We're talking past each other on the first part, so I'm just going to let it go. On the second part, you said there was a reference to a "20 yd. line." That's the part I'm questioning. To what does that refer?
The FIFA law history includes this for 1984 changes: (No indication there what the procedure was before then.)
What was it that East was doing that was wrong? I was only watching sporadically and missed that incident. From your description it seemed that he was letting them stand on the GL between the posts closer than 10 yds from the ball. Nothing wrong with that is there? That was my slang reference to the parallel goal area line. It is 20 yards long (8+6+6)! I can see it would have been quicker and easier just to quote the excessive verbiage (and not very grammatical) in the Law book that describes this line! Before then, the indirect free kick was taken from the position where the infraction occurred. When this was really close to the goal line (between the posts), it was almost impossible to take it and a disadvantage to the kicking team (not to mention the referee). Most teams would kick the ball back upfield. If you think these close IFKs are a mess now, you should have seen them before! PH
He put the ball on the GA line perpendicular to the goal line and just inside the goal line (matched well with the position of the offence). And he allowed the wall to be placed perpendicular to the goal line in line with the near post, i.e 6 yards distance. Here's a clip of the incident. https://streamwoop.tv/replay/Sunderland-indirect-free-kick-in-the-penalty-boxagainst-Arsenal
Was surprised that East didn't come up with a 2CT for Özil too. Sure the Sunderland player was a bit of an ass but a push in the chest and then kicking the ball at his legs (from a yard away) was a bit much, especially as he had been booked for dissent just a few minutes earlier. Tbh I thought East was a bit iffy the whole game, Giroud's penalty appeal in the first half I can understand why it wasn't given even if I don't agree with it but not giving the one on Sanchez in the second half was a really poor decision.
Triple post but why not... A bit surprised that no one has mentioned the hand-of-Crouch tbh. Really quick situation and none of the referees were in a good position to see it. Not much complaints towards the referee from what I've seen but the pressure to get VAR's is building rapidly in England. Will end in tears though as it won't solve anywhere near the amount of errors that people expect it to. Here's a link to the Crouch goal (starts around 3.02). Bonus points to the one that spots the commentator that needs a refresher course on offside.
Got it, thanks! Yup, he was wrong to let the defenders who were not on the goal line stand there, and of course wrong with the ball placement. Apologies to @MassRef about the misunderstanding. And to answer a previous question, yes a very similar situation but from the left side, did occur in an MLS match, 2-3 seasons back, referee was Chapman, I don't recall the teams. I don't know if I should be surprised that the attacking players did not know where the defenders were required to be, and insisted on the proper distance, not to mention that near side AR. Does this point once again to the deficiencies in referee preparation in PGMOL that Keith Hackett has been campaigning about for several years? I also agree based on the segments I saw, that East did not have a particularly good match. I wonder if it is his final season, he is getting up in years as well. It may well have been his last match, since Sunderland were already relegated, and Arsenal likely to win fairly easily it didn't need one of the big guns. PH
but the game has consequences for arsenal and liverpool and man city in terms of who qualifies for the champions league
Correct, I understand your point, but still likely to be an easy win for Arsenal, and not too demanding from a refereeing viewpoint. I doubt he will be on a really critical match involving any of the teams you mention, if indeed any match, on Sunday. PH Update: He is 4th official on Chelsea v. Sunderland. Oliver on the Arsenal match, Atkinson at Liverpool and Moss at Watford/City.
Checked the 70s LOTG - no provision for moving the IFK in the GA. So could have been on the goal line in the goal! Did have the same 10 or goal line between posts rule.
As I said earlier this was actually the case, the kick was spotted where the infraction occurred, and created chaos when there were IFKs deep in the GA. It was rare, but did occur from time to time. That was why the Law was changed. It was new when it first appeared in the LOTG. Nothing like it had had been specified previously. It was the same for a dropped ball, and this was also before the uncontested dropped balls that are now pretty much universally accepted. PH
The Referee Guide from 1956 contains: "When a direct or indirect free-kick is being taken, a player shall not approach within 10 yards of ball until it is in play, unless he be standing on his own goal-line, between the goal-posts." No mention of the placement of the ball. Unrelated, but awesome: "If, when a free-kick is being taken, the opposing players, having withdrawn to the proper distance, dance about or gesticulate in a way calculated to distract the player taking the kick, it is ungentlemanly conduct for which the offender(s) shall be cautioned." There are plenty more such examples...
http://www.espnfc.us/video/premier-...23/liverpool-3-0-boro-champions-league-awaits The non-call of the weekend...I'm sure Arsenal fans are cursing Attkisson for not calling an early penalty/RC against Liverpool.
His view is blocked by Matip, so I can see why he missed it. Wonder what (if anything) came from the AR
Any guess what Atkinson is signaling at 0:10-11 as an explanation for the no-call? It seems like he's indicating they were crossing in front of each other and they got tangled up, which justifies his no call. If that's his opinion, I don't think anything the AR says is going to change his mind and, quite frankly, unless an AR has an obvious push or grab or hold there, I can't see him intervening.
Personally I thought that is was a good no-call. Sure there is some contact with the hands, but at that level, that's just not enough for a call.
I like the no call also. I think the attacker went fishing for contact instead of trying to play the ball.
I think the attacker made a smart move, putting himself between the ball and the defender, and forcing the defender to bundle him over. And I say that as a Liverpool fan.
As a neutral, I thought it was a foul. I looks like Atkinson ended up being straight-lined on the play. So, the hand sign at :10 either meant they crossed paths (which is hardly an excuse for tripping someone, is it?) or he was indicating someone crossed in front of him, screening his view -- couldn't see it, couldn't call it. Given his status, Atkinson could get away with that, but it still would be surprising to admit in that situation.
FA Cup Final off to a very rocky start for the referee. Missed a handball as Arsenal controlled the ball in the leadup to the goal. Then the flag goes up because Ramsey is offside, but Sanchez comes from deep and runs around him to score. Ramsey never touches the ball, but if he's not interfering with play there, then it has to be completely impossible for a player to be interfering with play if he doesn't touch the ball. Pretty strange decision, especially as they took the time to talk about it. Ramsey clearly attracted the goalkeeper's attention, changed his positioning, and prevented him from coming for the ball. All while several yards offside.
On one of the replays (the one looking at the goal from behind the attackers) it looked like the Chelsea defender might have been the last one to play the ball before the offside decision (if you don't count the handball). Could that be why they waved off the flag?