Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

A-League Mens 24/25 - Round 24

Muz said:
Now you're splitting hairs. He either touched it first or didn't and if he did touch it then there's no foul.

If you're offside by a millimetre you're offside. There's no 'it was only a little bit'.

I'll tell you why they got it wrong. When the VAR intervened and the ref went over and looked at it a dozen times and he came back onto the field and, I'm paraphrasing here, said 'the defender did not touch the ball therefore it's a penalty'.

He specifically mentioned the 'no touch' aspect of it.

He didn't say yeah he got some but not enough of it so therefore it's a penalty.
Click to expand...
Yes, I noticed that, but there's also the new-ish rule (anywhere else on the park) that a tackle from behind is still a foul if it brings a player down and considered dangerous.

Shawn Evans did himself no favours saying there was no touch on the ball as there clearly was. It makes him look even dodgier (if that's possible after his many times ripping off the Mariners).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
Mr Cleansheets said:
Yes, I noticed that, but there's also the new-ish rule (anywhere else on the park) that a tackle from behind is still a foul if it brings a player down and considered dangerous.

Shawn Evans did himself no favours saying there was no touch on the ball as there clearly was. It makes him look even dodgier (if that's possible after his many times ripping off the Mariners).
Click to expand...

Mate there's no new-ish rule. He got it wrong. And that's ok. I watched it twenty times before I saw the ball pick up speed.

And the tackle was from the side not behind.

They're under so much pressure to make the decision quickly that they were looking for a touch when, in all honesty, you can't see it.

The only thing that gives it away is the ball starts to rotate faster.

And again he said none of the things you're saying. He said 'no touch' and that's the 'smoking gun' as it were.
 
Maybe the ref didn’t see the touch? I thought it looked like an absolute stone wall penalty. Then after 15 times watching there may have been a touch

Could’ve gone either way.


What a game. NT embarrassing themselves though. I think pride round is marketing BS and stupid but how petulant not supporting a team because of it. The players didn’t chose it. If they are about no politics in sport I look forward to them no burning their Palestine banners or not going to the Anzac round (or Australia Day one for that)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
tsf said:
Maybe the ref didn’t see the touch? I thought it looked like an absolute stone wall penalty. Then after 15 times watching there may have been a touch

Could’ve gone either way.


What a game. NT embarrassing themselves though. I think pride round is marketing BS and stupid but how petulant not supporting a team because of it. The players didn’t chose it. If they are about no politics in sport I look forward to them no burning their Palestine banners or not going to the Anzac round (or Australia Day one for that)
Click to expand...

They didn't see the touch because he came back out and said the defender didn't touch the ball.
 
Muz said:
Mate there's no new-ish rule. He got it wrong. And that's ok. I watched it twenty times before I saw the ball pick up speed.

And the tackle was from the side not behind.

They're under so much pressure to make the decision quickly that they were looking for a touch when, in all honesty, you can't see it.

The only thing that gives it away is the ball starts to rotate faster.

And again he said none of the things you're saying. He said 'no touch' and that's the 'smoking gun' as it were.
Click to expand...
That exactly what I said - the no touch comment was what he got wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
Mr Cleansheets said:
That exactly what I said - the no touch comment was what he got wrong.
Click to expand...

And therefore no penalty because he didn't say what you're saying. If it was because of what you were saying he would have said something like....

'there was a slight touch but because the attacker had a chance of regaining possession it is a penalty'

And that didn't happen.

Nor did he say anything about it being from behind.
 
Last edited:
Muz said:
And therefore no penalty because he didn't say what you're saying. If it was because of what you were saying he would have said something like....

'there was a slight touch but because the attacker had a chance of regaining possession it is a penalty'

And that didn't happen.

Nor did he say anything about it being from behind.
Click to expand...
We're debating at cross purposes here. I said exactly that - Evans said there was no touch (which was clearly wrong). I continued to suggest that even if there had been a miniscule touch not affecting the trajectory of the ball that maybe a penalty was still the right call.

That's what the commentators said also but I don't know exactly what the laws say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
Mr Cleansheets said:
We're debating at cross purposes here. I said exactly that - Evans said there was no touch (which was clearly wrong). I continued to suggest that even if there had been a miniscule touch not affecting the trajectory of the ball that maybe a penalty was still the right call.

That's what the commentators said also but I don't know exactly what the laws say.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point of this discussion. I'm telling you it was a penalty because he touched it and I outlined exactly why. You were suggesting a tackle from behind or the chance to regain possession possibly negated the touch.

I'm just explaining why none of that matters.

The commentators have no clue and rarely do.

I apologise if this is coming across abrupt. That's not my intention.

I'm glad we both agree it was no penalty. Not that it mattered. Victory were all over them and deserved to win.
 
