Everton

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Just to clarify, dsr, a referee can dismiss a player even before play starts if he so wishes and the player commits an offence which would result in dismissal if the game was in progress. Once the referee crosses the white line he is in charge (like it or like it not) and this continues until the end of the game, including during half time when, technically, he could caution or dismiss a player who commits an offence such as swearing at him or something similar. Usually, a quiet word sufficed and sense prevailed because, having played at a reasonable non-league level I understood the trials and tribulations of both sides of the fence!

[dsr]

Just to clarify, dsr, a referee can dismiss a player even before play starts if he so wishes and the player commits an offence which would result in dismissal if the game was in progress. Once the referee crosses the white line he is in charge (like it or like it not) and this continues until the end of the game, including during half time when, technically, he could caution or dismiss a player who commits an offence such as swearing at him or something similar. Usually, a quiet word sufficed and sense prevailed because, having played at a reasonable non-league level I understood the trials and tribulations of both sides of the fence!

Yes. I think we were slightly at cross-purposes - my point was that if the ref had decided it was a red card offence by Pickford, he would still have been sent off; yours was that it wasn't a foul because the whistle had gone and that it wasn't anything like serious enough for a red (or yellow) card. And on that basis, of course, we can both be right. (Especially me! )

Actually I would agree that it wasn't a red card. Largely on the basis that when earlier in the thread it was suggested that he might have been sent off, I couldn't even remember any incident where that might arise.

[Rileybobs]

Offside offence was the first offence, however, because the decision had not been made, Pickford had to go for the ball and it would have been to prevent a goalscoring opportunity. He was entitled to go for it with his feet or would you rather he dived in head first, been kicked in the head and carried off, thus leaving the officials to decide whether Alli was guilty of an offence? As I have said, because they have messed about with the interpretation of offside that much, this scenario was just waiting to happen and I can see a keeper being seriously injured at some stage because of this interpretation.
Alli walked off the field without any problem at half time except for a slightly strained hamstring which saw him sidelined for the second half.
The officials saw nothing wrong so why punish a player for doing nothing. Referee's decision, however, when they introduce VAR they can have more and more opinions and more discussions by pundits who are all part of the media sterilisation of football campaign.

Of course he was entitled to go at it with his feet. But he’s not entitled to go at it with two feet, both off the ground, out of control and with studs showing is he? I’m amazed that as a former referee you can’t see that if this was an outfield player challenging Alli it would be a red card without question or complaint. As above, the fact the ball is dead and the game is stopped does not stop the challenge from endangering an opponent which is a red card offence.

[Rileybobs]

’A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.’

Ergo, red card offence.

[JohnMac]

That's quite interesting ASH, Pickford can't be punished because the ball is dead, I only saw the challenge on Sky News and not the build up.

Barnes was carded even though the ball was presumably dead when they were wrestling off the pitch . I can't remember if it definitely was but it just shows what an arse the Laws can be and how us fans interpret situations.

[TVC15]

Of course he is entitled to go for the ball with his feet.
However, he’s not entitled to miss it completely and nearly snap his leg - should have been red card for me and Pickford has got previous for these type of challenges.

Another very poor display overall from Pickford. He was at sixes and sevens for most of the game and he has been distinctly average all season. His decision making is atrocious....he strikes me as not the sharpest of tools in the box.
He’s been very lucky to get the England no 1 spot with all the injuries to other keepers - I don’t think he is in the top 3 English keepers when they are all fit.

[Spijed]

I suspect Pickford gets picked for England because the team are playing well and want a keeper who is comfortable passing the ball to defenders. It's the modern way.

As for saving shots, he's not a particularly good keeper as he makes far too many mistakes in that respect.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

’A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.’

Ergo, red card offence.

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Ergo --offside!! Alli should have stopped and he would not have been guilty of being offside and would not have put himself in a situation to sustain injury. To the letter of TLOG and their interpretation it is Alli who is guilty of an offence because he was in an offside position and chose to go after the ball!

[Rileybobs]

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Ergo --offside!! Alli should have stopped and he would not have been guilty of being offside and would not have put himself in a situation to sustain injury. To the letter of TLOG and their interpretation it is Alli who is guilty of an offence because he was in an offside position and chose to go after the ball!

If Alli was offside and then Pickford punched him in the nose would only one offence have taken place?

