Rob wrote:If you pull the shirt of an opposing player inside the penalty area then you run the risk of a referee actually doing his job - on the basis that this sort of thing is rarely given we were clearly very unlucky but if referees applied the laws correctly then we would see this decision being given more often until eventually players realised a foul (which this was) in the area can cost you a goal. I accept all the counter arguments, mainly the fact few refs give this sort of decision, but it absolutely was a foul - where the ball was is utterly irrelevant in law, something Foy should know but appears to have forgotten in his retirement. Bottom line, we were unlucky that this referee actually did his job when most abdicate responsibility leading to the sort of fouls we see against Lucas, Aden and others almost every game - so what do we want, change the laws to allow shirt pulling, or we just accept these things are subjective? Remember, take a look at VAR and the disaster that is, trying to make factual decisions from subjective situations - in my view VAR should only ever be used for offside, ball in and out and serious foul play - trying to take out subjectivity will never, ever work. I'd much rather live with ref mistakes (they get over 90% of decisions right without VAR) and be able to celebrate goals, than have to wait 5 minutes before I know my team has scored. Be very careful what you wish for.
Rob wrote:If you pull the shirt of an opposing player inside the penalty area then you run the risk of a referee actually doing his job - on the basis that this sort of thing is rarely given we were clearly very unlucky but if referees applied the laws correctly then we would see this decision being given more often until eventually players realised a foul (which this was) in the area can cost you a goal. I accept all the counter arguments, mainly the fact few refs give this sort of decision, but it absolutely was a foul - where the ball was is utterly irrelevant in law, something Foy should know but appears to have forgotten in his retirement. Bottom line, we were unlucky that this referee actually did his job when most abdicate responsibility leading to the sort of fouls we see against Lucas, Aden and others almost every game - so what do we want, change the laws to allow shirt pulling, or we just accept these things are subjective? Remember, take a look at VAR and the disaster that is, trying to make factual decisions from subjective situations - in my view VAR should only ever be used for offside, ball in and out and serious foul play - trying to take out subjectivity will never, ever work. I'd much rather live with ref mistakes (they get over 90% of decisions right without VAR) and be able to celebrate goals, than have to wait 5 minutes before I know my team has scored. Be very careful what you wish for.
jpstags wrote:Rob wrote:If you pull the shirt of an opposing player inside the penalty area then you run the risk of a referee actually doing his job - on the basis that this sort of thing is rarely given we were clearly very unlucky but if referees applied the laws correctly then we would see this decision being given more often until eventually players realised a foul (which this was) in the area can cost you a goal. I accept all the counter arguments, mainly the fact few refs give this sort of decision, but it absolutely was a foul - where the ball was is utterly irrelevant in law, something Foy should know but appears to have forgotten in his retirement. Bottom line, we were unlucky that this referee actually did his job when most abdicate responsibility leading to the sort of fouls we see against Lucas, Aden and others almost every game - so what do we want, change the laws to allow shirt pulling, or we just accept these things are subjective? Remember, take a look at VAR and the disaster that is, trying to make factual decisions from subjective situations - in my view VAR should only ever be used for offside, ball in and out and serious foul play - trying to take out subjectivity will never, ever work. I'd much rather live with ref mistakes (they get over 90% of decisions right without VAR) and be able to celebrate goals, than have to wait 5 minutes before I know my team has scored. Be very careful what you wish for.
Written just like a ref would.
HitchcocksShins wrote:Chris Foy? What's a British cycling Olympian passing comment about football reffing for??
pemill wrote:We can talk about refs all the time but why on earth did Akins feel the need to impede him, like Clough pointed out the ball was 35 yards away.
Martin Shaw wrote:Rob, see: EFL Magazine winter edition
https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/gc-m ... 3b7c86.pdf
page 17
PGMOL National Group Director Mike Jones:
"High threshold is a working
title for the identification
of key match decisions. For
each decision, there are four
principles – what are the
actions of the defender in
that challenge, what are the
motivations of the attacker,
what is the degree of contact
and is there a consequence? If
there is no consequence to any
minimal context, the preference
is to allow play to continue.
