[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXmVqbcSVqc"]Youtube video[/ame] Sheffield United 2 Manchester City 1: Eriksson's bubble burst at Bramall Lane
If the referee did not see what happened and neither did anyone else among the referee crew, then what the hell were they watching? No need for instant replay. It was in front of him and anyone who ever played pool or snooker knows exactly that the two balls acted the way the would after contact. There is no excuse. It was a simple situation that only needed common sense to make the correct determination.
He must have just had a major brain fart and it wrongly registered in his mind that there was no allowance within the laws for him to call the goal back (he maybe thought Johnson kicked the beach ball); I can't imagine how he felt, knowing he was being watched around the world and obviously a result-changing decision. Every ref's nightmare. I feel bad for him, but I still don't get how 4 of them messed it or missed it.
The fact of the matter is that there was ample opportunity for "someone" to clear the ball. There was ample opportunity for the referee to stop play BEFORE a shot was taken. To disallow the goal is at least as much an injustice to Sunderland as allowing the goal to stand is an injustice to Liverpool. Maybe Liverpool fans could be less stupid in the use of their balls. Maybe Liverpool's players could have scored a couple of goals of their own. It's unfortunate that a situation like this arises where the referee will take some of the responsibilty for Liverpool playing like crap. A big problem with the LotG is how much is left to the opinion of the referee. A ball in the field of play is either grounds for a stoppage or it's not. You can't decide that play needs to stop BECAUSE a goal is scored.
The problem with this logic is if not for the outside interference, there is no goal. Considering that this thread is about refereeing, it makes no difference who the team was, what they did or did not do and how crap of a game they were playing. That is irrelevant. The Laws are clear about outside interference affecting a match. If it happened in midfield, the referee might let it go because it could be considered trifling. But a goal was scored as a direct result of an object that was not allowed on the field of play. If the referee did the correct thing and stopped play, there was no injustice to Suderland. There is nothing to debate here. Even if the referee crew had a brain fart and could not remember something that is taught at an initial course, common sense should have dictated that it was wrong.
My point was that the ball didn't come flying onto the field right as the shot was taken. If it's an interference then it's an interference as soon as it enters the field of play. Play should be stopped immediately. A ball should be treated the same a a fan on the pitch. Too much room for interpretation by officials leads to crap like this. If every ticky tack foul was called, fans and players would go nuts at first, but play would clean up. If cards came out the instant a player or team official ran their mouth at a ref, dissent would nearly stop. The laws need to be more cut and dry. That was my point. And for reference, I don't think the goal was good. But I think that play should have been stopped before the attack reached the point that a shot was taken.
To say that a goal would not have been the result minus the interference is completely unprovable and completely irrelevant to the argument that you are making. The fact that this could be considered trifling at midfield is precisely my point. An inteference shouldn't just be an interference sometimes. It is or it isn't. I hate the ambiguity of the LotG. The fact that this is even a contoversy shows the failure of the laws.
Trifling is when the outside interference has no or little effect on match play or the result. When a goal is produced, it is more than trifling. If not for the deflection, THAT goal would not have gone through. It is very relevant. The outside interference was the major factor in the goal. You also need to look at the video. The beach ball rolled up the field while play was in process. It happened. But the rules are clear when something like that happens. Stop play and restart with a drop ball. It can't get any simpler than that.
It may be unproveable, but their is an excellent camera angle directly in line with the shot and the shot was clearly going directly at Reina. So I'd say that without the ball, that it is not a goal at least 99% of the time.
Reina is dropping on one knee - it's going to be a simple scoop up until it changes direction. That being said, a big red ball between the shooter and the keeper interferes with play regardless of whether the keeper was going to save it or if the two balls ever even touch. A misapplication such as this at this level is downright shocking.
Its pretty clear it should have been a dropped ball. I guess I figured it might get a position paper but week in review works just as well.
Actually, it has been reported that ManU fans have been buying them hoping to take them into the stadium and let them loose en masse on Sunday. There have been reports that security for the visitors sections would be higher to confiscate the balls from anyone trying to carry their balls in.