[TVC15]

So if Alli rounds the keeper puts the ball in the net, shows his ass to Pickford....who then decides to knock Alli out with a right hook.... whilst all the time the linesman is waving for offside.....are you saying it’s not a red card because the game is dead ?

[TVC15]

You got there first Riley !!

[Ashingtonclaret46]

That's quite interesting ASH, Pickford can't be punished because the ball is dead, I only saw the challenge on Sky News and not the build up.

Barnes was carded even though the ball was presumably dead when they were wrestling off the pitch . I can't remember if it definitely was but it just shows what an arse the Laws can be and how us fans interpret situations.

The Barnes incident resulted in the referee giving a free kick to Arsenal, which I thought was a joke so, presumably, because he only cautioned Barnes it would appear that he cautioned him for giving away the free kick or for his preventing Sokratis from getting back onto the pitch and not for anything else that happened between the two of them. That is the only concluson I can come to on that otherwise both players should have been cautioned.

A player can be dismissed for violent conduct if the ball is dead or for serious foul play if the referee deems it so.
The referee could only view the Pickford incident as a valid attempt to play the ball but this would be countermanded by the fact that offside was the first decision and, unless Pickford had then deliberately done something stupid, in the opinion of the referee, there is no other action which can be taken. Common sense has to prevail, in spite of the baying of the partisan fans of either side!

I trust that this also clears up all the hypothetical situations mentioned by others.
I dealt with the situation as it actually was ---not as some would appear to want it to be.
Blimey ---you guys give marks to officials on this board every week ---do you want them to referee without using any common sense at all?
Everything in football, apart from the ball going over the line, is far from black and white, however, you will all be happy with VAR when it comes. Interestingly, this particular situation would not even have come up for review except the possible offside, however, that was so obvious that it would not have been reviewed.

[TVC15]

Sorry - is a 2 footed mis-timed lunge not deemed as violent conduct or serious foul play ?
Why could the referee only view the Pickford incident as a valid attempt to play the ball ?
Was it not a very poor attempt which endangered the other player....i.e serious foul play ?

[Ashingtonclaret46]

It was an incident in the penalty area when the goalkeeper is entitled to go for the ball. Pickford did this, however, as Alli committed an offence by going for the ball when he was in an offside position that was the first offence and Pickford did nothing wrong.
The only way that it could have been viewed any differently is if Alli had not contested the ball, he would not have been considered offside, even though he was in an offside position and then Pickford had lunged in for the ball but had fouled Alli instead.
Alli was as much at fault as anyone because he went for the ball in spite of being in an offside position. Why are people trying to re-write TLOG to suit their own agenda?
If that had been one of our own keepers, apart from Joe Hart who lots of fans seem to have a downer on, and they had been sent off for trying to get the ball when, in fact, the correct decision was offside, this board would be in meltdown with people saying that is not fair!
I am aware that many of our fans do not like Pickford, however, he does not write TLOG and he did nothing that was against them in this case.
Alli was the offender. There is absolutely nothing to discuss.

[dsr]

It was an incident in the penalty area when the goalkeeper is entitled to go for the ball. Pickford did this, however, as Alli committed an offence by going for the ball when he was in an offside position that was the first offence and Pickford did nothing wrong.
The only way that it could have been viewed any differently is if Alli had not contested the ball, he would not have been considered offside, even though he was in an offside position and then Pickford had lunged in for the ball but had fouled Alli instead.
Alli was as much at fault as anyone because he went for the ball in spite of being in an offside position. Why are people trying to re-write TLOG to suit their own agenda?
If that had been one of our own keepers, apart from Joe Hart who lots of fans seem to have a downer on, and they had been sent off for trying to get the ball when, in fact, the correct decision was offside, this board would be in meltdown with people saying that is not fair!
I am aware that many of our fans do not like Pickford, however, he does not write TLOG and he did nothing that was against them in this case.
Alli was the offender. There is absolutely nothing to discuss.

A leg-breaker tackle is a sending off offence. The fact that the opponent is offside does not give you the right to leap into a two footed reckless tackle that endangers an him. The only thing to discuss is whether Pickford's tackle was reckless and endangered an opponent; if it did, he should have been sent off; if it didn't, he should not have been sent off.

