Stoke Away | Page 7 | Vital Football

Stoke Away

I don't think the two acts are comparable. Firstly Powell didn't 'throw' anyone, he was entangled with Williams and his body movement, caused him to fall to the floor. That is commonplace in the game in one form or another. Foul? Potentially, but not definitively. Violent conduct? Not a chance. Compare that to lowering your head and body weight to then run at force into an opponent 5 yards away when the balls dead. Commonplace, not a chance. Violent conduct, absolutely. I'd be concerned as a ref if you can't differentiate between the two.

The problem about bringing pre conceived ideas into the decision making process is that subconsciously it leads to bias and effectively discriminates against players. I'm extremely surprised that referees are taught to assess any incident by who the participants are. If they do it's little wonder there is inconsistency in standards. Personally I think neymar dives all the time, should my perception if I was a ref influence the decision making process if he went down in the box? No, you should judge each incident on its merit and not let that unconscious bias affect the decision making. Taking it forward is it any wonder for example that big teams get more decisions? If the referee things he's a worlds class player, surely he wouldn't miss time a tackle so there's no way he's fouled that journey striker on the box, when the evidence is there he has. It's a sticky wicket I'm afraid.

As for common sense, I was playing devils advocate as I'm all for it. Common sense suggests hauling a player down in the six yard box with the ball fizzing across it is denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity when you can't definitely say a player wouldn't reach it. However you can't quote rules in that incident and not apply common sense, yet rely on it to justify not sending someone off in other incidents.
 
We’ll have to agree to disagree on what Powell did - although he did throw him ;-)
As for being concerned that I can’t differentiate between the 2 acts. I wouldn’t be. The fact that a ref & asst who’ve almost reached the top of the domestic game concur with me as opposed to a (quite rightly) biased Latics fan tells me I’ve got my interpretations correct.

You’ve also misinterpreted what I said about judging players. I never said any ref goes into a game with pre-conceived ideas - what I said was that they have to take individuals ability, speed etc into account but that that is judged during the game itself. Not deciding beforehand that you think Neymar’s a diver so you’re gonna give him nowt!!

As for common sense. It isn’t common sense when someone is fouled 6 yards away from a ball fizzing across the goal to say that it’s an obvious goal scoring opportunity coz there was no way on earth that he’d have reached it judging on his distance away, his speed & the speed of the ball. He wouldn’t have got there so it isn’t an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The clue is in the word obvious. It means clear cut or plain to see and in this instance would have to mean it’s clear he would have got to the ball. It isn’t so it wasn’t obvious so it’s not a sending off offence.
I’m struggling to see how you can say that someone can’t say he definitely wouldn’t have got to it so it’s an obvious opportunity. If you can’t say he definitely wouldn’t have got to it then you can’t say he definitely would have got to it. Therefore it’s not an obvious opportunity and therefore under the current laws it’s not a sending off offence
It’s as clear cut as it can be & slightly worrying that you can’t see that!! ;-)
 
We’ll have to agree to disagree on what Powell did - although he did throw him ;-)
As for being concerned that I can’t differentiate between the 2 acts. I wouldn’t be. The fact that a ref & asst who’ve almost reached the top of the domestic game concur with me as opposed to a (quite rightly) biased Latics fan tells me I’ve got my interpretations correct.

You’ve also misinterpreted what I said about judging players. I never said any ref goes into a game with pre-conceived ideas - what I said was that they have to take individuals ability, speed etc into account but that that is judged during the game itself. Not deciding beforehand that you think Neymar’s a diver so you’re gonna give him nowt!!

As for common sense. It isn’t common sense when someone is fouled 6 yards away from a ball fizzing across the goal to say that it’s an obvious goal scoring opportunity coz there was no way on earth that he’d have reached it judging on his distance away, his speed & the speed of the ball. He wouldn’t have got there so it isn’t an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The clue is in the word obvious. It means clear cut or plain to see and in this instance would have to mean it’s clear he would have got to the ball. It isn’t so it wasn’t obvious so it’s not a sending off offence.
I’m struggling to see how you can say that someone can’t say he definitely wouldn’t have got to it so it’s an obvious opportunity. If you can’t say he definitely wouldn’t have got to it then you can’t say he definitely would have got to it. Therefore it’s not an obvious opportunity and therefore under the current laws it’s not a sending off offence
It’s as clear cut as it can be & slightly worrying that you can’t see that!! ;-)

Latics fan yes, however I form my opinions objectively. My postings hardly display a pattern of bias!

