Defoe's 'goal' vs. Ukraine - ref?

Siv_in_Norfolk

Just wondered what our resident refs think of Defoe's goal against Ukraine being disallowed

The commentators on Canadian TV that I was watching said that Defoe was entitled to hold the Ukrainian off as he was in control of the ball

buuuut

on 606 Alan Green and some callers were saying that it was a foul and he wasn't allowed to do that

Am really unsure about the rules re: holding players off when you are in possession

refs?

oohaahmortimer

I think his hand was a bit high but obviously the ukrainian fella made a meal of it
On another note I could clearly hear the whistle had gone and I reckon the last defender did as well cos he appeared to restrain himself from diving in to block the shot but the commentators seemed oblivious to the whistle or the possibility the defender pulled back on his challenge

Addick Addict

It is a foul but the likes of Ardiles and Gazza used the "hand off" as a legitimate "weapon" and never got blown up for it.

Siv_in_Norfolk

When you say, "it's a foul", what do you mean?

sorry, not being pedantic....

am just trying to find out what rule this falls under

Man_About_Town

I think he means it's illegal to smack someone around the throat/face.

Bourneaddick

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame/law/newsid=1290868.html
LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT

Indirect free kick

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:


•controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession
•touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player
•touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate
•touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:


•plays in a dangerous manner
•IMPEDES THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT
•prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
•commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

The indirect free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

Thats what i think anyway !

cafc999

Also the ref only had a split second to call that. I thought it was the right decision. Only complaint of the ref was that he got a bit card happy in the 2nd half

Elthamaddick

never a foul, it'll become a non-contact sport soon at this rate, was a joke decision only made because their player made such a meal of it.

agree with Oohhaaahh, I definitely heard the whistle early as well

MuttleyCAFC

The player walked into the hand so anybody who knows about football could see it wasn't a foul. That statement is backed up further if Green said it was a foul and I think you could see that the ref wasn't good last night, although I don't think England can use that as an excuse.

Ross

Surely if it was a foul a he hit him in the face then it would've been a red card?

Addickted4life

The fact it was Judas who scored it meant that I was pleased it was disallowed.

randy andy

Ross said:

Surely if it was a foul a he hit him in the face then it would've been a red card?

Only if it was deemed he deliberately hit the opponent in the face. Accidental, but still illegal, contact happens all the time. The ref is under no duty to book the players involved unless he believes it was violent conduct.

thenewbie

randy andy said:

Ross said:

Surely if it was a foul a he hit him in the face then it would've been a red card?

Only if it was deemed he deliberately hit the opponent in the face. Accidental, but still illegal, contact happens all the time. The ref is under no duty to book the players involved unless he believes it was violent conduct.

Otherwise you'd end with (for example) Peter Crouch trying to 'just' hold off a shorter defender (e.g. Chris Perry) and being sent off for htting him in the head, when in reality it is just difference in height.

Airman Brown

Looked like a foul to me, but the (ITV) commentators were poor overall. Apart from that incident, when it was obvious the whistle had gone even from the feed, there was the penalty that never was in the second half (OK, it was worth a second look, but they called it completely wrong) followed by a "fantastic save from Joe Hart" which resulted in a goalkick because he never touched the ball. Cue long silence from the commentator.

It's not an easy job and I wouldn't attempt it for one, but I've heard it done better.

Plaaayer

Kept bringing up the goal that never was in the Euros as well, but never mentioned the fact that the player was actually offside.

WTF is Townsend doing on there anyway. No mark player and no mark commentator.

MOBY DUCK

Thought the referee came out with an agenda in the second half. Seemed to have already made his mind up that whatever team was chasing the game, would therefore be committing fouls at every challenge.

Also - I can't believe that it wasn't mentioned anywhere, either by the in game commentary or in the after-match studio chit-chat, that our Klingon at centre back directly contributed to their goal. Obviously we can't take anything away from the finish - but one of the Ukrainians was on the ground, with his back to goal and just getting up from a challenge, and Lescott (completely unchallenged) managed to pass the ball straight under his foot. The resulting possession and passing lead to the goal - which is probably why he looked so annoyed as the ball flew in.

dizzee

Foul

Siv_in_Norfolk

saw that, Moby

but lads... there isn't much in this thread about the rules re: holding a player off when in possession

bourneaddick has posted the 'obstruction' rule...which may apply
others have mentioned the illegality of catching somebody in the face

where are our resident refs?