[TVC15]

It was an incident in the penalty area when the goalkeeper is entitled to go for the ball. Pickford did this, however, as Alli committed an offence by going for the ball when he was in an offside position that was the first offence and Pickford did nothing wrong.
The only way that it could have been viewed any differently is if Alli had not contested the ball, he would not have been considered offside, even though he was in an offside position and then Pickford had lunged in for the ball but had fouled Alli instead.
Alli was as much at fault as anyone because he went for the ball in spite of being in an offside position. Why are people trying to re-write TLOG to suit their own agenda?
If that had been one of our own keepers, apart from Joe Hart who lots of fans seem to have a downer on, and they had been sent off for trying to get the ball when, in fact, the correct decision was offside, this board would be in meltdown with people saying that is not fair!
I am aware that many of our fans do not like Pickford, however, he does not write TLOG and he did nothing that was against them in this case.
Alli was the offender. There is absolutely nothing to discuss.

Nobody is disputing the offside.
What you seem to be saying is that Pickford was entitled to go for the ball in a way that clearly endangered the player and in a way that would be deemed as dangerous / serious foul play anywhere else on the pitch....that is simply not correct.

You do realise that there can be 2 offenders don't you ? You are basically saying that Pickford is entitled to challenge for the ball in whatever manner he chooses to and that he cannot be punished because Alli offended first. Have you any idea how ridiculous that sounds ?

I`ll give you one thing though - you seem exactly like most of the referees I have ever had the "pleasure" of meeting. No common sense and think they are right all of the time !

[expoultryboy]

Alli would of been rolling around in agony if he'd of been playing against anyone else apart , from his England team mate .

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Nobody is disputing the offside.
What you seem to be saying is that Pickford was entitled to go for the ball in a way that clearly endangered the player and in a way that would be deemed as dangerous / serious foul play anywhere else on the pitch....that is simply not correct.

You do realise that there can be 2 offenders don't you ? You are basically saying that Pickford is entitled to challenge for the ball in whatever manner he chooses to and that he cannot be punished because Alli offended first. Have you any idea how ridiculous that sounds ?

I`ll give you one thing though - you seem exactly like most of the referees I have ever had the "pleasure" of meeting. No common sense and think they are right all of the time !

Nice to see that you just couldn't resist it --could you? I have given you the reasons as per TLOG --nothing else.
Qeestions --did they carry Alli off because he sustained a career threatening injury? --no.
Did he stay off because he sustained a career threatening injury? --no --it was a slight hamstring injury.
Did the officials consider it to be serious foul play/endangering an opponent or anything else? ----no.
Did Pickford set out with the intent to deliberately hurt Alli? ---ask Pickford because he is the only one who knows.
Did Pickford try to win the ball? ----yes. Was he entitled to try to win the ball --yes because the offside had not been given
Was Alli offside? -----yes. If Alli had not gone for the ball was he committing an offence? ---no. Did Alli commit an offence by going for the ball? ---Yes, because he started from an offside postiion.
All the above questions were answered by the officials in the space of a few seconds and they were all correct according to TLOG and their interpretation.

For your information, I don't claim to be right all of the time --I have no need to.
Also for your information, I am giving you reasons why the officials were correct and totally within TLOG with their decisions.
It makes not one blind bit of difference to me because it does not impact on anything that I do but it has helped to fill in the time today.

Perhaps you should take up this matter with those who are responsible for the officiating, seeing that you obviously feel so strongly about it.
I am sure that they would be ony too pleased to give you some answers.

[Rileybobs]

Nice to see that you just couldn't resist it --could you? I have given you the reasons as per TLOG --nothing else.
Qeestions --did they carry Alli off because he sustained a career threatening injury? --no.
Did he stay off because he sustained a career threatening injury? --no --it was a slight hamstring injury.
Did the officials consider it to be serious foul play/endangering an opponent or anything else? ----no.
Did Pickford set out with the intent to deliberately hurt Alli? ---ask Pickford because he is the only one who knows.
Did Pickford try to win the ball? ----yes. Was he entitled to try to win the ball --yes because the offside had not been given
Was Alli offside? -----yes. If Alli had not gone for the ball was he committing an offence? ---no. Did Alli commit an offence by going for the ball? ---Yes, because he started from an offside postiion.
All the above questions were answered by the officials in the space of a few seconds and they were all correct according to TLOG and their interpretation.

