Porto -v- Arsenal

sneakyST

jasonorr wrote: »

What of the penalty shout?

I didnt see the coverage of the incident so I can't comment - if you have a link to it......

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Sorry, but I cannot see how to resolve your interpretation with the above from FIFA. The above law clearly states the referee has an obligation to clearly and continuously signal an indirect freekick, before, during and after it's been taken, which he didn't do. Or is the another block of text int he guidelines I'm missing?

Because there is nothing in the law to state the kick should be retaken if the referee doesnt maintain his arm position. An assessor will pick you up on it in in certain situations, and those situations you can maintain your arm in the air. But in some cases you may need to sprint to get to the action area - have you ever tried to sprint 50m with your arm poker straight in the air, not only is it awakward but you look like a right tool

L'prof

sneakyST wrote: »

I didnt see the coverage of the incident so I can't comment - if you have a link to it......

Watch this from 9:20.

FUNKY LOVER

People are comparing it to Henry's quick free kicks against Chelsea and Aston Villa but they are totally different. In both situations, play was stopped for at least 20 seconds before Henry shot, and in both cases the referee ASKED Henry if he wanted to take it quickly. What happened in this situation? The referee placed the ball ON THE FLOOR for the Porto player- practically making his mind up for him to take a quick free kick.

There was never any interlocution between referee and attacker- the referee has to give the option to the attacking player if he wants to take it quickly- and by "option" I don't mean placing the ball on the ground for the attacker.

Disgraceful refereeing.

sneakyST

jasonorr wrote: »

Watch this from 9:20.

Thanks Jason, I had to watch it 5 times , but yes it was a penalty. However my intial reaction was no, as it would appear Rosicky actually kicked the Porto's player leg. On a closer look, was the Porto players leg moved into Rosicky's path? Could have gone either way and to make that decision on the first view wasnt easy. Maybe some more help from the assistant.......but I wouldnt condemn the ref for it.

As an anecdotal, I was Assistant on a game a few weeks ago, and the action was in the penalty area in the other half of the field. Ref signalled for a penalty, and I thought it looked harsh. I was standing at the half way in front of the dugouts and stand, and everyone shouted no pen. At half time, speaking to the ref and other assistant, the defender basically pulled the attackers jersey and kicked him.....stone wall pen. The offending player didnt complain nor the match assessor, but from where I was and the crowd it didnt look much due to the angle we had on the incident.
So really, at home everyone has the tele and replay but on the field you have to make that one decision on what you see.

T-b0n3

jasonorr wrote: »

Watch this from 9:20.

Thanks and after seeing Rosicky's run again, definitely looks like a stone wall peno! And I don't even like Arsenal!

leninbenjamin

sneakyST wrote: »

Because there is nothing in the law to state the kick should be retaken if the referee doesnt maintain his arm position. An assessor will pick you up on it in in certain situations, and those situations you can maintain your arm in the air. But in some cases you may need to sprint to get to the action area - have you ever tried to sprint 50m with your arm poker straight in the air, not only is it awakward but you look like a right tool

It's the not even the bit where he's running that I'm at odds with, it's the bit where he allows it to be taken when his back is turned to the players around him without making the appropriate signal that the ball is in play. I know it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but shouldn't the referee have been obliged to turn around to face play, put his arm up to signal the indirect freekick and only then allowed the kick to be taken? In this case it's not even a question of whether it should be retaken, it's a question of whether the ball was legally in play in the first place. Having stopped play originally, the referee did not indicate it was back in play until after the fact! That seems wrong to me, and the exceptionally sparse wording of the above law certainly allow for my interpretation!

Why is it even mentioned in the law in the first place if it's only going to be treated as courtesy? There are full pages dedicated to how the referee's are obliged to conduct themselves, yet there's no recourse provided should they fail to meet their own obligations? It just seems absurd to me given all the expectations placed upon players under the laws of the game, that they cannot in turn expect clear communication from the ref over how said laws are enforced. It's no wonder there are so many disputes over refereeing if as you say they aren't even obliged to adhere to the very laws that they themselves are tasked to enforce.

/rant.

sneakyST

leninbenjamin wrote: »

but shouldn't the referee have been obliged to turn around to face play, put his arm up to signal the indirect freekick and only then allowed the kick to be taken? In this case it's not even a question of whether it should be retaken, it's a question of whether the ball was legally in play in the first place. Having stopped play originally, the referee did not indicate it was back in play until after the fact! That seems wrong to me, and the exceptionally sparse wording of the above law certainly allow for my interpretation!
.

You are not making it easy Lenin!
Yes the ref should face play, yes he should have his arm raised to signal an indirect free kick but no @ only then allow the kick to proceed. The arm signal does not determine when the ball is back in play. In the case of an indirect free kick, the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves.

Why is it even mentioned in the law in the first place if it's only going to be treated as courtesy? There are full pages dedicated to how the referee's are obliged to conduct themselves, yet there's no recourse provided should they fail to meet their own obligations? It just seems absurd to me given all the expectations placed upon players under the laws of the game, that they cannot in turn expect clear communication from the ref over how said laws are enforced. It's no wonder there are so many disputes over refereeing if as you say they aren't even obliged to adhere to the very laws that they themselves are tasked to enforce.

/rant.

Yes the referee may not have followed the correct signalling procedure at the free kick, but the kick was taken in accordance with the laws. For instance if I award a goal kick and run up the field of play with my back to play and when I turn around the ball is in play, I have to assume the correct procedure was applied as I didnt see an offence, if you have an assistant then they can flag. Is this wrong - yes totally, and the consequences for referees are a bad assesments, promotion failure & depending on the mistake - demotion and in some cases docking of pay.

Just as a side question for you - what do you think should have happened if the ball had been kicked directly into the goal from the indirect free kick in this instance?