The Powell and Williams incident involved two separate acts. What occurred is the referee choose to incorrectly interpret and treat them as one. They often do as it's seemed as the easy opposition and avoids them having to make a difficult. They cite 'common sense' to justify this inability to decision make. However they then cite 'letter of the law' to justify others. It's a cop out and is why there is so much discontent and disrespect toward him them. You have chosen to justify their explains and explain why they did it. It doesn't however make it right. Williams action alone was violent conduct and a red card offence. By failing to address this the indecisive referee alllowed him to remain on the park and commit three further fouls in a very short space of time - the first of which he choose to ignore, to avoid making another difficult decision and the third that in itself was reckless and endangered an opponent and could have been a straight red. It is fortunate that because of his inability to effectively referee several of our players didn't receive injuries.

Again in regards the penalty Powell had his run impeded which curtailed his momentum and then was pulled back when the defender realised he still had an opportunity to score. If it wasn't due these intervening acts it is impossible to say he would t have reached the ball. Having identified an offence that wasn't a genuine attempt to win the ball and the fact if it wasn't for the fouls he could well have reached the ball and so had an obvious goal scoring opportunity then the correct decision is red. Genuine attempt to win the ball or not clear if it was a genuine attempt then benefit of doubt to defender and yellow if obvious goal scoring opportunity. No genuine attempt to win the ball and obvious goal scoring opportunity or unclear if it would have been if not for the foul then red card. Put simply if the defender didn't feel the attacker would reach the ball they wouldn't commit the foul in the first place so it should be easy for the official if in doubt. The law was changed to differentiate between the two acts and element of doubt to favour the defender in the first instance but the attacker in the second. It's a dimple law to understand but sadly what we've seen in two instances this week are weak referees hiding behind the law by failing to implement it. correctly.
 
I hope bongsmon drops this argument now, he's clearly won it.
MiW has resorted to continually regurgitating the same stuff.
That last post was difficult to read as it was tediously repetitive, way too long, and so poorly constructed it would appear MiW (the self proclaimed literary genius) is getting stressed about the whole thing.

Bongsman, I thought the red card thing had been slightly adjusted this season in that the two penalty instances we've seen this season aren't supposed to be red any more. A clear goal scoring opportunity has been presented by the award of a penalty and so a yellow suffices.
I can't remember where I saw/read/heard that though, am I mistaken?
 
..................MiW has resorted to continually regurgitating the same stuff.................... MiW (the self proclaimed literary genius) ..................

:wagging::shake:

No need mate. I actually agree re the tedious nature of the discussion. It was interesting at first, but as you say, it's going over the same ground continually ......., but between the 3 key posters, there had been no insults, no name calling, no falling out, and a general agreement to disagree. Where's the harm ?

The only reason why I mention this is because this is an example of when (I believe) you throw the first stone, but then plead innocent when a pile of bricks gets chucked your way............... just pointing it out, so you realise. ;)

:innocent:
:cheers:
 
With all due respect, if you are being being assessed and told that is how to apply the law i now understand why referees are making so many decisions that most fans, managers, pundits, etc would consider to be wrong. That's not an attack, it just seems like referees are interpreting laws in a drastically different way than everyone else and the seems very little effort for the FA to get everyone to aligned on a common interpretation as the rule quoted before seemed black and white, but it appears there is more to it. I think it's getting too complicated for it's own good to be honest.

Sorry King but you could argue that Morsy should have been sent off for his penalty as there was every possibility that the player he "tripped" could have gone and had a clear goal scoring chance.

There was not a cat in hells chance of Powell reaching that cross and therefore no possibility of him scoring a goal. Penalty, yellow card correct decision.
 
Sorry King but you could argue that Morsy should have been sent off for his penalty as there was every possibility that the player he "tripped" could have gone and had a clear goal scoring chance.

There was not a cat in hells chance of Powell reaching that cross and therefore no possibility of him scoring a goal. Penalty, yellow card correct decision.

That is a false equiverlancy though isn't it, even if you think Morsy fouled Cash, Cash was running away from goal and there were a number of players between him and the goal. It wasn't in anyway a clear goal scoring chance.