What IS teh rule about holding people off....??? or is it as bourneaddick says?

colthe3rd

Surely Bourne answered the question by highlighting the rule that it is a foul if a player impedes the progress of another player. If that is the reason given for the foul then surely he could have argued he was shielding the ball? One area where I think the rules should be made more clear is when does shielding become impeding?

Siv_in_Norfolk

exactly... when does shielding become impeding?

smacking somebody in the face (even un intentioanlly) would seem to be be unfairly impeding

Sparrows Lane Lion

Normally if you are within a yard of the ball & it's within your ability to control it, that constitutes shielding the ball. That's what I was told as a young ref.

MuttleyCAFC

Unfortunately, like all rules it comes down to judgement. Some refs have better judgement than others. For me, it boils down to playing the game and knowing what goes on. Some refs do and some refs don't. I don't like to see kids reffing games as I think they learn more about becoming ref by playing. they might learn the rules but they don't learn the game. I have long been an advocate of a fast track for ex players and unsuprisingly, the biggest critic of this being adopted is refs!

Brendan_O_Connell

MuttleyCAFC said:

Unfortunately, like all rules it comes down to judgement. Some refs have better judgement than others. For me, it boils down to playing the game and knowing what goes on. Some refs do and some refs don't. I don't like to see kids reffing games as I think they learn more about becoming ref by playing. they might learn the rules but they don't learn the game. I have long been an advocate of a fast track for ex players and unsuprisingly, the biggest critic of this being adopted is refs!

Pretty much spot on for me Muttley. I think some young refs lack common sense when it comes to the game. They know the laws inside out and are very fit, but it's about having a bit of savvy.

I would love to see more ex-players as referees (like in Cricket) but as a player you see what shit the refs get every game. Why would you want to put yourself through that ? What incentives are there for ex-players to take up the whistle ?

MuttleyCAFC

Well, you have to make it sufficiently well paid so a League One, League 2 or Non League Player who may not be management material sees it as a career option or at least a way to supplement his current income. At the moment- it is a bit of a closed shop and by the time an ex player is fully trained they would be close to having to retire. I would imagine, it would take a year tops for an ex player to learn the rules - prove himself in lower level football if the will was there.

That doesn't mean it has to be brilliantly paid - these people are not millionaires. I'm sure there would be a very good supply of savvy competent refs at all levels of the game if this was encouraged.

kentaddick

Brendan_O_Connell said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Unfortunately, like all rules it comes down to judgement. Some refs have better judgement than others. For me, it boils down to playing the game and knowing what goes on. Some refs do and some refs don't. I don't like to see kids reffing games as I think they learn more about becoming ref by playing. they might learn the rules but they don't learn the game. I have long been an advocate of a fast track for ex players and unsuprisingly, the biggest critic of this being adopted is refs!

Pretty much spot on for me Muttley. I think some young refs lack common sense when it comes to the game. They know the laws inside out and are very fit, but it's about having a bit of savvy.

I would love to see more ex-players as referees (like in Cricket) but as a player you see what shit the refs get every game. Why would you want to put yourself through that ? What incentives are there for ex-players to take up the whistle ?

if anything it would possibly make the abuse less. I mean, you're a seasoned pro, you turn round to a what you think to be dodgy decision and its your old mate Jim from your old youth team blowing the whistle. I doubt there'd be much in the way of abuse from some of the players.

MuttleyCAFC

I think players will show more respect as they know the ref wouldn't fall for some of their stunts and would be less likely to believe any crap they are trying to spout.

Man_About_Town

If you were a player and you received a 'hand off' like the one Defoe used, would you expect to receive a free kick?

Siv_in_Norfolk

no, i wouldn't

that's the thing

Spankie

Under law 112 of the LoAF - Laws of Association Football...

IMPEDING THE PROGRES OF AN OPPONENT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent ot obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be failry chraged by an opponent.

I suppose the key phrase in there is "does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body". Defoe did do therefore in the referee's interpretation he was using his arms and I'm positive if a forward was shielding the ball by smacking a defender in the face that defender would 99 times out of 100 want a free kick :-)

Siv_in_Norfolk

Interesting

So there is specific provision in the rules for players not to hold others off with their arms

MuttleyCAFC

This is where the interpretation bit comes in. Some people can read things and work out what they mean and others take it too literally. If you have the mindset to want to be a ref - you are more likely to take everything too literally. There is a use for this type of thinking - accountants, tarinspotters etc... but refs that do not undertsand the game spoil it more often than not.

It was clear that the Ukraine player ensured contact was made as he was not going to catch Defoe - it was opportunistic and he was gambling that the ref was a wally - but it is hardly too much of a gamble with refs - odds on really!