Refereeing decisions this season

Absolutely spot on

 

Its a flawed argument really. For example, if Paynes goal at Sunderland is given, that doesn't mean we'd have drawn the game. The dynamics change so they chase a bit harder cos they're at home and want the win. Millers goal against Cov would have made it 4-3 so we still could have lost that game.

Although I will concede if Oxfords goal isn't given, we more than likely take a point given the time remaining.

 

Didn't Doyle have two cleared off the line with an opponent's hand, in successive weeks?

 

But it was his lack of not keeping up with play that is annoying. If he'd have done that, then there would have been no reason to disallow the goal, because they wouldn't have broken away to score it!

 

Technically yes but that’s not particularly noticeable at full speed IMO and I wouldn’t necessarily expect the officials to pick up on it.

 

Sorry, I can't see the Blades game. I only recall what I saw. Yes there was some 'tussling' going on in defence, but even so - I felt McArdle was more than lucky.
As for the Oxford incident ........... No excuses - There can't be. Ref getting it wrong ? OK. But it seems ALL four officials failed to call the correct decision.

 

Reading everything since I think I’ve probably got it now in terms of what happened:

- Penalty as referenced by some posters initially (including me) was never a consideration, this appears to have been City players misreading the ref’s initial signal of a goal kick (when going back after the Oxford goal).

- If the assistant nearest the ball from the goal kick thinks it hasn’t left the area before being played, he would flag as that’s a ‘black and white’ call and he was close to it and should be able to see.

- Play carries on and Oxford score. The same assistant either in the lead up or at the point the goal goes in a then starts doubting whether the goal kick was ‘legal’ due to City players having been in the area and alerts the ref.

- Ref goes with assistant suggesting goal kick wasn’t legal and starts to bring play back (which he can still do as City hadn’t kicked off i.e. there hadn’t been another restart in between).

- Other assistant contacts the ref to suggest what he’s now doing might not be correct in law i.e. opponents in the area in itself isn’t a reason to retake. Not having been there I can’t tell at which point the 4th official got involved but presume he tells ref same thing.

- Ref then goes with the other assistant/4th official and gives the goal as he realises they’re correct. I think the first assistant has essentially thrown the ref under the bus by suggesting the goal kick was illegal due to City players in the area and put the doubt in his mind, but the ref should have been stronger/more definite on the laws.

Unbelievably messy and really poor for officials in the professional game to not all be 100% clear on this. I don’t think they’ve seen the ball slightly moving when Eastwood took the kick (which is understandable at full speed) and I think that the assistant doesn’t feel the Oxford player has played the ball until it was out of the area (debatable but again understandable to a degree as it was very close).

In other words - they reached probably the right decision in the end, but did so in absolutely farcical fashion.

 

Looking at it today and taking screen shot of the indecent I agree the ball did look to have gone out of the area before the Oxford (full back) played it long, but I believe some were saying with players from both sides on the ground in the 6 yard box as well as the 18 yard box surly the referee should have made the keeper wait until said players were on their feet and out of the area.
I believe someone posted it in the rules that dead ball kicks cant be taken whilst players are in the area ?.

 

It’s law 16 on goal kicks - procedurally, opponents shouldn’t be in the area but that isn’t under the ‘offences/sanctions’ part of the law to warrant a retake.

That’s only required if the City players in the area had played the ball or challenged the Oxford player - it’s that part I think the assistant (and then the ref) messed up on.

Law 13 on free kicks in the area is far clearer on exactly the same scenario, essentially saying that when it’s taken if opponents haven’t left the area because they didn’t have time to leave, then you play on. If law 16 was equally clear, there wouldn’t have been an issue in our game.

As it is, given the greater ambiguity of law 16’s wording you have to take an inference - which we really shouldn’t be having to do - although there is the direct comparison to law 13.

 

All well and good, but what about THEIR players in the box? You’ve only mentioned “opponents” in the area, but omitted the part of the rules that prevents the other team’s players being in the area. I’m sure that is a breach of the rules

 

No, defending players inside are fine - otherwise how would a defender ever take goal kicks, which happens from time to time.

Law 16 talks about the kick being taken by a player of the defending team - doesn’t have to be the keeper. In which case, defenders must allowed in the area when the kick is taken.

 

You should know about all that!!

 

All about what? Are you referring to the SAFC vs BCFC game at the SoL?

In contrast, I believe your Goalkeeper should have been sent off for the challenge he did on Charlie Wyke at Valley Parade. As another poster said, every team has decisions that go for and against them, fans just tend to remember the against desc. This season we've had 4(?) red cards overturned, including one against Bradford iirc - the referees' poor decisions are affecting every team.

 

Wyke didn't play at valley parade mate. You must be thinking of another game.

 

You're right. Just checked - it was Burton. Gave him his second long-term injury since joining us.

As a side note, in case you're interested: he played better the other day vs Walsall, hope he can get some good form.

 

[QUOTE="1976Bantam, post: 186601, member: 480
In other words - they reached probably the right decision in the end, but did so in absolutely farcical fashion.[/QUOTE]
Your post pretty much nailed it. Particularly your last point.
One thing to add - bias aside - the footballing gods got it right in the end as well. We got exactly what we deserved!

 

A player can't receive a pass from a goal kick in his area.

 

True but a goalkick can be taken by any player on the team, which is what I think was meant.