Popes clanger…

[NewClaret]

Thought he dropped it watching it live and initial views of the replays thought the same, but I’ve just watched it back in slow motion and he had it in both hands with the player heading it out. Entirely unintentionally of course, but once a goalkeeper has the ball in both hands, the opposition aren’t allowed to touch the ball are they?

[minnieclaret]

I’m wondering how much his previous shoulder injuries were in his mind as he was coming down over the Mag. We’ve got so used to him coming claiming everything it was a shock but I wouldn’t want to see him stop catching high balls and punching instead.

[NewClaret]

Me either. Looked initially like he’d done a great job at claiming it. One of those things but watching it back does feel like it was a closer call than I’d first thought.

[Jamesy]

Nothing wrong with what the Newcastle player did, he was simply in front of Pope when he gathered the ball and then dropped on top of him and duly let go of it. If the Newcastle player hadn’t have been there and Pope had come and claimed it then dropped onto the floor with the ball in his grasp we would have applauded his confident goalkeeping. Yes with the benefit of hindsight some would say he should have punched the ball away. These things can happen now and again. Having said that if it was Allison at Liverpool who had done what Nick did there is a chance the goal would have been disallowed.

[alboclaret]

What I'd a little frustrating is, if it happens in the 6yrd box it'd probably given the keepers way

[NewClaret]

Agreed, Newcastle player was helpless, did nothing wrong at all, but certainly played his part/impeded Pope spilling the ball when it was in both hands I would say…?

[Jamesy]

Agreed, Newcastle player was helpless, did nothing wrong at all, but certainly played his part/impeded Pope spilling the ball when it was in both hands I would say…?

Fair point, but no foul.

[NewClaret]

Fair point, but no foul.

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.

[arise_sir_charge]

It was unfortunate in more ways than one.

Generally when a keeper falls over like that with a player in close proximity the ref blows whether it’s a foul or not, so Tierney could easily have blown his whistle before Wilson scores (think Barnes at Leeds) and the game is stopped with people not thinking a great deal about it.

On this occasion the ref doesn’t blow and Wilson finishes well with VAR showing it’s not a foul.

[KRBFC]

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 Newcastle player didn't challenge for the ball, he made zero attempt to get the ball out of Pope's hands.

[boatshed bill]

just watched it again.
Pure bad luck, Pope falls over the forward and the ball bounces off the forward's head. No foul.

[NewClaret]

The Newcastle player didn't challenge for the ball, he made zero attempt to get the ball out of Pope's hands.

Or played by an opponent in any manner????

[Spijed]

The annoying thing about it all is that Meslier did exactly the same thing last season at Leeds and gets a foul, even managed to knee Ben Mee in the back.

Where's the fairness?

[Rowls]

The Newcastle player didn't challenge for the ball, he made zero attempt to get the ball out of Pope's hands.

Then he is impeding him.

I don’t think we got the correct decision on this one.

[Culmclaret]

By a strict interpretation of the laws it should have been disallowed because intentional or not the ball was played when Pope had it under control. That said these things happen and we move on.

[taio]

As most people said at the time it was never a foul on Pope. I also thought while watching the game it was more unfortunate than clanger. It's pretty irrelevant comparing to other possibly similar incidents.

[boatshed bill]

I think it's fair to see that if the situation was totally reversed, and Wood had scored from an identical situation , we would all be making an argument that the goal should stand

[RalphCoatesComb]

The most difficult position on the pitch, and the most thankless. There is no hiding place when errors are made - just ask The Beast, David DeGea, David Seaman, Jordan Pickford et al.

One mistake, move on !

[arise_sir_charge]

The goal should stand.

However, you do see similar things blown for each week where keepers are concerned.

[Quickenthetempo]

It wasn't a clanger and it wasn't a foul. There is a possible push in his back but they didn't show the replay on VAR enough to make an informed judgement.

From a GK point of view he comes and collects in the air with his eyes firmly on the ball. Then he bumps into the Newcastle player and despite still holding the ball firmly, the ball lands on a hard surface (his head) which won't move. With Pope's momentum still going down the only outcome was the ball coming out.

The safer option would be to punch but that just gives the ball back to the opposition as we don't leave players up field when defending.

An error would be dropping the ball of his own accord.

[Jimmymaccer]

As we know keeper howler often means goal……outfield howler usually means lots of waving of arms and no goal.

Pope hasn’t made many so on to The Hammers we go!

[minnieclaret]

Then he is impeding him.

I don’t think we got the correct decision on this one.

