I saw this goal and was surprised it was allowed. Not surprising the Reading manager is not happy. What say you...
Maybe thats why it was allowed? Referee looked to be right there, clear line of sight so he considered it impeding as the defender looked to more back into the attacker than make any play for the ball, attacker went up and mostly around defender however it also looks like first contact was attackers arm/hand into defenders head as attacker went over to head the ball. Hate to keep saying it but probably one of those "at that level" no calls - in my level probably a foul on the attacker, no goal, although doubtful players at my level could pull the play off either.
Attacker goes through the defender. Slams him in the back, pushes his head forward and down, then gets the ball. To me, it's a simple "tackle" in which there is contact on the man prior to contact with the ball. The defender was simply waiting for the ball to arrive. He had the proper position, shielding the oncoming ball, at least until he was hit from behind. I do agree that lots of these situations are really difficult to judge, but I didn't think this was one of them.
not so easy on that one, the guy is just standing upright. there is no move to impede, he doesnt even take a step. You have right to your position. but it would have been an easier call if he moved to the ball and established he could play it.
Don't see impeding. Defender stopped at the point where the ball would have came down to, so it appears to me that he was preparing to play the ball, before attacker jumped over his back. Kinda hard for him to actually make a play for the ball because attacker was over him at that point. That's what I see anyway. Agreed, the defender didn't seem to protest much, things we would definitely stop play for they consider normal play.
I don't have a problem with the no call -- I do wonder how thought out it was as opposed to neither the referee or AR having a full picture of that aspect of the play. If you look at the players' reaction as the cross is coming in, 2 attackers and three defenders move for a near-post ball, while the goal scorer comes flying in from the backside. At game speed, if the officials only saw the header and then the defender on his feet, it might seem a foul would be a tough sell. At game speed in games I do, I'd hope I'd have the angle and be taking a wide enough view to see the arm contact, rather than something closer to initial camera angle that leaves just enough doubt that even though attacker came flying in, there wasn't enough contact to warrant a foul call and/or that the defender may have slid over into his space late. I couldn't find the discussion of this similar play to link back to (I know it happened, but wasn't in MLS Cup thread), where Petrescu called a foul and pulled the ball out of the net for what would seem to be similar contact. This one reminds me of it just in the sense of location on the field, hands in the back, etc. (starts at about :35 mark) http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-12-01-la-v-hou/highlights/207029 I think the discussion generally agreed that one was a good call
The first impression I got, from the first angle, was that the defender slid over late and backed into the attacker. In that case, good goal. The other angles show that the attacker was more at fault here. I can't remember if it was on BS or another site, but they had a picture comparing two incidents on a crossed ball where a goal was scored. One was called a foul and one was not. They both looked somewhat similar to this incident. It is truly a level of play decision. I must see if I can find that picture..
No issues with the goal. Defender is not fouled. He just stands there and never makes an attempt to play the ball and the contact from the attacker in no way gains an unfair advantage. The defender probably will get an ass chewing in private from the technical director for failing to mark the attacker.
I thought from reading the discussions in the Guardian it was going to be way worse. For me, that's an absolute good goal at that level.
What about in my U19 youth games? I have a hard time with headers where the "successful" attacker gets the ball but his carry through takes him through or down on top of his opponent - in other words where, like here, the attacker is jumping in as opposed to straight up. We say of a tackle that getting the ball does not necessarily mean it's not still a foul, particularly when the follow through takes the tackler through the opponent in a careless manner. Is it any different with headers? If so, why? Also, while I haven't looked at this play more than twice, it looked to me like the attacker was just possibly levering himself up on his opponent's shoulders. Without arguing over whether or not that actually occurred in this case, can we agree that if he had done so it would have been not just a foul but also a caution?
Because? . . . . (The ATR example under USB of using an artificial device references leveraging [a presumably willing] teammate. It is necessary as a caution because one can't foul a teammate so it is a caution or nothing. I see no need to caution simply for attempting to climb an opponent -- call the foul and move on. (Of course, if reaches the level of being reckless, then a caution would be warranted.))
Because... well, because I thought that went both ways - climb on your teammate, climb on an opponent, climb on the goal: USB. No? But I'm actually more interested in the jumping-in aspect of this play. Thoughts on that?
I can see those using the "at that level" argument, and that's fine - I'm not at that level. At the levels I ref, that's most likely a free kick coming out. A little off subject, but Graham Poll is starting to get on my nerves a little. I do agree with him that the Reading manager should be all over that defense for poor marking and...well, defending.
I don't find the video clear enough to have a strong opinion on the particular play. But I think the base concepts are pretty clear: The attacker can't go through the defender The defender can't back into the attacker to prevent him playing Subject to uncertainty on the fuzziness of the pic, it looks to me like the defender knows he is in trouble, has his arms out to try to find the attacker, and takes a couple of shuffle steps back in towards him. That makes me good with the good goal. At lower levels, any such play by the defender is going to be more obvious and the call is going to be easier to make. (Tough to talk in hypos about contact, but I think, if the defender was actually making a play on the ball, I would probably find the attacker's play through the defender here to be a foul.)
First thing i said in my head. The attacker was just playing the ball, and defender, for some reason, stopped and leaned backwards into and underneath the attacker. If anything, the defender is wrong, not the attacker. The attacker put his hands on the defender to avoid losing his junk. The defender knew he wasn't getting that header and thought he could stop the attacker from getting into the path of the ball.