I don't think the ref or linesman had much clue who'd done what. And I don't blame them for that. It was quick and a mass of bodies soon made it impossible to tell. They were then in a situation where they had to be seen to do something. I reckon they guessed Maxted and Taylor were the most likely culprits, but looking at videos it would appear they were not. Hopefully the EFL will use common sense and fix it, as Taylor is a big loss and it is simply unfair if he sits out 3 games for a red card that he potentially did not deserve.
And if you wait another 2 years, he may play as well again
I know you are tongue in cheek but he's been pretty good this season in one of those 2 shuttling midfielders roles. Gives us a creative player without losing the balance of the midfield.
All the while Aribo is out I would have him in there evey game.
On a side note only just seen the footage of Taylor sarcastically giving their player the thumbs up as he leaves the pitch. Enjoyed that.
It is a pity we will not know what’s in the referees report. It would be nice to know what the ref and Lino think they saw. I assume the club will know.
I am hoping that Bows had already spoken to the ref before his post match interview and already knew it was wrong.
Best outcome is that Taylor and the goalie get the red overturned as mistaken identity and the two players that were kicking/ stamping are banned for the rest of the season.
Solly deserves a lot of credit for sprinting over and shielding the lino after their players absolutely went for him. Surprised it hasn’t been mentioned.
Personally I didn't think it was his job to get involved and protect the lino, as that risks getting yourself involved when it had nothing to do with us. Indeed LET the Stanley players overstep the mark
He wasn't protecting the linesman. He was stopping the AS players getting the lino to change his decision !
But officials never change their mind over a decision unless convinced the decision was factually wrong, which is incredibly rare and not the case here anyway.
It's like with a bad tackle leading to a red card instead of a yellow. The foul isn't in dispute, so it doesn't matter how much the players moan.
Solly deserves a lot of credit for sprinting over and shielding the lino after their players absolutely went for him. Surprised it hasn’t been mentioned.
Personally I didn't think it was his job to get involved and protect the lino, as that risks getting yourself involved when it had nothing to do with us. Indeed LET the Stanley players overstep the mark
He wasn't protecting the linesman. He was stopping the AS players getting the lino to change his decision !
But officials never change their mind over a decision unless convinced the decision was factually wrong, which is incredibly rare and not the case here anyway.
It's like with a bad tackle leading to a red card instead of a yellow. The foul isn't in dispute, so it doesn't matter how much the players moan.
But the officials missed the stamp/kicks and failed to act on lino getting surrounded. Better to exonerate each side than own up to incompetency.
Solly deserves a lot of credit for sprinting over and shielding the lino after their players absolutely went for him. Surprised it hasn’t been mentioned.
Personally I didn't think it was his job to get involved and protect the lino, as that risks getting yourself involved when it had nothing to do with us. Indeed LET the Stanley players overstep the mark
He wasn't protecting the linesman. He was stopping the AS players getting the lino to change his decision !
But officials never change their mind over a decision unless convinced the decision was factually wrong, which is incredibly rare and not the case here anyway.
It's like with a bad tackle leading to a red card instead of a yellow. The foul isn't in dispute, so it doesn't matter how much the players moan.
But the officials missed the stamp/kicks and failed to act on lino getting surrounded. Better to exonerate each side than own up to incompetency.
Looking at it multiple times, there was something they reacted to. I think it was an over-reaction and definitely no assault and the camera was panning away, but probably enough to do for him, if that is what the ref's assistant saw. Had there been no reaction, it was probably a booking, but I think their keeper was hard done by there with the red. He clearly wasn't hurt though and 14 and 15 should have been sent off.
High marks for Purrington on the player marks thread; I thought he looked like a cross between Danny Seabourne and Carl Tiler. Other than being left footed, no better than the Dijksteel-Solly combination
Purrington has played TWO games and he's been fine, not great but fine. I can't recall him making a mistake of any consequence. He may have, can you recall any ?
Solly deserves a lot of credit for sprinting over and shielding the lino after their players absolutely went for him. Surprised it hasn’t been mentioned.
Personally I didn't think it was his job to get involved and protect the lino, as that risks getting yourself involved when it had nothing to do with us. Indeed LET the Stanley players overstep the mark
He wasn't protecting the linesman. He was stopping the AS players getting the lino to change his decision !
But officials never change their mind over a decision unless convinced the decision was factually wrong, which is incredibly rare and not the case here anyway.
It's like with a bad tackle leading to a red card instead of a yellow. The foul isn't in dispute, so it doesn't matter how much the players moan.
I've definitely seen officials change their decision after being harangued by players.
Not in a situation like that. Where it happens, a ref is persuaded to consult another official and changes his mind based on the officials advice. Here, the official had already given his opinion. To be honest, I think Solly was being a good pro and tried to stop them getting into trouble. I think he told an Accrington player that afterwards and got a friendly pat for it.