By not moving? He did nothing wrong.
We scored an excellent goal from a corner, a while back, by placing a player behind Pickford then delivering the ball over the top of them to the far post and Wood headed it in. Our player on Pickford made no attempt to get out of Pickfords way but he committed no sin.

[NewClaret]

From a GK point of view he comes and collects in the air with his eyes firmly on the ball. Then he bumps into the Newcastle player and despite still holding the ball firmly, the ball lands on a hard surface (his head) which won't move. With Pope's momentum still going down the only outcome was the ball coming out.

… but the rules say the opposition can’t play the ball in any manner. Had it been a Burnley head, or Pope had landed and it had slipped out, I’d agree, but it does seem on strict interpretation of the rules, it was a foul through no fault of the Newcastle player.

You’re right, wasn’t a clanger (wrong choice of thread title on my behalf). In fact no error on Popes behalf at all. He got some terrible scores on the player ratings thread and completely unfairly when looking at the rules.

It was an error by the ref not blowing up and VAR not over ruling, however harsh that may have been on Newcastle.

That goal changed the flow of the game from us being on top to us chasing it. No excuses, you make your own luck and we didn’t play well thereafter, but these decisions are certainly going against us this year.

[daveisaclaret]

Absolutely delusional to think it was anything other than a clanger by Pope.

[IanMcL]

Thought he dropped it watching it live and initial views of the replays thought the same, but I’ve just watched it back in slow motion and he had it in both hands with the player heading it out. Entirely unintentionally of course, but once a goalkeeper has the ball in both hands, the opposition aren’t allowed to touch the ball are they?

That is my point on the match thread. He had it in his hands and it was not him dropping it, it was their player realising the ball was in front of his nose and HE DID HEAD IT OUT OF POPE'S HANDS. Deliberate movement.

[NewClaret]

That is my point on the match thread. He had it in his hands and it was not him dropping it, it was their player realising the ball was in front of his nose and HE DID HEAD IT OUT OF POPE'S HANDS. Deliberate movement.

I’m going to have to watch it again now

[Claret]

Good goal. Pope a little unlucky that he fell on the Newcastle player’s bonce.

[KRBFC]

Then he is impeding him.

I don’t think we got the correct decision on this one.

Impeding him? is he supposed to vanish into thin air?

[NewClaret]

Just watched it again. Not sure Schar deliberately heads it out of Popes hands, but his head does move. Pope has a firm grip on the ball and it is Schar’s head that takes the ball out of his hands.

If the rule is that an opponent cannot play the ball in any manner it’s a certain foul and I have no idea how the ref or VAR didn’t pick up on that.

[beddie]

Nothing wrong with what the Newcastle player did, Pope was completely to blame for his own error, he was moaning a bucket full but there really is no excuse.

[Rileybobs]

… but the rules say the opposition can’t play the ball in any manner. Had it been a Burnley head, or Pope had landed and it had slipped out, I’d agree, but it does seem on strict interpretation of the rules, it was a foul through no fault of the Newcastle player.

You’re right, wasn’t a clanger (wrong choice of thread title on my behalf). In fact no error on Popes behalf at all. He got some terrible scores on the player ratings thread and completely unfairly when looking at the rules.

It was an error by the ref not blowing up and VAR not over ruling, however harsh that may have been on Newcastle.

That goal changed the flow of the game from us being on top to us chasing it. No excuses, you make your own luck and we didn’t play well thereafter, but these decisions are certainly going against us this year.

The Newcastle player didn’t play the ball in any manner. Pope dropped the ball on his head. It’s never a foul in a million years.

[elwaclaret]

I think one thing Burnley players especially need to learn is Burnley are not going to get fouls for jostling and collisions, we have lost possession so often this season expecting fouls, midfielders swept off the ball, less protection for the keeper etc. It has been proved time and time again this season Burnley’s ‘hard’ reputation means we cannot expect a foul against us to be the same as a foul for us. We need to be tougher to get off the ball this season than ever.

[NewClaret]

The Newcastle player didn’t play the ball in any manner. Pope dropped the ball on his head. It’s never a foul in a million years.

Pope did not drop the ball. He had it in two hands and as he was falling to the ground (gravity and all that), Schar’s head knocked it out of his hands. I looked carefully to see if he’d let go beforehand but he hadn’t.

My interpretation of the rules is if it’s in both hands (which it was), the keeper is protected from the opposition playing it (which they did, albeit perhaps not intentionally).

[elwaclaret]

Pope did not drop the ball. He had it in two hands and as he was falling to the ground (gravity and all that), Schar’s head knocked it out of his hands. I looked carefully to see if he’d let go beforehand but he hadn’t.

