Popes clanger…

[boatshed bill]

Watching Villa v Leicester, Villa just had a goal ruled out as Kasper Schmeichel had one hand on ball and deemed to have it under "control".

Based upon the 12.16 ruling posted by NewClaret earlier in this thread then the Newcastle goal should also have been ruled out.

All we can ask for is the referees and their buddies running VAR to be consistent, something that seems impossible.

Pope had control of the ball and banged it on Schar's head!

[Yorkshire Claret]

From Law 12.16

While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner.

[claretblue]

again:
12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
'...The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm.
...While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent IN ANY MANNER...'

[Devils_Advocate]

Looks like Tierney has got both decisions correct afterall so fair play the refs and that shows us lot

[beddie]

I accepted in was a goal but reading that claretblue I’ve changed my mind.

[Devils_Advocate]

again:
12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
'...The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm.
...While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent IN ANY MANNER...'

There is no question that Pope had control of the ball but he lost control of it by his own action and not through a challenge (in any manner) by a Newcastle player

[taio]

again:
12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
'...The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm.
...While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent IN ANY MANNER...'

The last point didn't apply in any manner.

[beeholeclaret]

Can’t believe the negativity towards one of our best ever goalkeepers. He is a superb goalie admired by supporters of other clubs up and down the country. He is also a brilliant example of a modest personable young man who we should be very proud of. As for yesterday’s goal it was hardly a ‘howler’ so let’s put this over dramatic headline to one side. A goalkeeping howler to me is letting a soft shot slip through the fingers into the net or some similar calamity. Pope caught the ball under pressure and as he was falling he collided with the Newcastle player. He was unlucky in that it fell to Wilson who made a neat finish. It is just one of those things so let’s get off his back.

[claretblue]

The last point didn't apply in any manner.

it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner

'any manner' must include the ball (in the goalkeepers hands) being touched by an opponent...either intentionally or not taio

[CrosspoolClarets]

12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm. Once established, possession is maintained, when the ball is held as described above, while bouncing the ball on the ground or throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, after throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to hit the ground. For purposes of determining goalkeeper possession, the “handling” includes contact with any part of the goalkeeper’s arm from the fingertips to the shoulder.
While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner. An opponent who attempts to challenge for a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper may be considered to have committed a direct free kick foul. However, a ball which is only being controlled by the goalkeeper using means other than the hands is open to otherwise legal challenges by an opponent. The referee should consider the age and skill level of the players in evaluating goalkeeper possession and err on the side of safety.

The key bit in here for me is “err on the side of safety”. At this highest level a player can “challenge” simply by stiffening his body or making a very minor move. When Pooe landed on the guy the player may have tried hard to stay on his feet despite a 15 stone Pope landing on him. That could be deemed to be a challenge.

Personally, I think that would have been soft, but “erring on the side of safety” means a free kick.

[basil6345789]

Fair point, but no foul.

If his head pushed it out of Pope's grip then it's a foul.

[Jakubclaret]

If his head pushed it out of Pope's grip then it's a foul.

That’s not true the defender is pretty much statuesque pope is holding the ball which drops onto the defenders head releasing the ball onto Wilson, it’s becoming every time we concede we are looking for liability beyond our own mistakes.

[boatshed bill]

It's hardly a clanger either.
Nick Pope has been coming for crosses, taking the pressure of the defenders, since he came into the side; one unfortunate situation...just one.
Let it go.

[NewClaret]

Yes, the Meslier decision was incorrect and why we were all up in arms about the terrible officiating. Yesterday’s decision was correct.

Massive differences between the Meslier decision & yesterday:

1. Meslier led with his knee. This is how GK’s are taught to jump to protect themselves, so no issue with that per se, but when it happens to land in to the back of a player legitimately challenging for the ball it’s a potential foul irrespective of what happens next.

2. Messier did not catch the ball. He never had it in both hands. He jumped and fumbled it mid air.

In those respects, the circumstances were completely different. The only similarities between the two incidents being that both Wilson & Barnes struck the ball well and high in to the net, giving the covering defenders no change of stopping the resultant shot.

[Rileybobs]

Massive differences between the Meslier decision & yesterday:

1. Meslier led with his knee. This is how GK’s are taught to jump to protect themselves, so no issue with that per se, but when it happens to land in to the back of a player legitimately challenging for the ball it’s a potential foul irrespective of what happens next.

2. Messier did not catch the ball. He never had it in both hands. He jumped and fumbled it mid air.

In those respects, the circumstances were completely different. The only similarities between the two incidents being that both Wilson & Barnes struck the ball well and high in to the net, giving the covering defenders no change of stopping the resultant shot.

I wasn’t comparing the incidents, I was just responding to someone who was. My point stands that the Meslier incident was called incorrectly by the ref, whereas the Pope incident was called correctly.

[bumba]

I didn't think Pope's was a foul and thought the goal should of stood but after reading Law 12 today regarding the Schmeichel incident then it should of been disallowed regardless as Pope was in control once the ball was in two hands

[Elizabeth]

There is no disputing that Pope was in control of the ball.
However , after that it was Pope who then lost control of the ball and was the one responsible for this by trying to catch a ball surrounded by other players . No push by any Newcastle player.
Punch next time you think about catching a ball while running forward into a crowd Nick

[BabylonClaret]

Just saw it again on Monday and looks like he gets a nudge in the backk which exaggerates his forward momentum. Slight but could arguably be a foul.

Hi hum

[CharlieinNewMexico]

Am I the only one that thought Schar flicked his head at the ball when in Popes hands? Definitely contravening Law 12.

[Swizzlestick]

Am I the only one that thought Schar flicked his head at the ball when in Popes hands? Definitely contravening Law 12.

You are not the only one.

[ClaretMov]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HslrzzQ4i_8

We had one chalked off