Presumably he wants them all to visit Leicester so they can see how good they have it.

 

Then again, it is over land and sea AND Leicester after all.

I think its much the same as what happens when an attacker gets tackled after a shot. Even though he is inside the box the defender never gets anything for coming in late. If the same thing happened after a pass its a guaranteed yellow and a freekick

 

well, theres a difference between bundling over the attacker in your attempt to block the shot and ramming into him almost knocking him out.

 

i think it was a stonewall penalty

I think the advantage has to be immediate; the rules say the referee has to decide whether or not to penalise the original offence "within a few seconds" although I suppose that is purposefully vague. Presumably the ref decided that once the chip had been made the advantage had been taken.

I think it would set a dangerous precedent if they waited for us to score before pulling play back for a penalty. Then again I imagine this is one of those situations where 10 people are going to have 10 completely different interpretations.

When the foul would have resulted in a penalty the only advantage worth playing would been a goal scoring opportunity better than a penalty. As soon as oliver can see the ball isn't going in, there was no advantage to be played.

When the foul would have resulted in a penalty the only advantage worth playing would been a goal scoring opportunity better than a penalty. As soon as oliver can see the ball isn't going in, there was no advantage to be played.

 

My interpretation is that the advantage was the chip itself. The ball, had it not been cleared, would have taken about four seconds to cross the line, which barely falls within the remit of the rules. A shot on target which needed quite a heroic clearance to prevent it going in seems like a fairly decent advantage.

 

If the referee waits to see whether or not we score rather than whether or not we have taken an immediate advantage, it sets a dangerous precedent - how long will the 'advantage' safety net be stretched to benefit a team who has been on receiving end of what seems like a foul?

 

Again, I think the vagueness of the rules allows for several interpretations. I don't think this is a question which has an irreducibly 'right' or 'wrong' answer.

Keepers get a different set of rules...as we saw when Courtois got the fk with little/no contact.

That's true, unless you gain an advantage from it, in which case the referee will allow play to continue. I don't think it was entirely unfair to give the advantage considering the ball was heading into the net when the ref would have given the penalty. I remember being absolutely scandalised when Skrtel(?) won a penalty for Liverpool against us during that Champions League 4-4, being pulled down but already having taken the shot (he skied it).

 

I wouldn't mind hearing from an expert on this though; do we have any youth refs or anything on the forum?

 

I'm not a youth ref, but I remember being reminded constantly regarding the Ghost Goal that the referee stated after the game that he was going to send Cech off and award a penalty if the ball had been deemed to have not crossed the line.  In that instance, it appeared the only advantage in question was whether the ball went in or not - if it did the advantage was the goal, if not the penalty was the preferred decision for the infringed party.

 

My interpretation is that the advantage was the chip itself. The ball, had it not been cleared, would have taken about four seconds to cross the line, which barely falls within the remit of the rules. A shot on target which needed quite a heroic clearance to prevent it going in seems like a fairly decent advantage.

 

If the referee waits to see whether or not we score rather than whether or not we have taken an immediate advantage, it sets a dangerous precedent - how long will the 'advantage' safety net be stretched to benefit a team who has been on receiving end of what seems like a foul?

 

Again, I think the vagueness of the rules allows for several interpretations. I don't think this is a question which has an irreducibly 'right' or 'wrong' answer.

 

The confusion I have is that at no point in the passage of play for Michael Oliver signal an advantage.  He watched play after the collision, and then makes an incredibly quick gesture towards the corner flag once the ball is out.  

 

The referees assessor must be down-marking him - either for missing the foul, or for failing to correctly notify the players (and fans) that an advantage was being played.

 

That said - there was no advantage.  The first player to touch the ball after the foul was an Arsenal one.  There should be no advantage superceding a penalty in this instance.

My interpretation is that the advantage was the chip itself. The ball, had it not been cleared, would have taken about four seconds to cross the line, which barely falls within the remit of the rules. A shot on target which needed quite a heroic clearance to prevent it going in seems like a fairly decent advantage.

 

from my experience whenever the gk misses the ball, it's a pk. True advantage is played, but the ref has the right to call the foul if the victims didn't come out on top. freakin' the ref felt everything was ok & that is what has me pissed to no end. ospina didn't get any ball & was freakin' late, but he did get plenty of contact on Oscar. Well on May 25th when we see the Blue Bus cruising through London, I hope everyone remembers this moment & gives a big ass phuck you Oliver!!!

I'm not a youth ref, but I remember being reminded constantly regarding the Ghost Goal that the referee stated after the game that he was going to send Cech off and award a penalty if the ball had been deemed to have not crossed the line. In that instance, it appeared the only advantage in question was whether the ball went in or not - if it did the advantage was the goal, if not the penalty was the preferred decision for the infringed party.

The confusion I have is that at no point in the passage of play for Michael Oliver signal an advantage. He watched play after the collision, and then makes an incredibly quick gesture towards the corner flag once the ball is out.

The referees assessor must be down-marking him - either for missing the foul, or for failing to correctly notify the players (and fans) that an advantage was being played.