This is why we’ve seen a lot more
penalty appeals not necessarily
being penalised with a penalty
kick. Across the board, there
have been fewer penalty kicks"
So Foy was quite correct. And Simpson was not correctly applying the "High threshold"
By the way, Mike Jones makes reference to the "behind the whistle" series by Foy in his article, so I think we can take it that that series is sanctioned by, and a mouthpiece for, PGMOL.
I do agree with you though that we definitely do not want VAR in League Two.
georgefostersbeard wrote:Rob, isn't this where this a tension between the laws of the games and how they are applied. The application of the high definition statement would mean that you are right in that by the rules of the game it should have been a penalty but Foy is right in that by applying the thresholds as set out by the PGMOL, he would not have given the penalty.
This tension is why we had a game where two players were booked for kicking the ball away or delaying the taking of a free kick and then the next game these offences were totally ignored.
Martin Shaw wrote:Rob, you have replied to my post yet completely ignored the comments by PGMOL National Group Director Mike Jones, which were the whole point of my post!
Rob wrote:Martin Shaw wrote:Rob, you have replied to my post yet completely ignored the comments by PGMOL National Group Director Mike Jones, which were the whole point of my post!
Sorry I thought I had but will try to do so in a more detailed way. I'll start by repeating that I do not think it was a penalty, I would not have given it, nor would most referee's.
The threshold is subjective and down to a referee's interpretation, taking the the four points Jones makes about threshold and applying them to this instance, from the referee's perspective, not ours:
what are the actions of the defender in that challenge - he pulled the player back to stop him from finding space in the area where the ball may have been played
what are the motivations of the attacker - to find space before the cross came in
what is the degree of contact - there was clear contact
is there a consequence - the ball had not been played into the area so there was no consequence, however, had it been played into the area, the forward had been taken out of play
As I say, the above is not my interpretation but could be the sort of thing the referee could have been thinking. It remains subjective and I repeat again had it gone to VAR it would not have been overturned as the decision was correct in law.
Martin Shaw wrote:Rob wrote:Martin Shaw wrote:Rob, you have replied to my post yet completely ignored the comments by PGMOL National Group Director Mike Jones, which were the whole point of my post!
Sorry I thought I had but will try to do so in a more detailed way. I'll start by repeating that I do not think it was a penalty, I would not have given it, nor would most referee's.
The threshold is subjective and down to a referee's interpretation, taking the the four points Jones makes about threshold and applying them to this instance, from the referee's perspective, not ours:
what are the actions of the defender in that challenge - he pulled the player back to stop him from finding space in the area where the ball may have been played
what are the motivations of the attacker - to find space before the cross came in
what is the degree of contact - there was clear contact
is there a consequence - the ball had not been played into the area so there was no consequence, however, had it been played into the area, the forward had been taken out of play
As I say, the above is not my interpretation but could be the sort of thing the referee could have been thinking. It remains subjective and I repeat again had it gone to VAR it would not have been overturned as the decision was correct in law.
I disagree, and clearly PGMOL do as per Foy's article, which is plainly endorsed by PGMOL as I said.
Foy said "I don't think the actions of the defender meet the required threshold for a clear holding offence with impact".
I agree with that, the touch from Akins was not sufficient to justify Campbell going down, in my opinion. He barely touched him.
Martin Shaw wrote:I did mean Foy's article. Mike Jones made reference to the "behind the whistle" series by Foy in his article, so I think we can take it that the series is sanctioned by, and a mouthpiece for, PGMOL.
Return to Stagsnet Main Discussion Forum
Users browsing this forum: Billy the fish, diablo, Gruff, James, MOTG, Scothie the Stag, Spiritater, Stags Head Stags and 412 guests