Post-Match Reaction: SAINTS 0-2 Liverpool

[corky morris]

Then they are bad referees. That's not the way that was approved when I was active.

 

Im genuinely interested. When can you think of an example where a player has made an attempt to stay on his feet when fouled, but does not score & the referee then gives a penalty. I cant think of any. Maybe there are lots???

Yes, I have seen the odd one mid pitch when a ball is lost, but if a player shoots & fails to score the referee rarely goes back to the original foul.

[Whitey Grandad]

Im genuinely interested. When can you think of an example where a player has made an attempt to stay on his feet when fouled, but does not score & the referee then gives a penalty. I cant think of any. Maybe there are lots???

Yes, I have seen the odd one mid pitch when a ball is lost, but if a player shoots & fails to score the referee rarely goes back to the original foul.

 

It depends how effective the shot might be. If a player is fouled but tries to stay on his feet and just manages to get a toe to the ball then you'd give a penalty. If the player manages to get a genuine attempt on goal the you're unlikely to bring it back for a penalty. It's a fine line to judge. Basically, you don't get two goes at goal. Some referees will never play advantage for a penalty. Some will wait a second or two to see what develops. The last thing you want to is whistle for a penalty just as the ball goes into the net. One thing is sure, the player falling to the ground does not influence your decision. The only choice is whether it's a foul or not, with or without the dive afterwards. Rooney's recent penalty was an example, a foul followed by a dive.

[sandwichsaint]

It depends how effective the shot might be. If a player is fouled but tries to stay on his feet and just manages to get a toe to the ball then you'd give a penalty. If the player manages to get a genuine attempt on goal the you're unlikely to bring it back for a penalty. It's a fine line to judge. Basically, you don't get two goes at goal. Some referees will never play advantage for a penalty. Some will wait a second or two to see what develops. The last thing you want to is whistle for a penalty just as the ball goes into the net. One thing is sure, the player falling to the ground does not influence your decision. The only choice is whether it's a foul or not, with or without the dive afterwards. Rooney's recent penalty was an example, a foul followed by a dive.

 

A change of direction from yesterday on your take on the first pen shout?

 

You advocated yesterday that Djucy should have taken another stride towards goal and then Can would have run into him anyway and knocked him over ..... clear penalty. You appeared to imply that Djucy going down too easily ( or diving) made it easier for the ref not to give the decision? According to you (above), and what was my original interpretation, is that the 'action' of the forward is irrelevant, you judge it as to whether the defender has fouled ... in this case Can fouled Djucy (clear contact, Can didn't play the ball, or even make any attempt to play the ball) so the referee should ONLY be judging whether it was a foul by the defender, NOT whether the forward 'went down too easily'.

 

Based on that, do you now think the first one on Sunday was a penalty?

 

Not having a go, just asking, I find your insider's view very instructive!

[Whitey Grandad]

A change of direction from yesterday on your take on the first pen shout?

 

You advocated yesterday that Djucy should have taken another stride towards goal and then Can would have run into him anyway and knocked him over ..... clear penalty. You appeared to imply that Djucy going down too easily ( or diving) made it easier for the ref not to give the decision? According to you (above), and what was my original interpretation, is that the 'action' of the forward is irrelevant, you judge it as to whether the defender has fouled ... in this case Can fouled Djucy (clear contact, Can didn't play the ball, or even make any attempt to play the ball) so the referee should ONLY be judging whether it was a foul by the defender, NOT whether the forward 'went down too easily'.

 

Based on that, do you now think the first one on Sunday was a penalty?

 

Not having a go, just asking, I find your insider's view very instructive!

 

Going back to the first incident, I don't personally think there was enough in it up to the point where Djucy decided to go down to give a penalty. There was a slight hand on the shoulder maybe and a coming together of thighs but was he 'tripped'? I would say not, yet if he'd gone on a couple of paces and taken his path across Can the decision would probably gave tilted the other way. He might even have had a shot on goal, we shall never know.

[captainchris]

Just watching two big sides in the Champions League playing and not a big tall static 'target Man' in sight.

Should we embrace the modern ethos of smaller skillful quick players rather than how we currently play.....

[SaintLiam]

In case nobody had seen it yet, this sums up the 90 minutes with a fantastic musical number.

 

[suewhistle]

First time I've been on here since the game, and just watched the video highlights.. Hmmm, 4 potential penalties and not one given? The first you might argue about, although what was that hand doing up there on his shoulder? Number 2 no doubt at all, and the 3rd and 4th the sort that we'd be unhappy if given against us. Lovren's tackle was nastier than it looked at the time too.

 

Miserable result, miserable weather and our women's match was abandoned earlier in the day 5 minutes after I came on as sub. Miserable.

[corky morris]

It depends how effective the shot might be. If a player is fouled but tries to stay on his feet and just manages to get a toe to the ball then you'd give a penalty. If the player manages to get a genuine attempt on goal the you're unlikely to bring it back for a penalty. It's a fine line to judge. Basically, you don't get two goes at goal. Some referees will never play advantage for a penalty. Some will wait a second or two to see what develops. The last thing you want to is whistle for a penalty just as the ball goes into the net. One thing is sure, the player falling to the ground does not influence your decision. The only choice is whether it's a foul or not, with or without the dive afterwards. Rooney's recent penalty was an example, a foul followed by a dive.

 

So basically you are also suggesting the player should go to ground?!

[Whitey Grandad]

So basically you are also suggesting the player should go to ground?!

 

No, you should stay on your feet if you have a strong chance of scoring and only go down if you've been genuinely tripped or impeded. What I'm trying to say is that Djuricic should have put himself into the position where Can could either not have avoided fouling him or would have had to keep clear for fear of giving up a penalty.

[simondo]

Im genuinely interested. When can you think of an example where a player has made an attempt to stay on his feet when fouled, but does not score & the referee then gives a penalty. I cant think of any. Maybe there are lots???

Yes, I have seen the odd one mid pitch when a ball is lost, but if a player shoots & fails to score the referee rarely goes back to the original foul.

 

shirt pull in the area

[Whitey Grandad]

shirt pull in the area

 

Good point.

[shurlock]

Im genuinely interested. When can you think of an example where a player has made an attempt to stay on his feet when fouled, but does not score & the referee then gives a penalty. I cant think of any. Maybe there are lots???

Yes, I have seen the odd one mid pitch when a ball is lost, but if a player shoots & fails to score the referee rarely goes back to the original foul.

 

On the other hand, can think of many examples where the ref has failed to play the advantage, the player has scored immediately after and play has been pulled back for the original foul.