West Ham's first goal yesterday

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Post Reply
jdrobbo
Posts: 9205
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:01 pm
Been Liked: 4800 times
Has Liked: 943 times
Location: Leeds

West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by jdrobbo » Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:59 pm

Only just seen the highlights....

West Ham Break
Foul on half-way
Referee whistle
Quick free kick taken instantly, before the ball has stopped moving.
Straight into Bowen who scores.

Why is that not VAR checked and overturned immediately?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76UCwXx9TZU
This user liked this post: Taffy on the wing

jdrobbo
Posts: 9205
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:01 pm
Been Liked: 4800 times
Has Liked: 943 times
Location: Leeds

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by jdrobbo » Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:01 pm

Please don't tell me that VAR can't rule on those decisions?

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by martin_p » Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:04 pm

I haven’t seen a close up replay, but from the link you’ve posted the ball seems to have (just) stopped.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:06 pm

Difficult to say whether or not the ball had stopped moving but it appeared to just about be still and if Martin Atkinson thought that that was the case then there is no problem. Quick thinking by the player taking the free kick and a good goal.
Don't encourage more VAR intervention when the referee was right on top of the incident. :D
This user liked this post: mdd2

dandeclaret
Posts: 3515
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 300 times

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by dandeclaret » Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:07 pm

Agree with Martin - ball had stopped.

claretblue
Posts: 6410
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:36 pm
Been Liked: 1831 times
Has Liked: 961 times
Location: cloud 9 since Dyche appointed

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by claretblue » Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:07 pm

I’m all for having West Ham goals rescinded but knowing VAR...they might chalk off our 1st goal last season at Old Trafford when Westwood’s free-kick was 5 yards forward of where foul was committed! :?

:D

Conroysleftfoot
Posts: 2105
Joined: Sat May 09, 2020 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 349 times
Has Liked: 293 times

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by Conroysleftfoot » Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:11 pm

It did look to be moving but referee obviously didn't see it like that. I don't blame West Ham for taking it quickly i only wish referees would be consistent and let everybody do it. Most teams get a man to stand behind the ball immediately to stop the quick free kick being taken so any advantage the attacking team has then disappears. I think that if a player stops a quick free kick being taken should be booked.

jdrobbo
Posts: 9205
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:01 pm
Been Liked: 4800 times
Has Liked: 943 times
Location: Leeds

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by jdrobbo » Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:24 pm

I must be going blind then because at 22 seconds, it still looks to be moving to me.

quoonbeatz
Posts: 4491
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
Been Liked: 2561 times
Has Liked: 757 times

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by quoonbeatz » Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:32 pm

Looks like its just stopped but he takes it from nowhere near where the foul was, not even in the same half, so clearly shouldn't have been allowed.

Saying that, not the worst refereeing decision this weekend when you look at some of the handballs....

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:15 pm

The directive for free kicks and throw ins is that they are OK if they are taken in the vicinity of where the offence takes place and this was only 2 yards away. Hence you see players move the ball 10 yards infield when an offence occurs on the touch line etc. I don't agree with it, however, it is the interpretation of those in charge and geared to quicken the game up.

mdd2
Posts: 6012
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:47 pm
Been Liked: 1665 times
Has Liked: 700 times

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by mdd2 » Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:18 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:15 pm
The directive for free kicks and throw ins is that they are OK if they are taken in the vicinity of where the offence takes place and this was only 2 yards away. Hence you see players move the ball 10 yards infield when an offence occurs on the touch line etc. I don't agree with it, however, it is the interpretation of those in charge and geared to quicken the game up.
Well if we want to quicken the game up, lets get the fallers off the pitch pdq and trash VAR except where the ref wants to review it,and/or as in Cricket where each side has a maximum of say 3 reviews

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:25 pm

mdd2 wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:18 pm
Well if we want to quicken the game up, lets get the fallers off the pitch pdq and trash VAR except where the ref wants to review it,and/or as in Cricket where each side has a maximum of say 3 reviews
Now then mdd2 ---settle! You know that the fallers and the VAR are a fundamental part of the modern game and will not be removed. Do you remember when they brought in the interpretation that a goal kick could be taken from anywhere in the 6 yard box because that would quicken up the game? Did that work? No, because the keepers now wander up and down their box as much as possible if their team is in front. Even now where they have made short goal kicks possible the keeper will mess around. Teasdale Out!!