For your information, I don't claim to be right all of the time --I have no need to.
Also for your information, I am giving you reasons why the officials were correct and totally within TLOG with their decisions.
It makes not one blind bit of difference to me because it does not impact on anything that I do but it has helped to fill in the time today.

Perhaps you should take up this matter with those who are responsible for the officiating, seeing that you obviously feel so strongly about it.
I am sure that they would be ony too pleased to give you some answers.

That’s just a load of fluff though, all the circumstances you list are irrelevant. The law in question is as follows...

’A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.’

Now, without diverting from the above law are you able to explain how the referee applied this in the Alli/Pickford incident? Whether or not Alli was offside, whether Pickford was entitled to play the ball or whether he tried to play the ball are all irrelevant.

Pickford literally lunged I’m using both legs with excessive force whilst endangering the safety of the opponent. I can’t see how you can dispute that and I find it bizarre that someone who has refereed can come to a different conclusion with the benefit of hindsight.

[TVC15]

Nice to see that you just couldn't resist it --could you? I have given you the reasons as per TLOG --nothing else.
Qeestions --did they carry Alli off because he sustained a career threatening injury? --no.
Did he stay off because he sustained a career threatening injury? --no --it was a slight hamstring injury.
Did the officials consider it to be serious foul play/endangering an opponent or anything else? ----no.
Did Pickford set out with the intent to deliberately hurt Alli? ---ask Pickford because he is the only one who knows.
Did Pickford try to win the ball? ----yes. Was he entitled to try to win the ball --yes because the offside had not been given
Was Alli offside? -----yes. If Alli had not gone for the ball was he committing an offence? ---no. Did Alli commit an offence by going for the ball? ---Yes, because he started from an offside postiion.
All the above questions were answered by the officials in the space of a few seconds and they were all correct according to TLOG and their interpretation.

For your information, I don't claim to be right all of the time --I have no need to.
Also for your information, I am giving you reasons why the officials were correct and totally within TLOG with their decisions.
It makes not one blind bit of difference to me because it does not impact on anything that I do but it has helped to fill in the time today.

Perhaps you should take up this matter with those who are responsible for the officiating, seeing that you obviously feel so strongly about it.
I am sure that they would be ony too pleased to give you some answers.

Haha !
All that nonsense and you remain 100% wrong.
Why don’t you actually try addressing the issue that the rest of us our raising ?
As already pointed out the only debate is whether you judge Pickford’s challenge to be wreckless or not. Personally I did and think the ref got it wrong.
All the rest of your guff is completely irrelevant - including whether the player was injured or went off as a result of the challenge.
Why you keep on quoting the laws of the game f-uck only knows.
Why don’t you just answer one single question and forget about whether you think Pickford was wreckless or not.

When the ball is deemed to be “dead” because of offside (or any other reason) if a player plays on are any of the opposition players entitled to challenge that player with a 2 footed tackle at knee height nowhere near the ball ?

A simple yes or no will suffice

[Ashingtonclaret46]

I'am so sorry that you don't understand that football is played according to a big book of rules which FIFA --not me-- call THE LAWS OF THE GAME ---perhaps this is why I refer to them they do seem to have quite a relevance to the game and are constantly changing season by season.

There is nothing to discuss because I was not involved in making any decision and I never worry about things over which I have no control.
I have told you how the officials probably interpreted the incident with their knowledge and experience of TLOG, however, only they can answer your questions.

Please make your feelings known to The Professional Game Match Officials Limited and they will give you an answer to your concerns and explain things far better than I can becasue they are in charge of all the officials.

Your opinion is that all officials have no common sense and are always right so it is just a waste of time my spending any more time with this. I shall use the common sense, which you say I don't possess and say no more rather than waste any more time.
I have told you where you can go to get answers to your queries so the rest is up to you.

Have a great Christmas and I wish you well in the New Year but ---most of all -----enjoy your football and don't get too uptight about it -----after all ----it's only a game at whatever level you play, officiate or just spectate.

[TVC15]

Which bit of a “simple yes or no will suffice” did you not get ?!!!
It was a rhetorical question anyway - an attempt to show that what you have been saying is 100% wrong as you know the answer is no but choose to avoid answering it since you have been arguing the opposite all afternoon.

Hey ho it’s only a game - Happy Christmas !

[SmudgetheClaret]

Today is gonna be a real blood and thunder match I for one will give it massive welly vocally ...UTC