Other countries haven't ironed their issues out they've just ignored them. Only competitions with Adidas balls have the chip in the ball to know exactly when it has been kicked. Every other competition relies on manually picking the closest camera frame to the point the ball is kicked. The Premier League have factored in the potential error this creates by including a tolerance, which I think is sensible. Other competitions have decided to just ignore the potential error and treat the closest camera frame as if it were exact.

In this instance I think the tolerance level isn't actually the main issue, because the main issue is choice of camera frame. The tolerance level wouldn't have saved Wirtz in the frame chosen by the broadcaster. He's clearly offside in that frame but they've picked a frame too late. The VAR has correctly chosen one camera frame earlier than the one the broadcaster used, when the ball first makes contact with the foot, as is supposed to be the case. In the frame chosen by the VAR Wirtz is not clearly offside and if people had been shown that first I don't think anyone would be kicking up as much of a fuss about the fact he might have benefited from a small reasonable tolerance level that's existed for a few seasons.

PGMOL's biggest issue on this is how poor their communications are. The PLMatchCentre social media account just gives the same generic overturned offside explanation it does for every decision. The animation for the SAOT doesn't link properly to actual game footage so you can't see what frame they've picked to then turn into the animated characters we see. And the animation also doesn't show the tolerance level clearly, which makes no sense, why hide it when it's a legitimate and sensible thing.

It wouldn't take them long to come out and go this is the frame we chose and this why the broadcaster's choice of frame is wrong. Here's the graphic linked to that frame with tolerance level clearly displayed. But instead they rely on Dale Johnson, Dermot Gallagher and a few well informed social media people to correct the errors amongst fans, which become too deep set to get on top off, rather than coming out quickly and clearly with full clear explanations and proper graphics themselves.

7
General Discussion / Re: C KAVANAGH - AFCB v Arsenal
« on: Sat 03 Jan 2026 23:16 »
Quote from: rustyref on Sat 03 Jan 2026 20:06
The time was up, he didn't blow whilst the ball was in the penalty area rather waited until it was in a "safe" area.  Where do you draw the line, it could keep getting cleared out to the left wing, he has to blow for full time at some point.

If that's an Arsenal attack, and they're losing or drawing, he doesn't blow. And the evidence for that comes from the first half of this very game when the ball was cleared to a similar spot with time up and he played on until it became clear we were forcing Arsenal further away from the area.

8
General Discussion / Re: C KAVANAGH - AFCB v Arsenal
« on: Sat 03 Jan 2026 19:29 »
Two Bournemouth home games in a row that he's shown himself to be completely inept at managing time wasting. Absolutely appalling for an official at that level.

9
General Discussion / Re: Foul Throw-Ins
« on: Mon 29 Dec 2025 13:20 »
Quote from: Seagull on Mon 29 Dec 2025 12:00
I watched the whole game between Crystal Palace and Tottenham yesterday and saw several instances of long throws taken by attackers in their opponent's half being foul throws (feet placement), none of which were detected or penalised. Two questions arise in my mind.

1. Why are ARs evidently not watching for foul throws and raising their flag? Is it down to Referee instructions before the game or "game management" by PGMOL perhaps ("ignore them unless a goal is scored")? One foul long throw by a Palace player was so glaringly obvious with the player's front foot entirely on the pitch, I can't see how it was missed.

2. Luckily, a goal did not result from any of the throws but had that happened, is it within VAR's remit to check the legality of a throw immediately prior to a goal being scored?

Looking at social media, I think this might partly be down to a misunderstanding by fans and the pundit covering the game as to what constitutes a foul throw. In most of the instances highlighted on there, the player's front foot, whilst largely over the line, had a part of the heel on the line so was not a foul throw. There's only one image I've seen where the entire foot was over the line and that's been taken after the ball has left the hands so it's possible it was on the line at point of release.

10
General Discussion / Re: S Hooper-Man United v Bournemouth
« on: Mon 15 Dec 2025 21:39 »
Poor decision for the handball for United's third goal. He's been excellent to that point.

11
General Discussion / Re: Tim Robinson: Sunderland v Bournemouth
« on: Sun 30 Nov 2025 00:54 »
Quote from: bmb on Sat 29 Nov 2025 23:00
Quote from: ChippenhamCherry on Sat 29 Nov 2025 21:50
Quote from: Joecphillips on Sat 29 Nov 2025 20:40
Ok game in tricky conditions.

Scott is very lucky not to have been sent off could have picked up 3 yellows and the one he did could have been a red.