Look at the replay for the penalty, as the ball is played to Robinson Powell is about level with him on the edge of the area and sprinting in when Allan has the first grab at Powell. Powells run / momentum is disrupted as he shrugs him off for the first time, but then Allan makes a second grab at Powell before the ball is played. Allan has hands on Powell for the majority of his run from the edge of the box to where he goes down, if someone is trying to pull him back over a 10 - 15 yard run it's inevitable Nick ended up too far away to get to the cross - that was exactly what Allan intended. Without the 2 seperate pulls from Allan that clearly impeed Powells run he has a good chance to there in time to slide the cross into an empty net.

Allan had probably slowed down Powell just enough to stop him getting there in time with the first pull alone, if he wouldn't have gone for a second bite he would've gotten away with that comfortably as he was far enough away from the ball and the ref and lino are unlikely to see it. But once he grabs him the second time a split second later he slows him down more as the ball is played into the area Powell was trying to get into, the fouling over the course of Powells run into the box compounds to deny clear goal scoring opportunity.

There wasn't a cat in hells chance of Powell getting there because Allan stopped him.

Anyway the debate has been covered in great detail and not worth diving into further. The rules and replay are there for all to see and it's up to everyone to make up their own mind at this point. I must admit this thread has opened my eyes to how refs are instructed to interpret the laws differently than the majority of people currently interpret them and i find that very concerning for the game. We all need to be on the same page when it comes to the rules (which i previously thought we were and just had loads of crap refs) so if the rules are evolving / changing / adding nuance it needs to be clearly communicated to the players, managers, pundits and fans so we know where we stand without any of these grey areas. I think the beauty of football is how simple the rules are and i fear that they are getting a bit converluted by the additional things referees are asked to take into account. I fear we are moving away from straight forward / matter of fact and more matter of opinion in making rules more flexible. It opens things up to inconsistency and sets refs up to fail and the fans to be continually frustrated at them doing as they are told.
 
Last edited:
I suppose it also illustrates what a hard job the refs have. It is all down to perception and interpretation and there are fine lines as to what may or may not have resulted had Powell not been pulled down.

I was happy enough with the penalty and you weren't. As I say all down to interpretatioon.
 
Stoke put up extended highlights in youtube with extra footage, angles and replays that Sky, Quest and Latics didnt include and we were very lucky that Afobes goal was given offside and that it wasn't a Stoke pen when McCleans free kick hit the wall.

Afobe being onside or off was so close that if you are supposed to have clear daylight or give the advantage to the attacker I'd say that the lino prob got that wrong - thankfully!

The free kick Lee Evans clearly moves his elbow towards the ball to block it. Crazy thing for him to do we absolutely got away with that one.

I think it's safe to say our luck with decisions has balanced out over the last 2 games after you see the replays of those incidents.
 
That is a false equiverlancy though isn't it, even if you think Morsy fouled Cash, Cash was running away from goal and there were a number of players between him and the goal. It wasn't in anyway a clear goal scoring chance.

Look at the replay for the penalty, as the ball is played to Robinson Powell is about level with him on the edge of the area and sprinting in when Allan has the first grab at Powell. Powells run / momentum is disrupted as he shrugs him off for the first time, but then Allan makes a second grab at Powell before the ball is played. Allan has hands on Powell for the majority of his run from the edge of the box to where he goes down, if someone is trying to pull him back over a 10 - 15 yard run it's inevitable Nick ended up too far away to get to the cross - that was exactly what Allan intended. Without the 2 seperate pulls from Allan that clearly impeed Powells run he has a good chance to there in time to slide the cross into an empty net.

Allan had probably slowed down Powell just enough to stop him getting there in time with the first pull alone, if he wouldn't have gone for a second bite he would've gotten away with that comfortably as he was far enough away from the ball and the ref and lino are unlikely to see it. But once he grabs him the second time a split second later he slows him down more as the ball is played into the area Powell was trying to get into, the fouling over the course of Powells run into the box compounds to deny clear goal scoring opportunity.

There wasn't a cat in hells chance of Powell getting there because Allan stopped him.

Anyway the debate has been covered in great detail and not worth diving into further. The rules and replay are there for all to see and it's up to everyone to make up their own mind at this point. I must admit this thread has opened my eyes to how refs are instructed to interpret the laws differently than the majority of people currently interpret them and i find that very concerning for the game. We all need to be on the same page when it comes to the rules (which i previously thought we were and just had loads of crap refs) so if the rules are evolving / changing / adding nuance it needs to be clearly communicated to the players, managers, pundits and fans so we know where we stand without any of these grey areas. I think the beauty of football is how simple the rules are and i fear that they are getting a bit converluted by the additional things referees are asked to take into account. I fear we are moving away from straight forward / matter of fact and more matter of opinion in making rules more flexible. It opens things up to inconsistency and sets refs up to fail and the fans to be continually frustrated at them doing as they are told.