Personally believe Taylor had a little kick on having watched the replays, but it might have been the way he went down. Either way can’t see it being overturned.
Also believe it was a penalty. His arms were up and although slightly harsh, that’s not something you can do.
Wasn’t there but sounds like they were a right dirty bunch who deserved it.
To be fair, it would be arrogant of us to expect them to try to outplay us. They had to be physical, a bit niggly and work extremely hard to press us. They had to try to get something from the game and they are not a charity. I think they put so much effort into it that they over-reacted to the penalty decision somewhat. We need to forget them and look to Posh now. We can't afford to slip up if we are targeting the automatics. There are genuinely five teams in it which means it is reasonable to suppose that two or three of them (including us) at least will finish strongly. If we can get a couple of wins, the rest may be good for Taylor for the battles ahead without it damaging us.
I think we need to hope that Luton have a setback and then see how they react to it. I think Pompey were beaten twice in their first 28 games and have been beaten 3 times in their last 5 so slips can happen at any time.
High marks for Purrington on the player marks thread; I thought he looked like a cross between Danny Seabourne and Carl Tiler. Other than being left footed, no better than the Dijksteel-Solly combination
He has been steady and is obviously a natural left footer. It has allowed Solly to revert to his natural side which is a big part of why Bowyer wanted the loan. Both things together make this a better combination than Dijksteel-Solly.
I co-manage an U18 side and get parents sometimes giving me advice - We brought in a defender a couple of months ago with a bit of pace as I felt we needed that as we were conceding some sloppy goals. Our overall defensive performances have improved significantly, but I have had parents say, X has been a bit disapointing, he hasn't stood out. I said, I don't care if he stands out, what I care about is the defence is now much stronger with him in it.
We have a striker who misses a few easy chances. Again, I am advised to drop him or bring him off during games. But he is the joint top scorer in the league. I was advised this at our last game and my reply was that he might miss a few, but he scores a goal a game on average, and five minutes later he scored again. I don't believe somebody else would get the chances he misses, frustrating that it is.
Sometimes you have to look at the results/statistic s rather than aspects of individual performances.
Purrington as played two games and we have not conceded in both. Early days, but I would say that is a great start for him.
“Handling the ball involves a DELIBERATE act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm."
The point about yesterday is that it was a decision that had to be made and I think the fact the hand moved to the ball and was in a blocking position did for the player, but it is a decision that could have gone either way IMO.
The use of the word “Deliberate” in handball debates has always bothered and irritated me. Pundits often discuss handballs using this word, apparently without knowing what it means. Having said that, the word is in the Law, so I guess we can’t blame them?
Anyway, the law states that handball should be penalised if “deliberate”. Now, “deliberate” in any context is defined as: adjective, meaning “done consciously and intentionally”. However, the laws also state that there are additional factors that a referee must consider to determine whether it’s “deliberate” or not - eg distance and time from where/when the ball is struck and “unnatural arm position”.
So, for a handball to be ruled an offence, it doesn’t strictly have to be “deliberate”. It merely has to be avoidable. Defenders very rarely “consciously and intentionally” handle the ball, they simply aren’t quick enough to get their unnaturally positioned hands out of the way. (Example of an exception to this is Shaun Bartlett’s brilliant save at White Hart Lane. )
Which opens the next can of worms which is whether the defender had time to get his hands out of the way. The referee has to consider the position of the hands AND the time available to avoid handball. At the end of the day, it’s a judgement call as to whether these factors mean the defender could have avoided handball by either keeping his arms in a natural position or having time to withdraw them. In Saturday’s case, the officials felt that he could have avoided handball by either hand position or reaction time (or a combination of these). It’s still contentious, just as many of these decisions are due to the very nature of it being a judgement call. In my opinion, looking at it again, he shouldn’t have his arms there - so it’s a handball.
As for the word “deliberate”, in my opinion the wording of the law should be changed and the word “deliberate” should be replaced by “avoidable”. Allowing, of course, for the defender having the right to challenge an attacker legally.
I co-manage an U18 side and get parents sometimes giving me advice - We brought in a defender a couple of months ago with a bit of pace as I felt we needed that as we were conceding some sloppy goals. Our overall defensive performances have improved significantly, but I have had parents say, X has been a bit disapointing, he hasn't stood out. I said, I don't care if he stands out, what I care about is the defence is now much stronger with him in it.
We have a striker who misses a few easy chances. Again, I am advised to drop him or bring him off during games. But he is the joint top scorer in the league. I was advised this at our last game and my reply was that he might miss a few, but he scores a goal a game on average, and five minutes later he scored again. I don't believe somebody else would get the chances he misses, frustrating that it is.
Sometimes you have to look at the results/statistic s rather than aspects of individual performances.
Purrington as played two games and we have not conceded in both. Early days, but I would say that is a great start for him.