That said - there was no advantage. The first player to touch the ball after the foul was an Arsenal one. There should be no advantage superceding a penalty in this instance.

Good point regarding the ghost goal very similar situations, I also remember the sending off comments regarding Cech when I think back

I'm not a youth ref, but I remember being reminded constantly regarding the Ghost Goal that the referee stated after the game that he was going to send Cech off and award a penalty if the ball had been deemed to have not crossed the line.  In that instance, it appeared the only advantage in question was whether the ball went in or not - if it did the advantage was the goal, if not the penalty was the preferred decision for the infringed party.

 

 

Exactly the example I was going to bring up. Many a scouser has reminded us that if the ball hadn't had 'crossed the line' the Cech would've been off for clattering Baros (?) and I don't see a huge amount of difference with this one.

 

Should've been a yellow at least and a penalty. Oliver got it wrong and he's a weird one because he's had some very impressive matches but also missed a few big decisions. Nobodies perfect but I really don't know what to think of him just yet, especially as he seems to be in the process of being made the next Howard Webb.

My interpretation is that the advantage was the chip itself. The ball, had it not been cleared, would have taken about four seconds to cross the line, which barely falls within the remit of the rules. A shot on target which needed quite a heroic clearance to prevent it going in seems like a fairly decent advantage.

If the referee waits to see whether or not we score rather than whether or not we have taken an immediate advantage, it sets a dangerous precedent - how long will the 'advantage' safety net be stretched to benefit a team who has been on receiving end of what seems like a foul?

Again, I think the vagueness of the rules allows for several interpretations. I don't think this is a question which has an irreducibly 'right' or 'wrong' answer.

I agree it is vague. It is usually pretty common place for a referee to try to play an advantage, but then pull the play back if an advantage didn't materialise.

I also disagree that oscar's shot was heroically cleared off the line, it was barely going to reach the line.

If the ball fell to a chelsea player who had a tap in, and the ref was going to red card ospina, then it would have been fair to play an advantage.

The ref should have weighed up whether oscars shot had a greater chance of ending up in the net, than a penalty kick. he doesn't even have to gamble in that situation, he can let the play continue, to see if a better opportunity than a penalty develops, if not bring it back and award the spot kick. There doesn't need to be a set time, usually you can tell whether an advantage is gained within 2/3 seconds.

Oliver didn't play an advantage yesterday, as he didn't think it was a foul. If he did play an advantage in that situation, he shouldn't be reffing.

Heard some daft bloke on the radio say it wasn't even a foul. His argument was it was a 50/50, Oscar got their first but then ospina caught him and it was just a collision......so a foul then....you daft sod.

You all make good points and the 'ghost goal' is definitely a valid counter-example (assuming the rules haven't changed since then). To be honest I'm not 100% sure myself although you can be certain that I was appealing for it at the time!

I'm not 100% that it's a penalty, a goalkeeper is entitled to make him self big and hard to beat. It pissed me of last season when rat face would just kick the ball miles and then jump over a keeper and get a penalty. As a former keeper in one one one situations you come out and make your self as big as possible, often the player would have a go and then you would inevitably collide, me making my self big put him off, the ball wasn't going in, it's gone, collisions are collisions. If ospena doesn't hit Oscar he isn't getting to the ball. It's a collision and Oscar has come out worse but it doesn't necessarily mean a pen. I see and understand the argument for a pen but not sure I agree

My gut feeling was that is never a penalty. Arsenal had players behind the keeper and Oscar had just released the ball beyond his reach which is reason enough to assume it wasn't given.

Keeper doesn't have to fly at Oscar as he does, pretty much goes head first, stone wall pen.

I'm not 100% that it's a penalty, a goalkeeper is entitled to make him self big and hard to beat. It pissed me of last season when rat face would just kick the ball miles and then jump over a keeper and get a penalty. As a former keeper in one one one situations you come out and make your self as big as possible, often the player would have a go and then you would inevitably collide, me making my self big put him off, the ball wasn't going in, it's gone, collisions are collisions. If ospena doesn't hit Oscar he isn't getting to the ball. It's a collision and Oscar has come out worse but it doesn't necessarily mean a pen. I see and understand the argument for a pen but not sure I agree

 

He can make himself big all he likes, but that isn't what he did, he just smashed into Oscar. If any outfield player did that, they would be off. Goalkeepers should't be allowed to get away with it.

 

My gut feeling was that is never a penalty. Arsenal had players behind the keeper and Oscar had just released the ball beyond his reach which is reason enough to assume it wasn't given.

 

Oscar kicking the ball out of his reach is irrelevant. Kicking a ball out of your reach doesn't give the defending player the right to wipe you out or foul you. That is like saying a defender can give you a kick because you kicked the ball out of your reach. Also, if Oscar doesn't get wiped out, he could possibly still get to the ball or do enough to but Bellerin off.

Two players are going for the ball.

 

One gets there late and catches the other one.

 

That's a foul.

 

That's a pen.

 

End of debate.

@oscar8

Obrigado a todos pelas mensagens, já estou bem melhor!! Thanks everybody for your messages. I'm feeling much better!