Let me start off by saying that I understand the description given by the referee following the VAR review was all about the ball not being touched by the defender. Interestingly the LOTG say nothing about touching or not touching the ball.

The full text of law 12 as it relates to challenges is

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick.

•  Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
•  Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
•  Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
•  a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
•  throws an object at the ball, an opponent or a match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

So, reading through that, it seems that a challenge for the ball where the ball is touched first but is still considered by the referee to "careless" (as defined above) could still be penalised. In fact, I'm sure I've heard or read about such examples.

The other option I can see where a player could (according to LOTG) be penalised even after touching the ball first relates to the words "impedes a player with contact". Arguably the Arzani foul could have been an example of this (notwithstanding the referee's "no contact with the ball" statement). In the Arzani challenge, the defender touched the ball, it did not make any real difference to where the ball was and Arzani could still have reached it, but Arzani was prevented from reaching it because the follow through from the defender after touching the ball contacted Arzani and tripped him. So arguably Arzani was impeded from getting to the ball.

What do the referees out there think, have you had any instruction about how to adjudicate these types of challenges?
 
Keeper66 said:
Let me start off by saying that I understand the description given by the referee following the VAR review was all about the ball not being touched by the defender. Interestingly the LOTG say nothing about touching or not touching the ball.

The full text of law 12 as it relates to challenges is

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick.

•  Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
•  Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
•  Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
•  a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
•  throws an object at the ball, an opponent or a match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

So, reading through that, it seems that a challenge for the ball where the ball is touched first but is still considered by the referee to "careless" (as defined above) could still be penalised. In fact, I'm sure I've heard or read about such examples.

The other option I can see where a player could (according to LOTG) be penalised even after touching the ball first relates to the words "impedes a player with contact". Arguably the Arzani foul could have been an example of this (notwithstanding the referee's "no contact with the ball" statement). In the Arzani challenge, the defender touched the ball, it did not make any real difference to where the ball was and Arzani could still have reached it, but Arzani was prevented from reaching it because the follow through from the defender after touching the ball contacted Arzani and tripped him. So arguably Arzani was impeded from getting to the ball.

What do the referees out there think, have you had any instruction about how to adjudicate these types of challenges?
Click to expand...


This wasn't a careless or reckless challenge. This is what you'd call a normal "footballing challenge" that you'd expect in this type of situation. I e, nothing out of the ordinary.

Had he said yes there was a touch but its still a penalty and heres why then we wouldnt be having this discussion.

As for Arzani not being able to get the ball after the ball was touched explain any slide tackle where they win the ball and the player is brought down? They're not free kicks right?

From my perspective and when I'm reffing the overarching consideration is did he win the ball first. The amount of times players have said me after I've blown a foul on them that "they were going for the ball" would be in the hundreds.

Yes mate you were going for the ball but you got him first or you missed the ball.

Having said all of that I carded a high school kid the other day who made no contact at all. Left his feet, came in studs up, out of control and at speed. Blew it up immediately. Can't have players doing that contact or no contact.
 
Last edited:
Watch the Madrid highlights.

Horrible reffing.

Legumes should’ve had a pen. Madrid given a free kick for clearly getting the ball.

So bad it’s dodgy.
 
Muz said:
This wasn't a careless or reckless challenge. This is what you'd call a normal "footballing challenge" that you'd expect in this type of situation. I e, nothing out of the ordinary.

Had he said yes there was a touch but its still a penalty and heres why then we wouldnt be having this discussion.

As for Arzani not being able to get the ball after the ball was touched explain any slide tackle where they win the ball and the player is brought down? They're not free kicks right?

From my perspective and when I'm reffing the overarching consideration is did he win the ball first. The amount of times players have said me after I've blown a foul on them that "they were going for the ball" would be in the hundreds.

Yes mate you were going for the ball but you got him first or you missed the ball.

Having said all of that I carded a high school kid the other day who made no contact at all. Left his feet, came in studs up, out of control and at speed. Blew it up immediately. Can't have players doing that contact or no contact.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree with any of this. I probably could have been clearer, but I wasn't really referring to the correctness or otherwise of the Arzani penalty. I was really trying to understand whether, as defined by the LOTG, touching the ball first is a consideration in evaluating whether a challenge is a foul.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
Honestly I can enjoy the a league without relegation but when a team is continuously shit and the suits can't sack the coach what point is there to keep watching?
 
Muz said:
What a disgrace the surface at Suncorp is.

Bloody joke.
Click to expand...
The surface certainly looks poor, but considering there was over 100 mm of rain on Friday and Saturday, an NRL game played in pouring rain on Friday night and a rugby union game played on the very wet pitch last night, it seems to be playing much better than I expected. The ball seems to be running true without any bobbles. I expect it will cut up more over the course of the game though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
It is great to see that so many of our young players are vying for being the season's top scorer.Botic,Milanovic,Segecic and Adams all up there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top