• This website uses cookies. More information.
  • The This Is Anfield Forums community is moving to a new home. Click here for more information on the transition.

Post Match West Ham 1 Liverpool 2

Joe90

A Dalglish and a Rush and the Cup is ours
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
1,490
Slapping a player around the head in the manner Carroll did is a yellow card. It's 'unsporting behaviour'.

Intent is irrelevant unless you're judging handball.

Reffed for 25 years.
 

sportbilly1966

TIA New Signing
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,779
Joe90 said:
Slapping a player around the head in the manner carroll did is a yellow card. Its 'unsporting behaviour'.Intent is irrelevant unless youre judging handball. Reffed for 25 years.
Yep and I have come across plenty of long standing referees who don't know the rules or the correct way to implement them
;-)

Just depends whether you class it under "strikes or attempts to strike an opponent"
Careless, reckless or using excessive force
 

sportbilly1966

TIA New Signing
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,779
In the end we can all have different interpretations as to whether he should have had a card but the overriding factor is that it was a Foul! And the referee got it wrong which he has admitted fortunately it didn't cost us 3 points
 

Joe90

A Dalglish and a Rush and the Cup is ours
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
1,490
Gibberish??? GIBBERISH??!??

That's just plain harsh, bro... :(
 

gr_sounder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,596
sportbilly1966 said:
I have been out of the refereeing circle for quite a bit (was a a referee instructor) but isn't the key wording "denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity by a player moving directly towards goal" unless this has changed then this answers the question that in this case Suarez cut back and wasn't moving towards goal therefore only a caution as you say
You are absolutely correct. The wording is "denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick"

This is where some of the angles "could" come into play (in my opinion). If you watch the play, when Suarez cuts the ball back, he is about 10 yards from the endline, but also is outside of the left post. When he cuts the ball back, he is not moving closer to the endline but rather parallel to the endline (possibly further back) but he is definitely moving the ball centrally - taking it definitely closer to the goal, which I think could be considered "towards" the player's goal as if he was coming in from the side at the goal.

Again, I wouldn't have given red in this situation, but if someone did, I think they could probably justify it... though there is no way I would have done so.

By the way, good to see another from the refereeing circle... especially one from England... would be interesting to see if there were any slight differences to how it was done in England versus the States.
 

LiverpoolRed

Come on Redmen!!
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
478
JoebloggsLFC said:
Erm.....i don't think so, your post was sketchy at best.....you took it upon yourself to blame Mignolet for "that decision..." although i am yet to hear anyone else mention anything of the sort.....the talk was & still is about the Ref & Caroll's foul....

Go figure....
Erm...yeah....I never blamed Mignolet for the goal, bloggsy.
 

gr_sounder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,596
Joe90 said:
Slapping a player around the head in the manner carroll did is a yellow card. Its 'unsporting behaviour'.

Intent is irrelevant unless youre judging handball.

Reffed for 25 years.
Under Cautions for unsporting behaviour:
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player commits in a reckless manner one of the seven offences that incur a direct free kick (which is the first bullet under the interpretations).

So, as SportBilly1966 mentioned, you have to determine if you think it was careless, reckless, or excessive force. I agree with him that it was careless or reckless. Personally I don't think it was obviously reckless, but could see it being seen that way.
 

schmee

Master of Ashla and Bogan.
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
2,744
geebo said:
excellent read.

Maybe you should be our "resident ref" , Or our "go to" ref to clear up questionable decisions (or at least give your opinion).
I'll do that if you want.

I should warn you though that bar an occasional Sunday league game I've no idea about reffereeing and will generally be incredibly biased towards Us when giving my viewpoint on the decisions :) .
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
schmee said:
I'll do that if you want.

I should warn you though that bar an occasional Sunday league game I've no idea about reffereeing and will generally be incredibly biased towards Us when giving my viewpoint on the decisions :) .
I see no downside to this arrangement. Shall we get you a job at the FA?
 

huwzie

TIA Regular
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,465
Massive win for us. Massive. I know they are all big games but in the past we might have panicked and ended up losing it by a late goal.

It was one of them games we all knew would happen. West ham under that knob head big Sam. He'd have loved to have put one over on us for his good mate. It showed that the team are willing to dig in deep to churn out results. Which keeps the momentum going into the next one.

So happy right now. At one point, especially before half time I thought oh shit, what if it starts getting to the players now.

But fair dos they came out fighting and killed the game off comfortably.

Keep it up lads .
 

Walter Sobchak

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
2,175
schmee said:
I'll do that if you want.

I should warn you though that bar an occasional Sunday league game I've no idea about reffereeing and will generally be incredibly biased towards Us when giving my viewpoint on the decisions :) .
Thats it then! Joe, Billy and Gr_Sounder can all bugger off, Schmee the obvious choice for resident Ref!!
 

Bobbinho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,700
LiverpoolRed said:
Erm...yeah....I never blamed Mignolet for the goal, bloggsy.
You posted this....

