Sevilla-Tottenham call: referees' opinions? [R]

[joamiq]

I'm curious as to the opinions of the referees here on the penalty awarded to Sevilla in yesterday's UEFA Cup QF against Tottenham. To me, it looked like Paul Robinson clearly got two hands on the ball and that it should not have been a penalty. It doesn't look like an infraction to me at all. What do you think?

Replay available at a certain popular online video site under the search "Sevilla 1-1 Tottenham - F. Kanoute (pen.)"

[Ref Flunkie]

Wow that is close. I'd probably go no-call, but basically the keeper hits legs and ball at the same time. I can see how, in normal speed, it may look like he just got the keeper and the ball simply squirted away from the contact.

[intechpc]

Yes that is very close, and I have to say from very first view on the replay (which is probably most like the CR's view) I would have given the PK. You are correct though, from the endline angle he does clearly get to the ball first. However, I can also see the argument that the keeper's momentum took him into the attacker rather than vise versa so I can still see a case for giving the PK (although from that angle I wouldn't have).

[MassachusettsRef]

I don't see any justification for a PK. I think the ref just got it wrong.

[jacoismyhero]

Agreed. It's a 50-50 ball, they reach it at the same time, the goalkeeper puts both hands clearly on the ball and wins it. No call.

[Englishref]

The general opinion of the group of referees I watched the game on TV was a mixture of laughter, mixed with a total lack of surprise, given the referee was Alain Hamer, who I maintain is UEFA's worst Elite group referee. I think it's safe to say, given my experience of watching UEFA referees, that the vast, vast majority (obviously Iouri Baskakov excluded after his cock-up) of the Elite group would not have given that. :rolleyes:

[joamiq]

Very interesting. Thanks for the input. As a Spurs supporter I'm naturally a bit biased, so I wanted to double check with more qualified individuals to ensure that I wasn't missing something and that my outrage wasn't unjustified... :mad:

[Ref Flunkie]

Very interesting. Thanks for the input. As a Spurs supporter I'm naturally a bit biased, so I wanted to double check with more qualified individuals to ensure that I wasn't missing something and that my outrage wasn't unjustified... :mad:

Feel free to continue your outrage as you see fit :).

[Janice]

:mad: I don't see any justification for a PK. I think the ref just got it wrong.
Totally agree! The referee never once looked to the AR to confirm. TOO busy trying to sell the non existant foul by running over from out of position pointing to the pk spot. The only definate action in all his posturing was he was definately wrong!
The AR was not signalling the foul. It was a blunder of biblical proportions and just plain poor positioning. You can not angle view a side on foul that goes in front of a player from well behind the action. The AR had the best view and he should be communicationg no contact until after on the intercom. Terrible call!:( :mad:

[erictheking]

Wow that is close. I'd probably go no-call.

I don't know how you can say it was a close call. It was without doubt one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. How is that man even allowed to set foot inside a stadium let alone referee a uefa cup match. It just about summed him up when he gave a drop ball when the ball had blatently gone out for a corner.

Who is responsible for these people who have no idea what they are doing?

[Ref Flunkie]

I don't know how you can say it was a close call. It was without doubt one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. How is that man even allowed to set foot inside a stadium let alone referee a uefa cup match. It just about summed him up when he gave a drop ball when the ball had blatently gone out for a corner.

Who is responsible for these people who have no idea what they are doing?

It was close.

[Jeffrey S.]

My feeling was that it was a bogus call, I did not like it. And I am sort of torn between who I want to go through, so no biases there.

The penalty certainly hurt Spurs, but having gone up so early it was normal for them to pull back a bit and absorb the attack, it sort of screwed up the game plan.

Sorry to say I think Sevilla is a better side, though I think the way Spurs play, with so much ball control, on the ground, looking to be technical, is admirable, very European style. What Spurs are really lacking are a handful of better quality players to pull it off.

[erictheking]

It was close.

If you really think so then you've no idea what the game is all about.

[intechpc]

If you really think so then you've no idea what the game is all about.

Wow bold comments there Eric, and completely out of line. Let me explain to you how it was close. If the keeper-attacker contact happens a quarter of a second sooner then the keeper doesn't get the ball first and it's a definite PK no question. Don't know about the rest of you, but I consider a fraction of a second to be close.

[Bronaldo]

i honestly didnt see any contact on the player. Robinson got the ball hard and the player fell over the ball if anything. It is not a penalty.

[Chiller15J]

I see no reason for a PK. The keeper clearly went all out for ONLY the ball. Not sure how it looks in real time from the centers position, it could have looked different.

[Wreave]

OK... everyone seems in agreement this shouldn't have been a foul/penalty. As I watch it, I have doubts. I guess I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate, but not really - call it teachable neophyte (I don't really like to think of myself as a neophyte, but I am teachable).

Here are three stills I've clipped from the video:

http://www.gerrysweb.com/wreave/GKstretch.jpg
http://www.gerrysweb.com/wreave/GKstretch2.jpg
http://www.gerrysweb.com/wreave/GKstretch3.jpg

I think it's fair to say that the keeper did touch the ball prior to making contact with the attacker, so let's stipulate to that. I presume it's also fair to say that if the keeper had contacted the player first, ball second, it would have been a penalty, no question. Someone stop me if I'm wrong on that.

So my question is, presuming there's a point at which getting the ball first can *still* result in a foul/PK, what makes this one a no call? Is this judged on a comparable standard to a slide tackle?

My concerns with this play, from a potential foul perspective, are:
-keeper comes in from behind the player - not directly behind, but from angle that is from the back rather than from the front
-keeper is fairly high
-keeper gives no opportunity for the attacker to avoid being taken out. He was getting the ball or not, but regardless, the attacker was going down.

The unanimous verdict on this issue is enough to make me accept that I am wrong, but I would appreciate an explanation. What makes this tackle fair?

[Wreave]

I see no reason for a PK. The keeper clearly went all out for ONLY the ball. Not sure how it looks in real time from the centers position, it could have looked different.

Keeper GOING FOR the ball, not that it's possible to read his mind, doesn't make it a fair play. Keeper GETTING the ball before getting the attacker gives it a chance of being a fair play - whether he was going for it or not.

[Chiller15J]

Keeper GOING FOR the ball, not that it's possible to read his mind, doesn't make it a fair play. Keeper GETTING the ball before getting the attacker gives it a chance of being a fair play - whether he was going for it or not.

I poorly worded what I meant to say. Now that I'm awake now I can make it clear :D.

It was a fair challenge, keeper got the ball with out tripping the attacker, the attacked fell over the keeper.

When I said the keeper went for ONLY the ball, I meant to add that he only got the ball and did not trip the attacker.

[ref47]

for me. if keeper gets the ball and attacker continues momentum and falls over keeper - fair play.
if keeper misses ball and attacker falls over keeper - foul.
if keeper gets the ball and he knocks attacker over - foul.

the attacker should have the opportunity to continue playing after the keeper gets the ball. if the keeper denies that opportunity, then it's a foul.