West Ham's first goal yesterday
-
- 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
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
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
-
- 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
Please don't tell me that VAR can't rule on those decisions?
Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday
I haven’t seen a close up replay, but from the link you’ve posted the ball seems to have (just) stopped.
-
- 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
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.
Don't encourage more VAR intervention when the referee was right on top of the incident.
This user liked this post: mdd2
-
- 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
Agree with Martin - ball had stopped.
-
- 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
I’m all for having West Ham goals rescinded but knowing VAR...they might chalk off our 1st goal last season at Old Trafford when Westwood’s free-kick was 5 yards forward of where foul was committed!
-
- 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
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.
-
- 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
I must be going blind then because at 22 seconds, it still looks to be moving to me.
-
- 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
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....
Saying that, not the worst refereeing decision this weekend when you look at some of the handballs....
-
- 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
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.
Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday
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 reviewsAshingtonclaret46 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:15 pmThe 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.
-
- 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
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!!
-
- 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
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!!
Now if someone can dare to explain why some of those handball penalties were given yesterday - please go ahead!!
Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday
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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:38 pmIf 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!!
-
- 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
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.
-
- 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
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.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:13 pmDoesn'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.
-
- 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
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.
Re: West Ham's first goal yesterday
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.Aclaret wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:08 pmIf 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.
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.
-
- 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
Ball had stopped. Good refereeing.