"Heads didn't even drop after that terrible Mignolet decision" in the context of how it could have cost us....

Which i questioned.....& you chose not to answer....instead preferring to have a dig at how easy it was to understand...whilst finishing your post with.... bloggsy twice, clearly another dig...
 

Joe90

A Dalglish and a Rush and the Cup is ours
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
1,490
We can't definitely tell what Carroll 'intended' to do, as you could argue that he meant to handle the ball just as much as you could argue that he meant to strike Mig.

This ambiguity is why judging intent for all fouls except handball was removed from the Laws of the Game years ago,

Intent is still in there for handball because there are so many instances where the ball is struck at a player's arm or because of the bounce (happened a few games ago to our Glen Johnson) it hits them in the arm. The fact that a football bounces is just bad luck for the aggrieved team.

But intent is not to be considered by referees when judging any other Law 12 infringement (it baffles me why commentators still talk like the ref has judged the player's intent).

So what did we see Carroll ACTUALLY DO, and can we judge the context?

He reached up and hit Mig on the back of the head with his hand when a bunch of players were going up to challenge for a ball delivered from a corner..

So it was, under Law 12, a foul, as you're not allowed to strike a player in the head with your hand.

Was it a real pub-level smack? No, it was not that violent, but it was obviously enough to cause Mig to drop the ball.

It was just a case of a flailing arm either, as you can see Carroll definitely move his hand towards Mig.

So the correct call is: direct free kick (strikes or attempts to strike an opponent) and yellow card for unsporting behaviour.

It couldn't be a yellow for a 'reckless challenge', as an outfielder is not allowed to challenge for the ball with their arms.
 

sportbilly1966

TIA New Signing
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,779
gr_sounder said:
You are absolutely correct. The wording is "denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick"

This is where some of the angles "could" come into play (in my opinion). If you watch the play, when Suarez cuts the ball back, he is about 10 yards from the endline, but also is outside of the left post. When he cuts the ball back, he is not moving closer to the endline but rather parallel to the endline (possibly further back) but he is definitely moving the ball centrally - taking it definitely closer to the goal, which I think could be considered "towards" the player's goal as if he was coming in from the side at the goal.

Again, I wouldn't have given red in this situation, but if someone did, I think they could probably justify it... though there is no way I would have done so.

By the way, good to see another from the refereeing circle... especially one from England... would be interesting to see if there were any slight differences to how it was done in England versus the States.
Always funny to hear commentators and supporters talking about incidents and what should & shouldn't be awarded without knowing the 'Laws of the game'
However you would also be surprised how little some refs in local football know too :)

One thing that is always up for debate is interpretation.

A great example is Flanno penalty, which in my opinion it was rightly given as the Keeper held his foot after the initial contact on the ball

One thing I always taught referees were to be honest, if you couldn't see something tell the players that! They appreciate it more than blogging it.
schmee said:
I'll do that if you want.

I should warn you though that bar an occasional Sunday league game I've no idea about reffereeing and will generally be incredibly biased towards Us when giving my viewpoint on the decisions :) .
Can you ref next week against City ..... please
 

sportbilly1966

TIA New Signing
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,779
Joe90 said:
We can't definitely tell what Carroll 'intended' to do, as you could argue that he meant to handle the ball just as much as you could argue that he meant to strike Mig.

This ambiguity is why judging intent for all fouls except handball was removed from the Laws of the Game years ago,

Intent is still in there for handball because there are so many instances where the ball is struck at a player's arm or because of the bounce (happened a few games ago to our Glen Johnson) it hits them in the arm. The fact that a football bounces is just bad luck for the aggrieved team.

But intent is not to be considered by referees when judging any other Law 12 infringement (it baffles me why commentators still talk like the ref has judged the player's intent).

So what did we see Carroll ACTUALLY DO, and can we judge the context?

He reached up and hit Mig on the back of the head with his hand when a bunch of players were going up to challenge for a ball delivered from a corner..

So it was, under Law 12, a foul, as you're not allowed to strike a player in the head with your hand.

Was it a real pub-level smack? No, it was not that violent, but it was obviously enough to cause Mig to drop the ball.

It was just a case of a flailing arm either, as you can see Carroll definitely move his hand towards Mig.

So the correct call is: direct free kick (strikes or attempts to strike an opponent) and yellow card for unsporting behaviour.

It couldn't be a yellow for a 'reckless challege', as an outfielder is not allowed to challenge for the ball with their arms.
When talking regarding striking or attempting to strike, the award always takes into context "careless, reckless or using excessive force" however Carroll could have been punished for "dangerous play" same as a high foot. There is no doubt that Carroll led withe arm deliberately to try and impede Mignolet whether he intended to hit him on the head or not is up for conjecture.

On another note one gripe I have is when a keeper comes out to punch the ball and hits the opponent instead, that should be a penalty as well :) but it never happens????