My interpretation of the rules is if it’s in both hands (which it was), the keeper is protected from the opposition playing it (which they did, albeit perhaps not intentionally).

Last season it would have been given as a foul, this season it is a keeper mistake, as it popped out so fast it was not deemed ‘under control’

[Rileybobs]

Pope did not drop the ball. He had it in two hands and as he was falling to the ground (gravity and all that), Schar’s head knocked it out of his hands. I looked carefully to see if he’d let go beforehand but he hadn’t.

My interpretation of the rules is if it’s in both hands (which it was), the keeper is protected from the opposition playing it (which they did, albeit perhaps not intentionally).

Pope brought the ball down onto Schar’s head. I don’t think your interpretation of the law is incorrect, but your interpretation of the incident is. If a goalkeeper has the ball in both hands and runs with his arms outstretched into an opposition player, is it a foul on the goalkeeper?

[beddie]

I think we’re all clutching as straws to be honest about the Pope incident. A big tall lad like him should be coming out and clearing everybody and everything in front him. He wants to watch some videos of keepers from the 60s and 70s and see what they had to deal with.

[jos]

Pope did not drop the ball. He had it in two hands and as he was falling to the ground (gravity and all that), Schar’s head knocked it out of his hands. I looked carefully to see if he’d let go beforehand but he hadn’t.

My interpretation of the rules is if it’s in both hands (which it was), the keeper is protected from the opposition playing it (which they did, albeit perhaps not intentionally).

^^^^this

If the Newcastle player had not been there then Pope would have kept hold of the ball, just because it was unintentional has NO bearing on the fact that our goalie was impeded.

[Quickenthetempo]

Absolutely delusional to think it was anything other than a clanger by Pope.

Please explain what Pope should do differently for next time?

[Roosterbooster]

I spoke to a GK coach last night about it. He said he'd be fuming if he was the keeper involved and was amazed I didn't think it should have been disallowed. And he's a rovers fan. But Schar didn't do anything. It was just unlucky

I'm more peeved about the sneaky nudge on Collins from Wilson when he clattered the post. I think that's a penalty

[Quickenthetempo]

… but the rules say the opposition can’t play the ball in any manner. Had it been a Burnley head, or Pope had landed and it had slipped out, I’d agree, but it does seem on strict interpretation of the rules, it was a foul through no fault of the Newcastle player.

You’re right, wasn’t a clanger (wrong choice of thread title on my behalf). In fact no error on Popes behalf at all. He got some terrible scores on the player ratings thread and completely unfairly when looking at the rules.

It was an error by the ref not blowing up and VAR not over ruling, however harsh that may have been on Newcastle.

That goal changed the flow of the game from us being on top to us chasing it. No excuses, you make your own luck and we didn’t play well thereafter, but these decisions are certainly going against us this year.

You would have to ask the referee types on here about the interpretations of the rules.

[daveisaclaret]

Please explain what Pope should do differently for next time?

He should not bounce the ball off an opponent’s bonce

[Spijed]

Pope brought the ball down onto Schar’s head. I don’t think your interpretation of the law is incorrect, but your interpretation of the incident is. If a goalkeeper has the ball in both hands and runs with his arms outstretched into an opposition player, is it a foul on the goalkeeper?

My gripe is that in the exact reverse incident last season we got penalised.

[Rileybobs]

My gripe is that in the exact reverse incident last season we got penalised.

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

[ksrclaret]

My gripe is that in the exact reverse incident last season we got penalised.

And it was the wrong decision. Yesterday the right decision was given. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

[IanMcL]

He should not bounce the ball off an opponent’s bonce

There is no U in bonce!

[Quickenthetempo]

He should not bounce the ball off an opponent’s bonce

So what could he do better to make sure it doesn't happen.
Take his eyes off the ball and check where people are for instance?

[arise_sir_charge]

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

The difference is that last year the ref blew before Barnes shot and so VAR could not intervene with that aspect, yesterday the ref chose not to blow, probably knowing that VAR could disallow the goal if he’s made the wrong call.

The most galling aspect of the Barnes one last year was that it should have been a penalty on Mee for the foul that’s was given and not a free kick to the keeper.

[Yorkshire Claret]

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.

[Devils_Advocate]

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 lost control of the ball due to his own action of hitting the ball on to the Newcastle players head. They have got the decision wrong today but its a completely different scenario to ours yesterday which was called right.

[Yorkshire Claret]

Just seen other thread pretty ironic that it is Tierney who thinks one is OK and the other not.