Quote from: Lastfootstamper on December 06, 2021, 03:24:50 PMI'll admit I'm also struggling to imagine what they're referring to by the exceptions. I don't think they mean that at any point during a goalmouth scramble you can kick it out of the keeper's hand(s). Or maybe they do, maybe that's exactly what they mean, fuck knows. All I can say is that given the current wording and what actually happened, if I'd been on duty at Stockley Park I'd have chalked the goal off. He's done making the save, and then something else happens. The exception isn't about the keeper being in the act of "making a save" - the exception clearly says "has made" a save. It's the past tense. It's clearly designed to be used when the keeper has just made a save - which he clearly just had.Like you, I can't picture a scenario where a goal is allowed because of the exception, but it must exist, so it's probably a lack of imagination on my part - but it would be hugely helpful to see such a scenario so we can at least put this to bed.I mentioned it in the match thread I think, but I expect we will see a clarification of that part of the law pretty soon, much like when Rhodri challenges Mings.
I'll admit I'm also struggling to imagine what they're referring to by the exceptions. I don't think they mean that at any point during a goalmouth scramble you can kick it out of the keeper's hand(s). Or maybe they do, maybe that's exactly what they mean, fuck knows. All I can say is that given the current wording and what actually happened, if I'd been on duty at Stockley Park I'd have chalked the goal off. He's done making the save, and then something else happens.
Quote from: Lastfootstamper on December 06, 2021, 02:34:12 PMI don't think they got it wrong. Schmeichel makes save with right hand. Schmeichel recovers position, gets down, gets left hand onto ball. Ramsey kicks ball. It all happened very quickly, the blink of a mortal's eye almost, but they were three distinct elements to that passage of play. I understand what you're saying, and that appears to be the position of the "ref's union", but can you explain to me what WOULD have constituted the exception in Law 12 for that incident to allow a goal? The laws of the game clearly have an exception following a save or after the ball rebounds from the keeper, so can you explain a situation where Schmeichel has his hand on the ball and the goal IS allowed per the exception - and how that is different to what actually happened in the game?I have understood the arguments about why it was disallowed, but I still can't understand how any situation USING the exception is any different to the disallowed goal?For completeness, the rule is:A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:- the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
I don't think they got it wrong. Schmeichel makes save with right hand. Schmeichel recovers position, gets down, gets left hand onto ball. Ramsey kicks ball. It all happened very quickly, the blink of a mortal's eye almost, but they were three distinct elements to that passage of play.
There isn’t that much anti Small Heath chanting at matches this season. Have they now finally officially become irrelevant to us?
How’s Kasper’s hand today? He was supposed to be getting it “checked” wasn’t he? because it was so sore. He even suggested an X-ray might be required. My thoughts are with him at this difficult time. Puts everything into perspective, etc…
Perhaps the laws of the game should be clear and not require the application of the rules of interpretation applicable to an Act of Parliament being considered by the Supreme Court.
Quote from: Richard E on December 06, 2021, 04:32:50 PMPerhaps the laws of the game should be clear and not require the application of the rules of interpretation applicable to an Act of Parliament being considered by the Supreme Court. Exactly.Another point is the goal was given, and the law is ambiguous at best, especially in this context. Therefore, how does VAR conclude that there is a 'clear and obvious error' to correct?
We seemed to struggle with formation early on and there was too big a agap between mids and forwards. Apart from Emi2. And You never knew where he was going to turn up. Much better second half. Obvious the players have great faith in Marvellous as they are never afraid to pass to him even when he has players on top of him. Happy with Sanson again. Will we finally have a successful French player? Ollie is a kick of a ball away from having a great game. He will be fine. I was behind the goal for Martinez save. One of the best saves I have seen. He is so agile for a man mountain. Marry Cash apart from a couple of overhit crosses had a great game. Couple of pints b4 with my brother and some friends. A Villa win. Enjoy the small things
I think that one was a poor decision but it's distracted from the far worse decision to blow up when Watkins was about to shoot. If he'd let play go for a couple of seconds he could've gone to VAR to see if there was a foul on Evans by blowing up he made that impossible. It's the same scenario as with Friend in that Palace game and is exactly the sort of decision making that should be taken away by VAR, let play go and then go back and make decision instead rushing to a snap judgement.
I do think incidents like this will now be scrutinised much more closely, given it has denied a goal in a premier league game. Will keepers now think it's more important to get downward pressure on the ball (like a try in rugby) than it is to actually make a block or attempt to get the ball clear? It certainly changes the potential options available to a goalie when the ball is moving around in the six-yard box. You don't have to make a save, or clear the ball to relieve pressure, you just have to convince VAR you had "control" of the ball.
Quote from: Chico Hamilton III on December 06, 2021, 10:33:37 AMHow’s Kasper’s hand today? He was supposed to be getting it “checked” wasn’t he? because it was so sore. He even suggested an X-ray might be required. My thoughts are with him at this difficult time. Puts everything into perspective, etc…