I have been considering this, and I think that Jones was right to give the goal. The FA Premier League, and other professional leagues, have been quite clear that play should continue with streamers, balloons, balls, etc being thrown on the pitch, unless they pose a risk to player safety. At what point does an outside agent become part of the field? If a branch is blown on to our field, lies there fifteen minutes, and then the ball hits it and bounces in to the goal, are you going to argue it is an outside agent? Just because the ball was brighter doesn't make it different from a branch. If we accept that the FA thinks it is fine for balls to be on their pitches, then balls are not outside agents, they are part of the field. If we don't follow this logic, then the FA is explicitly advantaging one side, by saying it is fine with them for barriers to be put on the field and ignored, as long as the ball doesn't hit them, in which case it's a problem. By the LOTG, true, the goal should have been disallowed, but in the Premiership, a goal, in my opinion, was the proper call. That beach ball was not an outside agent.
I completely disagree with your premise. The LOTG apply to all leagues. In fact I would argue that there is a greater opportunity with the number of ball boys and security to keep the field clear of outside agents. Also a branch not a twig constitutes an outside agent. If the ball hits it and takes a weird bounce, blow the whistle. Branches and beach balls are not part of the field of play.
Absolutely agree. The LOTG are the same wherever you are. Especially something like that. What annoys me is that this happened last year and noone cared or even noticed the mistake. It happens to Liverpool this year and all of a sudden everybody knows the Law?!
That was not my point in the slightest. My point was, if the FA isn't willing to address people throwing things on to their pitch until the ball hits them and goes in to the net, then they are creating a situation in which there exists every incentive to fill your goalmouth with balloons as an extra layer of defense. Now, if this happened in one of my matches, I would disallow the goal, but I would ALSO stop the game before the ball had hit it in the first place. I was arguing, in the FA, by waiting until the ball hits the outside object to care about the issue, they are subverting part of the laws, so why not go all the way? And whether or not a branch constitutes an outside agent is YHTBT. If it's been laying there all match, I'm not going to be inclined to see it as such. If someone throws it on the pitch during the middle of an attack, I will certainly see it as an outside agent, but I will also be proactive about dealing with the issue before the ball hits it and goes in the goal, and getting rid of the fan who threw it, both of which professional leagues are explicit about not doing (more so the former, to be fair).
I suspect that SoccerScottWV is not a ref. The frustration he expresses is typical of fan sentiment when the flexibility inherent in the Laws of the Game work against his rooting interest. Boylan64 is a ref and the frustration he is expressing in his post is directed at the FA for allowing crap on the field. The frustration is expressed in a reductio ad absurdam argument that if the FA allows anything on the field, then they should allow everything--to be logically consistent. This is just frustration, too. Boylan64, being a decent ref (at minimum), knows that soccer is a game of gradations, and a balloon at midfield doesn't warrant a stoppage, while a dozen in the goal mouth probably does--as does a beach ball on the 6. Referees seek order. Disorder leads to chaos. Chaos is bad for soccer games. But the people who put on games, the FA--all professional leagues--hardly want to supress the joy of the fans or harmless expression of their enthusiasm. So there are gradations regarding outside interference. Unfortunately, most professional leagues have taken a policy of no removal for streamers, balloons, etc. Bottles or flares are removed, anything else goes. Like Boylan64, crap on the field drives me crazy. South American games with layers of streamers near the goal, the balloons in the Man City - SU game... Come on folks, stop the game and get the crap off the field. What is the downside? Sometimes it is argued that this will just provoke the fans into throwing more stuff. BS. How much stuff can they have? Or when do you stop the game--is one streamer enough? It might be, how long does it take a ball boy or a field steward to get one streamer off? 10 seconds? Just do it. If clearing the field introduces unnecessary stoppages, is the answer really to NOT clear the field? Man City fans, Liverpool fans, and the referees on this list say NO. Let me take a big leap here. One could argue that allowing streamers and balloons and confetti to clutter the field leads to more dangerous crowd misbehavior like taunting players or opposing fans, racist chants, fighting, and throwing dangerous projectiles. The analogy is to the 'broken windows' hypothesis of James Q. Wilson and George E Kelling (1982) in criminology. This idea guided Police Chief Bratton in New York and LA during the last two decades as he cracked down on annoying misdemeanors like graffitti, panhandling, and turnstyle jumping to create civic order that in turn discouraged more serious crime. The general statement is that untended disorder leads to more serious crime. Doesn't every referee agree with this? If crap on the field equals untended disorder, then the referee should stop the game and remove it--regardless of what you think of arresting squeegie men and turnstyle jumpers.
It was not clear from your post that you were being sarcastic. Personally, the debris has to be cleared from the field of play. As far as I am concerned a branch does not belong on the field of play. Branches are not part of the field of play and as such should be removed. The same is true of balloons and other foreign objects. I personally also find streamers to be a distraction and hindrance as well.