Anyway let's get back to the thread
 

Claymenza

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
1,844
The argument that carroll should be refereed differently is the same argument we had with peter crouch.

When the beanpole went to the world cup in 06, the gameplan quickly went to shite once they found out that referees were calling fouls whenever the defenders were getting bullied. That tactic wasn't even good to begin with.

The difference with crouch is that he actually had the finesse to play the ball on the ground or bring the ball down, although carroll never does this.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
Joe90 said:
So what did we see Carroll ACTUALLY DO, and can we judge the context?

He reached up and hit Mig on the back of the head with his hand when a bunch of players were going up to challenge for a ball delivered from a corner..
.
Huh? Laws of the game also said when the keeper had both hands on the ball, an outfield player cannot knock it out of his hands which clearly after the smack on the head, Carroll's hand followed through to hit Mignolet's arms and he then dropped the ball he caught in midair. That is a foul in every law and angle you see, it is a foul. He may not have the intention to hurt Mignolet, but he certainly has the intention to get the ball off Mignolet's arms for him to drop it and his teammate to score.
 

DeathOrGlory

Fortune Favours the Gegenpress
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
7,169
Joe90 said:
Gibberish??? GIBBERISH??!??

That's just plain harsh, bro... :(
I like your posts mate. Yes that was harsh from him, and just a bit hypocritical as well...



In terms of dodgy ref decisions, it's all good in my opinion. We fully deserved the first. The absolutely didn't deserve their equaliser. We got a "lucky" pen, evening up the bad refereeing.

Ending up with a net of +1 to us. All's fair. Nice of Taylor to realise that he fucked up big time, and give us our deserved lead back.
 

jayrrardno8

TIA Reserve Team
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
1,175
Just heard Gerrard saying that west ham had dirty tricks before the game even kicked off.
the team bus had to park a mile away from the ground.
the away dressing room was roasting hot
and music blairing out.
 

gingerbread

TIA Squad Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
5,720
They also didn't water the grass to prevent us playing on the ground. Maybe that's why Sturridge shot keeps head upward
 

DeathOrGlory

Fortune Favours the Gegenpress
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
7,169
In a way, I'm totally fine with those tactics by West Ham. We used to do it ourselves, back in Shankly's time. Didn't we invite the opposing manager into the Bootroom after the match, for "pleasantries" and cups of tea, when actually we'd be picking his brains for information that we could use against them next time.

If anything, it will instill a better "winning mentality" among the squad. Knowing that they've thwarted the best efforts of the bunch of brutes run by Allardyce must give a nice buzz.
 

gr_sounder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,596
lfc.eddie said:
Huh? Laws of the game also said when the keeper had both hands on the ball, an outfield player cannot knock it out of his hands which clearly after the smack on the head, Carroll's hand followed through to hit Mignolet's arms and he then dropped the ball he caught in midair. That is a foul in every law and angle you see, it is a foul. He may not have the intention to hurt Mignolet, but he certainly has the intention to get the ball off Mignolet's arms for him to drop it and his teammate to score.
Technically.... the laws do not say that "when the keeper has both hands on the ball, and outfield player cannot knock it out of his hands"

What the laws (or interpretations) do say is: "When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent".

Note that in this case, the term "hands" does NOT mean "both hands" but rather with the use of the hand(s)/arms. The goalkeeper can gain possession of the ball with one hand, one arm, or one finger... as long as the keeper has gained control, they cannot be challenged by an opponent. While I know this is the same gist as what you said, I was responding to the "both hands" portion.
 

blndcat

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
163
Not my favourite game of the season, only game I haven't rewatched on MOTD. We did what we had to, get the 3 points. I actually think that West Ham played well in the first half, stiffling our flow and breaking up our rhythm. We didn't get many balls that were punted up to Carroll and Downing made it past our defence a number of times. A change in formation and Lucas coming on improved things in the second half. Downing went missing, so much so I had to check the match report to see if he was subbed!

I've read that West Ham, both the chairman and some spokesman are refuting Stevie's claims (bus, changing rooms, pitch and more) but who are they kidding, it wasn't the first time Stevie's been to Upton Park. We (the crowd) should remember it for next season when they come to visit. I don't think the club should stoop to their level but the crowd should make it as uncomfortable as they can for the hammers on the day.
 

OOTer

TIA New Signing
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
925
At which point it becomes subjective as to whether the ball is 'under control'. There is a similar rule in rugby with regards scoring a try and the ball being under control.

So did Mig have it under control?

I'd love to know what the lino and ref talked about. I thought they now record the mics too. Why can't we hear this after the match?
 

Joe90

A Dalglish and a Rush and the Cup is ours
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
1,490
Dont see whether mig had the ball under control or not negates the fact that carrol hit him in the back of the head.
 

CJ_LFC

I am boss!
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
918
Quality that. You never see any of the away lads moaning about pyro.