In how you’ve described the penalty incident, what you’re saying is that without the foul he “may” have reached the ball. I think not but I guess you’re right, he may have.
Maybe getting to the ball isn’t an obvious goal scoring opportunity so it’s not a red regardless of whether the act was a deliberate & cynical act to definitely stop that possibility. Again you’re right in that doesn’t seem fair but that’s the way the laws are. If you’re interpretation was correct then the offence would be denying a possible goal scoring opportunity

Anyway, I’ll stop now before everyone else dies of boredom (as I see some already are!! ??)

Just one last comment though - when the laws were amended 2 season ago, there was loads in the papers, on the radio & on the telly. Plenty out there for people to know how it should be interpreted.
But you’re right. Some of the guidance is complicated & that’s why in some instances the refs should be cut some slack. They have moments to decide a multitude of things in the aftermath of some decisions.
Most of the time they get it right. Some times it can be interpreted differently by someone else & sometimes they get it completely wrong (not that I ever did!! ?)
 
I
Bongsman, I thought the red card thing had been slightly adjusted this season in that the two penalty instances we've seen this season aren't supposed to be red any more. A clear goal scoring opportunity has been presented by the award of a penalty and so a yellow suffices.
I can't remember where I saw/read/heard that though, am I mistaken?

It was changed 2 seasons ago. It’s only a yellow if an obvious goal scoring opportunity was denied by a genuine attempt for the ball.
If an obvious goal scoring opportunity is denied by a push, pull, trip or challenge with no attempt to win the ball then its red
Outside of the penalty area & the old guidance still applies
 
It was changed 2 seasons ago. It’s only a yellow if an obvious goal scoring opportunity was denied by a genuine attempt for the ball.
If an obvious goal scoring opportunity is denied by a push, pull, trip or challenge with no attempt to win the ball then its red
Outside of the penalty area & the old guidance still applies

This can go back and forth forever but without going deep into that again - i knew that last man rule changed but something that isn't widly talked about is your interpretation of a goal socring chance. You've talked about loads of extra details your told to take into account and i think it's best to keep the rules as simple and black and white as possible. eg if a lad is going to try and turn in a cross to an empty net and the opposition drags him back thats cut and dry red card.

If the FA are telling you to interpret the laws that way i think the FA are wrong to ask that. They should just keep it simple.

Also the ref f---ed up again today missing the push on Dunkley for the QPR goal. I know you want to stick up for your fellow refs but i do think the refereeing in this league has been really poor so far.
 
Any chance you could agree to disagree and lay this to rest? To be honest it's getting pretty tedious!!
 
Deary me. Even when a reasoned, respectful debate amongst posters is undertaken across 7 or so pages, it appears this is not enough for some. Perhaps if people find a discussion tedious they shouldn't bother reading it or try and express a view themselves. Of course for some their irritating personality comes to the fore and they can't help but create angst where there is none and chip in anyway. And no I'm not referring to you Exiled.

Unfortunately referees try to over complicate simple situations to justify not making the correct decision. Attack someone with force using your head and it is a red. Pulling a player back yards from goal to stop them getting an attempt in is a red. Over analyse anything for too long and generally it creates muddled thinking. Most often the obvious decision is the correct one.

I understand the official was poor again and missed a blatant foul for the Qpr goal, though I'll reserve judgement on this until I've seen it.
 
It was changed 2 seasons ago. It’s only a yellow if an obvious goal scoring opportunity was denied by a genuine attempt for the ball.
If an obvious goal scoring opportunity is denied by a push, pull, trip or challenge with no attempt to win the ball then its red
Outside of the penalty area & the old guidance still applies

I thought so, cheers Bongsmon. Aren't the rules simple and easy to understand. How come the refs so often get it wrong?
 
Just a thought MB, but were does intent come into the debate? Am I right in thinking that if a player shows the "intent" to deliberately harm another player then this could be considered equal to actually carrying out the act. For instance if a player swings a punch at another player and misses the referee would still take the view that he "intended" to land the punch and show a red, and wouldn't this be the case with Williams deliberately running head down at Powell, i.e. the intent was there.