Good post, Muttley. It's a team game and requires everyone to do their job efficiently, and work together to produce the right result. As you point out, both with your U18 team and Purrington, introduce a steady reliable player and team performances /results have improved significantly. It will also provide a dependable platform for more talented players to do their stuff. Bowyer will see 2 clean sheets in the 2 games Purrington has played - that's exactly what he was looking for.
I liked your story of your U18 team striker ..... of course he will miss chances, like all strikers, regardless of level. But your lad gets a lot of chances and that's no accident, he's in the right place at the right time - so he's anticipating and reading the game well, and converting a decent percentage. The fact he's your League joint top scorer tells the true story.
From the NW it looked to me as though Taylor fouled the goalie before the disallowed goal, stupidly, since he had just been warned by the ref about obstructing him. Otherwise the goal would have stood, the goalie would not have stopped it, and there would have been none of the other shenanigans.
Taylor was totally fouling the keeper pulling him back from behind and that’s why the goal was disallowed. Would have been a harsh yellow on Taylor.
The keeper and Taylor ended on the floor, the keeper got up and Taylor got kicked and stamped on by at least 2 of their players.
Accrington has always players should have been sent off for getting in the Lino’s face like that after the penalty award.
Would love to see the footage from the tunnel cam from after the game but I’m guessing we won’t, club officials after the game very tight lipped about that one.
That is not a player pulling a goalkeeper back from behind.
However, as he keeps getting penalised for what he does, maybe it’s time to try a different tactic at corners?
Ah but it is a player making a back for the keeper. Having said that, Lyle did that while holding the ball up for most of the game and wasn't penalised once by the ref.
I’m sure with all those pro zone cameras or whatever they are if there’s footage of an innocent Taylor lying on the floor doing nothing we’d eventually see it
Ok I have no life and have taken screen shots from phone of penalty so expect about 30 photos showing 3 different pics to turn up and fill the whole of your computer screen
He “deliberately” made an action to put his arm in that “un-natural” position. The fact he may not have “deliberately” handled the ball is irrelevant.
Show me a picture of a player attempting to kick a ball with his right foot with his right arm thrown forward. Natural action is to throw arm backwards to remain balanced.
If the word avoidable replaced deliberate it wouldn't change things much. I think people are trying to over-complicate the law, which is understandable considering its weakness. What the law is trying to say in my opinion is if you mean to handle the ball, it is hand ball. The following parts are there to clarify how the judgement should be made.
In terms of the unnatural position, I think that is in there because you can use your arms to make yourself bigger. Otherwise a player could say, yes I put my hand in the air, but the ball was moving too fast for me to handle it on purpose. The ball may hit your hand or arm but this is where the avoidable aspect comes in. The problem with Saturday's penalty is a decision had to be made one way or the other. Whatever way it went, somebody could argue it was wrong. Something that is controversial ought to be clearly wrong, and this doesn't fall into that category.
Also look how quickly the arm dropped afterwards, he was making himself big to block the goal and then when the ball hit his outstretched arm he knew he was in trouble. Considering how quick it all happened it is a good spot by the lino, however it is one of those that leaves a bad taste in your mouth when it is given against you.
If the word avoidable replaced deliberate it wouldn't change things much. I think people are trying to over-complicate the law, which is understandable considering its weakness. What the law is trying to say in my opinion is if you mean to handle the ball, it is hand ball. The following parts are there to clarify how the judgement should be made.
In terms of the unnatural position, I think that is in there because you can use your arms to make yourself bigger. Otherwise a player could say, yes I put my hand in the air, but the ball was moving too fast for me to handle it on purpose. The ball may hit your hand or arm but this is where the avoidable aspect comes in. The problem with Saturday's penalty is a decision had to be made one way or the other. Whatever way it went, somebody could argue it was wrong. Something that is controversial ought to be clearly wrong, and this doesn't fall into that category.
But the point is, the word deliberate doesn’t apply in many cases, but avoidable does. The defender may put his arms up to ‘make himself bigger’ but he’s not deliberately handling the ball - that’s not his intention. What he’s being penalised for is failing to take reasonable steps to avoid handling the ball. You could argue that he’s gambled on the ball not hitting his arm - but he still hasn’t meant to handle it, he would actually prefer not to! That’s the opposite of deliberate! It may seem like not much of a difference, but the use of the word deliberate still gets used wrongly every time this debate comes up on tv, radio and websites, partly because the additional considerations in the laws mean deliberate is the wrong word to use.
Unless the law was changed so that handling the ball was always penalised unless your arms are held tight to your body, (which would be awful, imho), then these decisions will always be open to interpretation.
But the point is, the player doesn’t have to have meant to handle it, just that he could’ve done something to avoid it, even if it’s preemptive, like the way he held his body before the incident.
