What do you guys reckon?

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

comment by righteous1 (U7048)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
No

I am pretty sure the whole movement of the keeper kicking the ball, even the split second is it out of the hand, is considered to be under his control, so any goal scored like that should always be disallowed.

I don't necessarily agree with the law, but the ref applied it correctly.
------------------------------------------
No. If the ball isn't in the keepers hands, it is in play and thus the attacker can take the ball, as happened with George Best when the referee got it wrong and gave Banks the freekick.

I think the rules are that the keeper must have control of the ball, if he does, you can't take it from him. Sometimes when the ball is in one hand, the keeper has control, like last night but sometimes he doesn't. I think the rule is open to interpretation from the ref.

TOOR the rules have changed. The movement of the keeper kicking the ball is considred under the keeper's control and so is a foul. Also th ball in one out stretched hand is considered in the keeper's control. Ref applied teh rule properly.

I thought the ref was excellent yesterday. Didn't give any silly freekicks, allowed play to go on. We need more refs like him in the PL.

Yes, I meant at the time, when it happened. I think the rules changed after that game, when George Best scored a fair goal.

People are saying the ref was excellent, I thought he was terrible. He made some crazy decisions. Skrtel should have been booked early on. Various challenges went unpunished. Suarez was fouled the whole game and when he eventually got something, he was so annoyed he told the ref it wasn't a freekick but he dived. Plus the fact he ran around like that gay ref you can find on Youtube. He annoyed me the whole game.

I do think he did well to let the game flow which is what we all want but it's not consistent in terms of the rules of the game and other referees.

We'll have to agree to disgaree. It was the best ref performance i'd seen in a while. He didn't fall for the soft fouls where there was slight contact, he didn't give fouls for 50/50s and he let the game flow.

Yes, which is against the rules and what other referees are doing. I don't agree with it but he didn't give fouls when according to the rules, they were fouls, meaning he put in a bad performance.

Not to mention Assaidi being fouled in the box and getting nothing, after Johnson had been fouled in the box in the first half and mis-kicked the ball, when about to score. In fact according the the rules, if you stop a goal in that position, it could be a red card. It would have been soft but according to the rules, it was a penalty. You can go back a little further and once again Johnson was fouled in the box but got nothing. Throughout the game, the referee let the game flow, I like that but not when he isn't using the rules, as then there is no consistency with other referees.

But slight contact or contact on a 50/50 isn't a foul so why should he give it? A foul is a foul, just contact isn't.

The problem we have now is that the slightest contact is given as a foul. That shouldn't be the case in a contact sport.

From the BBC:



We've dug out a bit of clarification on the Daniel Agger 'goal.'

Fouls and Misconduct in the Fifa rulebook:

"A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball: i) while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) ii) while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand iii) while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air."

What I said then.