Benfica vs. Chelsea [R]

I know it's Europe, and they don't necessarily follow the whole making-yourself-bigger thingy but how is this not handling the ball?

http://s57.photobucket.com/albums/g231/stoatie/?action=view&current=IMG_3287.mp4

A few minutes later, John Terry had a lunging "save" that prevented a through ball that went straight to Cech - again no call, this time for a "back pass".

And then Chelsea just scored.

I don't know what was worse, the no call or Gary Neville somehow saying that Terry had his arms by his side. Just ridiculous.

I personally thought it was a back pass. At that level, a defender knows what he is doing. I would have called it. It's a tough call, but I think it is a back pass.

I struggle to call these as handling. I don't think there was a deliberate handling here. Sure, there's contact. However, at mid-field with the way play is going it could also be considered trifling. Keep the game flowing.

I too struggle with calling it handling anywhere that far from the goal when the ball is kicked from but a few feet away from the defender.

I think everyone forgets that getting bigger is to be taken as a clue to whether or not the handling was deliberate, not an infraction of its own should the ball contact the hand or arm.

Watch it in slo mo. Terry makes himself bigger as he moves towards the ball in a very deliberate way. It is almost like he is inflating himself. .

If this were La Liga, it would have been straight red. Watch a replay of last weekend's Barca game and you will see what i mean

True.. I don't like La Liga's overboard cautioning of what seems like every handling offense..

The more I watch the further apart from his body that Terry's arm is. It's quite incredible actually. SportBilly, I just noticed Terry's reaction, he was expecting it to be called and he looked like he was about to start running toward the AAR to yell at him to protest the decision.

I really can understand the center not giving it from his angle. But the AAR or AR have to give it.

Overall Tagliavento had a really really good game and I personally think that Italy produces the best international referees. They really have a strong tradition.

That first video was kind of confusing. I thought this took place at mid-field near the touch liine right after a throw-in. This one shows what seems like a clear handling violation.

That is such an obvious penalty. Not because the ball hit his arm in a short distance. A lot of refs are reluctant to call the ball to arm situation. This was beyond that situation. It was because Terry made himself a lot bigger by raising his arms. That was a veteran move there. He had no justification to raise those arms up, other than to make himself bigger.

Wow, nice handling by Terry - those who've said it already hit it, he does the "oh, cr@p!" turn because he's expecting a whistle, flag, signal flare, anything to indicate a PK.

Those who see it, that's okay, but I can't imagine I'd call that a passback. He seems to divert the path of the ball only slightly, if he whiffs it I still think, IMO, Cech makes the same save.

Apologies for the confusion on the video - I was rushing out of the door and wanted to get it up.

My thoughts on the passback:

He kicked it.
His action was deliberate.
It went to a place where the goalkeeper could handle it.

Now, did he mean for it to go to that exact spot? Probably not, but he DID mean for it to go anywhere other than to the onrushing SLB player, and that's enough for me.

Chelsea were very lucky last night.

I was surprised to see the penalty not given against Terry. As it happened, I saw all three referees surrounding the play, though, and thought, "well, must not have been." Interesting how adding the third official changes that perception (not to mention that I didn't want to see it!).

I was also worried about the backpass being called, but I can't see how that's a back pass. That wasn't a botched switch (making the keeper a field player) or a time wasting situation, it was a botched clearance. I think the goalkeeper has the right to use their hands in that situation.

Generally thought the crew had a good match. There were several incidents where Benfica thought they deserved calls (at least the crowd did), they protested, and the quickly got on with the match. The referee maintained control of the game without being a major player.

Chelsea were lucky to escape without allowing a goal. They were the better team in the first half, but Benfica were better in the second. Nice showing by Chelsea's so called "old guard."

I have trouble with this as the standard -- though I can see how to interpret that standard consistent with not mis-kicked or mis-directed, but I think the deliberate direction is more than anywhere-gut-here, which to me describes more of a clearance than a deliberte play to the keeper. (Much akin to the question of how much control is necessary to reset offside, I think there is a lot of gray area for reasonable minds to disagree how much control and direction is necessary to become a proverbial pass back.)

I thought most refs considered "anywhere but here" to be a get out of jail free card for the defender. Support for this would be found in the USSF definition of deliberate:

“Deliberate” is a controlled action with an intended conclusion like a pass intended/targeted for a teammate or the goalkeeper. [WiR 28 of 2009]

Then you could logically (illogically?) conclude that if the defender has NO intended direction, he can't be guilty of "pass back" violation.

How about "Deliberate is a controlled action with an intended conclusion like (important word) preventing an opponent from gaining possession of the ball"?

Terry is a world class player, not a U14 rec player.

He fully intended to kick it. If it had gone in the goal, he couldn't have argued that "I didn't mean for it to go there, so no goal".

I'm just throwing this out there you understand - it's not set in stone in my head by any means.

I completely support what you are saying.
My only counter arguement is: "We see this go unpunished all the time."

I would have been as surprised if this was called as I was that the PK was NOT called.

No. Kicking in this case, simply means "played with the foot".

I understand exactly where you're coming from since I read the "iron triangle" from US Soccer the same way. As OldRef points out, we really don't see it called like this very often but if we were to follow the directive, we should call it more often.

I got into an interesting discussion with a National Assessor a few months ago regarding the changes to this concept. He brought up a point that I had never considered. I have always thought of the passback violation as a method to handle time wasting but its more than that now. It is also designed to promote attacking soccer. In other words, how does this play change if the GK is forced to make the play with his feet and not his hands?

Note: Iron Triangle = Played with feet, deliberate action (no deflection), GK picks up without another touch by attacker, if I recall it correctly.

The ATR specifically references that the central issue is "unfairly withholding the ball from challenge." But the guidance relating to the triangle is a bit more nuanced:

"[P]layed" and not "misdirected" suggest an element of control; "or toward" suggest it doesn't have to be complete control. In the gray area, I think the qeustion essentially becomes whether, ITOOTR, the defense is unfairly withholding the ball from challenge by the attackers. Adn I think there are always going to be debateable plays that reasonable referees can call either way.

I know you're going by the ATR quotes but you need to remember that this match was played in Europe and that without the ATRs strict triangle thingy this becomes mainly a judgement call.

Well of course not and that is one of the worst metaphors I've read in a long time. Goals don't have any requirement that they'd be scored deliberately, backpasses do.

Nope.