Can I ask what these three yellows would have been for? I only listened to the local radio commentary and apart from suggesting Sunderland were baying for a second yellow every time Scott dared to get involved in the game, it's not actually clear what he was doing.
The penalty obviously wasn't a yellow card worthy offence so I assume you're not referring to that.
The commentary suggested Sunderland players were working quite hard to get him sent off for an incident that only resulted in a drop ball so again I assume you're not referring to that either.

I was watching and have to agree. The yellow he got was correct and no complaints with that one but I don’t recall holding my breath at any time in anticipation of a 2nd yellow. There was one incident where he ran into someone and the entire home crowd were screaming for him to be sent off but it was never a yellow card incident and like you say nor was the penalty. Stupid, needless foul absolutely but again not a yellow card any day of the week.

Opta show he only conceded two fouls in the whole game, which is presumably the booking and the penalty, so certainly would have been hard to pick up three yellows. The other incident is described in the Guardian as:
"Darker arts were at play as Reinildo, well aware Scott had already been booked, attempted to earn the midfielder a second yellow card by running across his path and precipitating an inevitable collision. Robinson, though, was not buying it."

Joecphillips appears to have fallen for his team's dark arts. At least Robinson didn't on that occasion but it sounded like the inevitable weight of a baying crowd and some underhand tactics by the home team did start to affect him as the game wore on.
There's some warranted criticism of Bournemouth's players and management losing their heads in the opening post, but it appears that Sunderland were guilty of some disgusting tactics of their own and unfortunately Robinson is not the strong referee you need to deal with that.

12
General Discussion / Re: Tim Robinson: Sunderland v Bournemouth
« on: Sat 29 Nov 2025 21:50 »
Quote from: Joecphillips on Sat 29 Nov 2025 20:40
Ok game in tricky conditions.

Scott is very lucky not to have been sent off could have picked up 3 yellows and the one he did could have been a red.


Can I ask what these three yellows would have been for? I only listened to the local radio commentary and apart from suggesting Sunderland were baying for a second yellow every time Scott dared to get involved in the game, it's not actually clear what he was doing.
The penalty obviously wasn't a yellow card worthy offence so I assume you're not referring to that.
The commentary suggested Sunderland players were working quite hard to get him sent off for an incident that only resulted in a drop ball so again I assume you're not referring to that either.

13
General Discussion / Re: An Interesting Afternoon: Sat 22/11/25
« on: Sun 23 Nov 2025 01:49 »
Quote from: Adam on Sat 22 Nov 2025 16:40

Bournemouth v West Ham (Bramall)
Bmb must he getting blown away in the wind and rain, as I think has Bournemouth's defence! However main moment was a pen given for handball on the ground. Good identification of handball by Bramall I must say. Potential DOGSO? I only saw it once, however looked like a clear shot on goal had the offence not occurred.


It was a stonewall DOGSO. Just outside the six yard box, one-on-one with the keeper if the handball doesn't occur. What's inexplicable is, even if Bramall somehow didn't feel it met the threshold for DOGSO, it would certainly have met the threshold for stopping a promising attack, yet no yellow card was forthcoming either. There are some decisions where you can understand the subjectivity or the difficulty of making a call in real time. This wasn't one of those. It was blatant and the lack of card very very poor refereeing.

14
General Discussion / Re: AFCB v Nottingham Forest - Sam Barrott
« on: Mon 27 Oct 2025 10:41 »
Quote from: TA_Ref on Sun 26 Oct 2025 18:52
Sean Dyche said in his post match that the AR gave the goal kick but Barrott overruled him and gave the corner.

I presume thats all a load of rubbish.

They stared at each other for a bit talking on comms and then simultaneously signalled for a corner so there's no way Dyche could have known that unless Barrott has held his hands up in conversation with Dyche and admitted it was his call.

15
General Discussion / Re: AFCB v Nottingham Forest - Sam Barrott
« on: Mon 27 Oct 2025 10:39 »
Quote from: bmb on Sun 26 Oct 2025 17:19
One incident in the box where the DC faithful were convinced it should have been a penalty for Adams, Wade Smith being serenaded not very nicely by the North and East Stands - correct call. Having seen replays not even a foul let alone enough for a penalty.


Wade Smith was actually being serenaded for flagging for one of those soft fouls where a full back, facing their own goal line trapped near the corner flag, falls over as soon as an attacking player dares to stand behind them. "Safe refereeing" and we've all given them at some point but this was a particularly egregious example where it would have been nice for the full back to have not got their own way.
The penalty shout you reference was one of those where everyone shouts when their player goes down in the box but without any serious hope of a penalty being given. Any chants related to that would have been directed at the referee not the AR, but there were none.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4