ClaretTony
Posts: 67423
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32238 times
Has Liked: 5253 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by ClaretTony » Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:38 pm

If the ball was moving then the decision is incorrect but I'll applaud Atkinson for this and this is one of the reasons why he and Mike Dean are the best referees by a country mile, always looking to keep the game moving. If the ball was moving then, yes, incorrect, but having seen what I've seen this weekend then so what. Good refereeing by me from Atkinson.

Now if someone can dare to explain why some of those handball penalties were given yesterday - please go ahead!!

Aclaret
Posts: 4113
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:16 pm
Been Liked: 1299 times
Has Liked: 1391 times

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by Aclaret » Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:08 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:38 pm
If the ball was moving then the decision is incorrect but I'll applaud Atkinson for this and this is one of the reasons why he and Mike Dean are the best referees by a country mile, always looking to keep the game moving. If the ball was moving then, yes, incorrect, but having seen what I've seen this weekend then so what. Good refereeing by me from Atkinson.

Now if someone can dare to explain why some of those handball penalties were given yesterday - please go ahead!!
If the ball hits the hand/ arm whilst the hand/arm is above Shoulder height, accidentally or otherwise then it is a offence. I agree, what a load of nonsense. What is wrong with the old fashioned, if it's intentional it's a penalty or free kick, if it's accidental it's not.....That's my reading of it anyway.

ClaretTony
Posts: 67423
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32238 times
Has Liked: 5253 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by ClaretTony » Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:13 pm

Aclaret wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:08 pm
If the ball hits the hand/ arm whilst the hand/arm is above Shoulder height, accidentally or otherwise then it is a offence.
Doesn't have to be anywhere near above shoulder height though judging on the one given for Everton against Palace on Saturday. I actually have some sympathy for the referees if they feel they have to give them.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:21 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:13 pm
Doesn't have to be anywhere near above shoulder height though judging on the one given for Everton against Palace on Saturday. I actually have some sympathy for the referees if they feel they have to give them.
Tony, the officials are on a hiding to nothing now because they have to standardise according to what FIFA are instructing and you have to remember that FIFA now rule the roost as far a VAR is concerned. It was in the hands of IFAB, who mess around with the Laws of the Game, however, FIFA are now saying what must happen with VAR and you remember the way that they made a World Cup Final referee change his decision by calling him back to the monitor after he had firstly confirmed his original decision of a corner but then had to return to have another look and change it to a penalty ---another ridiculous handball decision and that was 2 years ago.

WadingInDeeper
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:37 pm
Been Liked: 155 times
Has Liked: 57 times

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by WadingInDeeper » Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:33 pm

Good, well taken, goal. Ball looked to have stopped (just), the defender committed the foul to stop the break, good to see a quickly taken free quick like that for once. Stopping play and letting the defenders get ready in a position like that isn't much of a punishment.

tim_noone
Posts: 17108
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 4384 times
Has Liked: 15117 times

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by tim_noone » Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:09 pm

martin_p wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:04 pm
I haven’t seen a close up replay, but from the link you’ve posted the ball seems to have (just) stopped.
:lol: :lol: How do you determine "just" stopped

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by martin_p » Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:36 pm

tim_noone wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:09 pm
:lol: :lol: How do you determine "just" stopped
The same way you determine anything has just happened!

dsr
Posts: 15135
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by dsr » Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:53 pm

Aclaret wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:08 pm
If the ball hits the hand/ arm whilst the hand/arm is above Shoulder height, accidentally or otherwise then it is a offence. I agree, what a load of nonsense. What is wrong with the old fashioned, if it's intentional it's a penalty or free kick, if it's accidental it's not.....That's my reading of it anyway.
What they are trying to do is define the situation when a player "makes himself big" to block the ball. The player can claim he didn't have time to react so it was accidental, but on the other hand he had deliberately put his arm there so that it might block the ball.

The current lawmakers are tying themselves in knots trying to redefine what instinctively most of us know, and they haven't the wit to work out the ways in which it can go wrong. They introduce a new law that solves one problem (perhaps) but don't run it through their heads to see what other problems it will cause.

Dark Cloud
Posts: 6586
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
Been Liked: 1981 times
Has Liked: 3299 times

Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday

Post by Dark Cloud » Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:34 am

Ball had stopped. Good refereeing.

Post Reply