I'm pretty sure Pawson had one of those unfortunate brain locks today in the Watford-Liverpool match. In the 2H he was standing outside the touchline (just outside it, his feet were outside with toes just on it) when the ball hit him in the chest area and caromed back into the field of play. He blew it dead and made a motion that the ball had crossed completely over the line before hitting him. From what I saw there was no way that could have happened as he just wasn't that far outside the line for the whole ball to have crossed over.
Doubt that's a brain lock. He made the decision that would have been expected by everyone in the stadium. Imagine playing on and it leads to a goal - no one would talk about anything else for a week. This way, only referee message boards pick up on it.
Used to be called "street-smart" refereeing a long time ago! But of course that was when it was OK for referees to take up such positions anyway. PH
Oliver might have missed a call here. http://deadspin.com/behold-the-most-blatant-handball-of-the-year-1795175398
Double touch penalty in City Match v Foxes. That's one for the books. Anyone ever seen that or heard of it before?
It happened, but went uncalled, with Griezmann's penalty against Real on Wednesday. First goal in Manchester was a very tough decision. OSP and an attempt to play the ball, but did he block line of sight or impact the goalkeeper with a challenge? I'd say no and agree with the referee team, but I understand why others would say yes. Dean's kit is interesting at Stoke. Good example of an okay on-field option looking bad on tv.
Plus, NBCSN squeezes their feeds making the video quality less than pristine. Dean's kit is slightly yellowish?
IMO the only one it could have been was blocking line of vision but I'm fine with that not being called. I do think that in situations like this it would be very helpful if the PGMOL (or IFAB or someone) would communicate why it wasn't called as there is a lot of confused fans out there now.
Watching this 2-3 times, the blue player makes a clear motion to play the ball, but neither the GK nor defender have any chance to defend it (with or without his touch). This falls into that side category of "it has no effect on any defender, so as long as he doesn't actually touch it, goal is good."
Can anyone who can pull clips get the offside called on Sturridge in the 15th/16th min of West Ham-Liverpool? Another referee was just discussing with me as a deliberate/deflection by defender situation but I haven't seen it.
http://stream.nbcsports.com/premier-league/west-ham-liverpool-watch-live I don't know about a deflection, but in terms of where Sturridge was, I paused the video and I thought he was level, but then the line the TV used had him with one foot offside.
Roger East is not correctly handling the IFK on the side of the goal area at Arsenal. It's 10 yards or on the goal line. He's enforcing the goal line as the minimum distance, period, which is only six yards. He also placed the ball on the part of the goal area perpendicular to the goal line, rather than the one parallel, which is part of the reason he's even able to make the other mistake. Technically it's two massive mistakes, but ones I fear a majority of referees could make here.
I had the exact same thought and it definitely affected Sunderland's ability to convert a great chance. If he puts the wall where it needs to be, it's in the middle of the goal, allowing Sunderland players to receive unimpeded service in front of goal. My guess is that Sunderland would also have tried to put some players on the goal line between the middle of goal and the near post -- effectively creating an "L" but there would have been some easy ways to get a clear shot on goal. His placement left them nothing.
Wasn't the same mistake made last year in MLS? I'm surprised to see this mistake made, but perhaps that is just because I teach the rule a couple of times each year. Actually using it is awfully rare. (And I don't know that I ever have had a case where moving it sideways out of the GA would have been closer than moving to the top of the GA where it belongs.)
I know it was done in a youth women's national team match in the past couple years. Did it happen in MLS, too? Sounds familiar but I honestly can't remember. I'm not totally surprised, based on the rarity of the call. Disappointed, of course, because if an EPL crew can't get it right, there's little hope for the rank and file. Do you know if it was ever "the point nearest," full stop? Or has it always been the point nearest on the parallel?
I'm usually the first to quash arguments about "protestable" errors and I want to be clear that not in a million years do I think the EPL would actually entertain such an argument here. But it is interesting that an incorrectly administered PK would be (and has been, successfully in the past) grounds for protest. Given the scoring opportunity that an IFK is here, it really makes you think why the same principle shouldn't apply. It's a potential goal-scoring restart that was objectively mishandled and administered incorrectly in two specific ways.
Interesting question. I know it has always (well, at least modern history) been outside the GA; I *think* it was top of the GA when I started, but I'll check my 70s LOTG when I get a chance.
and his AR2 called an offside when the player was level. 2 strikes against east's crew. i thought the same thing about the IFK - why is he putting it there, makes no sense, surprised his 3 other officials did not pick up on it
Okay, I thought maybe it got changed in the 1997 rewrite. If you're already talking 1970s, then I'm way off.
It is 10 yards unless on own goal line between posts. It is in the 2016-17 FIFA book like this (p.92) and also FWIW in the 1994 USSF edition which I happen to have handy (p.26). Both editions refer to the 20 yd line (using a more wordy definition!) as where the ball should be placed. PH
Right. I opted for some shorthand with "or," instead of "unless," but in this case it means the same thing (if you accept that between the goalposts was implied). Right, I know that's never changed. I thought maybe the "point nearest on the goal area parallel..." might have evolved from the "point nearest on the goal area..." Seems like it hasn't, but no matter what it's irrelevant to today's incident. What? I don't follow this.
There is a difference between or and unless. The defenders can be fewer than 10 yds away provided they are on the goal line between the posts. Why would they stand on the goal line outside the posts? This does not defend the goal. I was just saying the ball placement rule has not changed since at least 1994. I can't be bothered to dig out the older Law books to see if it was like that any earlier. I can't remember exactly when it was introduced. PH