Comments
It was on balance the correct decision to award a penalty BUT if it had gone against us yesterday I would have gone home steaming!
Regarding Taylor's red card, have a look on the highlights footage 1:38 in;
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/competitions/league-one/11612171/charlton-1-0-accrington but don't blink it is a quick flick with his leg when he is first on the ground before being surrounded in the melee.
All the while Aribo is out I would have him in there evey game.
On a side note only just seen the footage of Taylor sarcastically giving their player the thumbs up as he leaves the pitch. Enjoyed that.
I am hoping that Bows had already spoken to the ref before his post match interview and already knew it was wrong.
Best outcome is that Taylor and the goalie get the red overturned as mistaken identity and the two players that were kicking/ stamping are banned for the rest of the season.
It's like with a bad tackle leading to a red card instead of a yellow. The foul isn't in dispute, so it doesn't matter how much the players moan.
I can't recall him making a mistake of any consequence.
He may have, can you recall any ?
Also believe it was a penalty. His arms were up and although slightly harsh, that’s not something you can do.
Wasn’t there but sounds like they were a right dirty bunch who deserved it.
I think we need to hope that Luton have a setback and then see how they react to it. I think Pompey were beaten twice in their first 28 games and have been beaten 3 times in their last 5 so slips can happen at any time.
We have a striker who misses a few easy chances. Again, I am advised to drop him or bring him off during games. But he is the joint top scorer in the league. I was advised this at our last game and my reply was that he might miss a few, but he scores a goal a game on average, and five minutes later he scored again. I don't believe somebody else would get the chances he misses, frustrating that it is.
Sometimes you have to look at the results/statistic s rather than aspects of individual performances.
Purrington as played two games and we have not conceded in both. Early days, but I would say that is a great start for him.
Pundits often discuss handballs using this word, apparently without knowing what it means. Having said that, the word is in the Law, so I guess we can’t blame them?
Anyway, the law states that handball should be penalised if “deliberate”. Now, “deliberate” in any context is defined as: adjective, meaning “done consciously and intentionally”. However, the laws also state that there are additional factors that a referee must consider to determine whether it’s “deliberate” or not - eg distance and time from where/when the ball is struck and “unnatural arm position”.
So, for a handball to be ruled an offence, it doesn’t strictly have to be “deliberate”. It merely has to be avoidable. Defenders very rarely “consciously and intentionally” handle the ball, they simply aren’t quick enough to get their unnaturally positioned hands out of the way. (Example of an exception to this is Shaun Bartlett’s brilliant save at White Hart Lane.
Which opens the next can of worms which is whether the defender had time to get his hands out of the way. The referee has to consider the position of the hands AND the time available to avoid handball. At the end of the day, it’s a judgement call as to whether these factors mean the defender could have avoided handball by either keeping his arms in a natural position or having time to withdraw them. In Saturday’s case, the officials felt that he could have avoided handball by either hand position or reaction time (or a combination of these).
It’s still contentious, just as many of these decisions are due to the very nature of it being a judgement call.
In my opinion, looking at it again, he shouldn’t have his arms there - so it’s a handball.
As for the word “deliberate”, in my opinion the wording of the law should be changed and the word “deliberate” should be replaced by “avoidable”. Allowing, of course, for the defender having the right to challenge an attacker legally.
I liked your story of your U18 team striker ..... of course he will miss chances, like all strikers, regardless of level. But your lad gets a lot of chances and that's no accident, he's in the right place at the right time - so he's anticipating and reading the game well, and converting a decent percentage. The fact he's your
League joint top scorer tells the true story.
In terms of the unnatural position, I think that is in there because you can use your arms to make yourself bigger. Otherwise a player could say, yes I put my hand in the air, but the ball was moving too fast for me to handle it on purpose. The ball may hit your hand or arm but this is where the avoidable aspect comes in. The problem with Saturday's penalty is a decision had to be made one way or the other. Whatever way it went, somebody could argue it was wrong. Something that is controversial ought to be clearly wrong, and this doesn't fall into that category.
The defender may put his arms up to ‘make himself bigger’ but he’s not deliberately handling the ball - that’s not his intention. What he’s being penalised for is failing to take reasonable steps to avoid handling the ball. You could argue that he’s gambled on the ball not hitting his arm - but he still hasn’t meant to handle it, he would actually prefer not to! That’s the opposite of deliberate!
It may seem like not much of a difference, but the use of the word deliberate still gets used wrongly every time this debate comes up on tv, radio and websites, partly because the additional considerations in the laws mean deliberate is the wrong word to use.
Unless the law was changed so that handling the ball was always penalised unless your arms are held tight to your body, (which would be awful, imho), then these decisions will always be open to interpretation.
But the point is, the player doesn’t have to have meant to handle it, just that he could’ve done something to avoid it, even if it’s preemptive, like the way he held his body before the incident.