You’re not alone. I think it is a foul, but one that the game currently considers trifling. It’s not just “cheeky”—he moved into the GK to prevent his movement. That is the essence of impeding. I’d like to see these called and get that nonsense out of the game. But it isn’t going to get called by VAR when the game usually tolerates it, The only way that is going to become a foul that gets called is if a league sets it out as a point of emphasis before a season. And how likely is a league to make that a point of emphasis when there is som. Uch desire to get more goals?
Goalkeepers bump attackers out of the way all the time. They even lightly shove them on corner kicks. Again, all the time. The purpose is exactly the same, tactically. Just in the other direction. Unless we’re giving penalties for that stuff, there’s no way we should be calling fouls (never mind fouls that annul goals via VAR) for this stuff. There has to be some level of physicality on corner kicks and a good level of tolerance should be the stuff everyone seems to accept.
yep agreed and I understand the need for more goals and also that everyone considers it trifling, but if I see that on my field I am calling that 100% of the time, I can't stand "cheeky".
I'll try one last time, because I'm stubborn... It shouldn't be about what you can't stand. The goalkeeper was fine with it and everyone was appealing for the offside, not a foul. There's no scenario where this affected him getting to the ball to prevent the header and he seemed to be positioned where he wanted to be to react to the header. You're arguing to call a personal pet peeve of yours that was likely inconsequential on the play. You admit you'd be calling something that everyone else deems trifling. To take away a game-winning goal. That's the kind of refereeing most participants in the game despise.
This reminds me of the era when we all had in-person recertifications and the instructor would show various plays and ask whether a specific play is a foul and if it is, whether it's careless or reckless and there would always be one person in the audience who would blurt out "I'm calling that a foul in my games!", even after it was explained that it was a play-on. Even at the club level, I am not calling that. Because of the pay rate, I occasionally do recreation games in our neighboring town if I'm free and I might whistle this there. It's not a foul. If everyone took it upon themselves to officiate the game the way they see fit, it would be a disaster. In addition, you put your colleagues in a difficult position during the match. AR1 is going to get an earful and if you're calling matches that are inconsistent with the way that level expects, the poor guy who has that team the following week is going to hear it that referees are not consistent with the way the game is officiated (and the coaches would be correct).
I confess to being biased on this one as a former keeper. As I noted, I wouldn’t expect this to be called in current expectations. But I do think this is a bit different from what the typical messing around is on a CK. This isn’t the pre-kick shenanigans, and this isn’t the jostling for space in the anticipated landing area. This is deliberately impeding the motion of the GK away from the landing area, after the ball is in play, solely for the purpose of making it harder for the GK to get into position to block an anticipated shot. I’d like to see that not be part of the game. But I accept that it is accepted and considering trifling today, and there was no chance it would be called on the field or by VAR.
Just saw the decision from Madley. Absolutely horrendous. If I gave only a yellow for that during an assessment, I would fail instantly.
Starting to wonder if he can get a FIFA VMO badge from England in enough time for 2026... I mean, not really. But the FA and PGMOL could (and will) make worse decisions.
Without commenting on the merits of a play I didn't even see, some things make me believe that VAR debates have jumped the shark.
Okay I've now seen the play. So I am perfectly fine with your analysis in total, but I do want to add to the conversation that white is in line with the play, tho 25 yd or so to the side, which and things is not that different from being 5 yards behind the play (It's about equivalent 7 yd if you assume 40 yds to catch up). I'm not saying they have to be the same color, mind you. Seven is more than five, and trossards ball is more easily handled than the one jota would have had to bring down. I'm just saying this is all a lot more subjective than I think you're implying, at least when everybody is that far out from goal - even when we're talking about pros as opposed to u13 players.
I disagree for a few reasons and I think it shows the importance of not just measuring distance. The actual dynamics of play matter. The Bournemouth attacker has a pretty simple collection of the ball if he is allowed to get to it. It's a few dribbles and then he's in a scoring position as the keeper comes out to challenge (so, on that point, there aren't 40 yards to catch up--the decision about a shot is most likely happening well before that). And that's opposed to the Liverpool situation, where Jota has a difficult take of the ball to control it. What I'm saying here is that the Bournemouth player can run onto the ball in near full sprint, while Jota can't--that alone gives a defender more time to catch up because the defender's primary concern isn't controlling the ball--it's simply touching it or getting proximity to challenge after the attacker touches it. Also, just on the factual side of things, Ben White is not even with the play. Look at the broadcast camera. The Bournemouth player is already past the first cut of grass in the center circle as he's being fouled. White is halfway through that first stripe at best. And you can see from the center circle that the cuts are more than 5 yards each (I can't quite tell if they are 6 or not--for some reason they seem less... maybe they are 5 meters, actually, which would be kind of funny). Regardless, White is at minimum 2.5 yards behind the foul. Going in the other direction, it does look like he's about 20 yards across the field rather than 25, though. Regardless, the question isn't whether White can catch the attacker by the goal area or not, or even if he could get close enough to challenge by the time the most optimal shot was taken. It's whether or not he is close enough to negate an obvious scoring chance and that seems to clearly be not true. The ball is landing, what, 10 yards in front of the attacker? There's no way White is getting there first to challenge the gain of possession or be immediately in close proximity. He will still be behind at that point. So 30 yards out and White is behind but closing while the attacker has full possession. That's not a covering defender for negating DOGSO, right?
This sounds crazy but I think the image compression on Twitter makes a big difference here. The image, as I can see it via the tweet, is too grainy and blurry at the spot where the edge of the ball possibly meets the touchline (or goal line, whichever one it is) to be able to say definitively that the ball crosses the line. But if the VAR has a sharper version of the image on their screen that showed clear green space between the ball and the line, I could absolutely see this being a clear-and-obvious, objective call.
I very much do not, but @StarTime makes the correct point that we're looking at about the worst possible image quality.
True, but given that VAR has clearer views, I can’t imagine them getting that wrong when the blurry view appears out. I think a blurry view that appears in could easily still be out but unlikely that a blurry view that shows a gap would not show a gap on a clear view.
Definitely seems like Mr. Gillett has a different standard for intervention than most of the other VMO‘s. Correctly, in my opinion.
Because they're actually pretty mediocre referees who only are able to keep their jobs because there isn't anybody better to replace them.
Nick Pope held onto the ball long enough to have a shot clock violation in the NBA in the final minute of NEW/ARS.
The way Anthony Taylor watches a yellow card offence (for reckless) happen, gives the freekick, and then pulls an annoyed face at anyone who has the temerity of pointing out to him that he’s decided to ignore a clear booking really grates after you’ve seen him do it a certain number of times.