 

 

I don't see how it's even a question. No position gets the right to take a player out like that when not winning the ball.

Two players are going for the ball.

 

One gets there late and catches the other one.

 

That's a foul.

 

That's a pen.

 

End of debate.

 

 

I think you have to look at keepers a bit diffrently A, and B did he stop Oscar from scoring or playing the ball, No. The ball was gone, it was a collision of momentum. Tell ya what, I also don't think it was a pen in the CL semi against Liverpool, so I'm being consistent. The more i see it, the more I think about it. It's just not a pen. 

 

If oscar pushes the ball past him and is going to run on to it and the keeper stops him I agree its a pen but he'd had his shot

I think you have to look at keepers a bit diffrently A, and B did he stop Oscar from scoring or playing the ball, No. The ball was gone, it was a collision of momentum. Tell ya what, I also don't think it was a pen in the CL semi against Liverpool, so I'm being consistent. The more i see it, the more I think about it. It's just not a pen. 

 

If oscar pushes the ball past him and is going to run on to it and the keeper stops him I agree its a pen but he'd had his shot

 

But he did stop him scoring. If he hadn't charged out, Oscar would have had a clear opportunity to score. Because he charged the player and ended up taking him out, Oscar wasn't able to get a proper shot off. If the ball is gone (because the opponent got to it first) and your momentum makes you collide into him, isn't that considered a foul? I don't see why it should be different for keepers.

But he did stop him scoring. If he hadn't charged out, Oscar would have had a clear opportunity to score. Because he charged the player and ended up taking him out, Oscar wasn't able to get a proper shot off. If the ball is gone (because the opponent got to it first) and your momentum makes you collide into him, isn't that considered a foul? I don't see why it should be different for keepers.

A goalkeepers job is to charge out and stop Oscar getting g a proper shot of, him colliding with Oscar did not affect Oscars ability to score, it was him coming out and being big. The collision happens after and this is part of football. One could say it was a 50/50 and both had a right to go for it.

I mean honestly did we expect him to let Oscar take the ball down, pick his spot etc.. He's doing his job. More convinced now, never a pen

EDIT.. This back and white view of the game is what is wrong with refs imo. Have to credit the ref on this on, taking everything in to account

Edited April 28, 201511 yr by barak81

A goalkeepers job is to charge out and stop Oscar getting g a proper shot of, him colliding with Oscar did not affect Oscars ability to score, it was him coming out and being big. The collision happens after and this is part of football. One could say it was a 50/50 and both had a right to go for it.

I mean honestly did we expect him to let Oscar take the ball down, pick his spot etc.. He's doing his job. More convinced now, never a pen

EDIT.. This back and white view of the game is what is wrong with refs imo. Have to credit the ref on this on, taking everything in to account

 

The referee has to decide when any player makes a challenge whether excessive force has been used. 

 

Ospina wiping out Oscar after the ball had gone (and in turn preventing him from following up on his chipped shot) was in my opinion excessive and in turn a foul. You can't clean out a player like that elsewhere on the pitch after the ball has gone and it's no different in the area if you are a goalkeeper. 

 

Accidental or not, it's illegal contact and should have ended with the reward of a penalty as, in my opinion, there was no advantage gained from playing on. 

The referee has to decide when any player makes a challenge whether excessive force has been used. 

 

Ospina wiping out Oscar after the ball had gone (and in turn preventing him from following up on his chipped shot) was in my opinion excessive and in turn a foul. You can't clean out a player like that elsewhere on the pitch after the ball has gone and it's no different in the area if you are a goalkeeper. 

 

Accidental or not, it's illegal contact and should have ended with the reward of a penalty as, in my opinion, there was no advantage gained from playing on. 

 

 

Lets flip in on it's head for a moment. 2005, Frisk sends drogba of for a challenge on valdes. For me it was never a foul. Many at the time on here agreed. What is the difference? 

 

 

As a keeper many times ive gone down at a players feet and taken a boot to the head because it was essentially a 50 - 50 ball, i got there first but like all players, we expcet are strikers to go for these balls. It's not a foul , its just one of those things and I believe it works the other way round as well. I dont think there was exccessive force, Ospina is running at full force to get the ball, i'd expect my keeper to do the same, at this point there is little chance to slow down. Collisions in football happen - they arn't always fouls

Lets flip in on it's head for a moment. 2005, Frisk sends drogba of for a challenge on valdes. For me it was never a foul. Many at the time on here agreed. What is the difference? 

 

 

As a keeper many times ive gone down at a players feet and taken a boot to the head because it was essentially a 50 - 50 ball, i got there first but like all players, we expcet are strikers to go for these balls. It's not a foul , its just one of those things and I believe it works the other way round as well. I dont think there was exccessive force, Ospina is running at full force to get the ball, i'd expect my keeper to do the same, at this point there is little chance to slow down. Collisions in football happen - they arn't always fouls

 

Bit apples and oranges this comparison for me, especially when you consider how far Ospina came off his line to make his challenge on Oscar and the force with which it was made. 

 

Drogba's sending off was wrong in that it wasn't a yellow card offence because he made contact with the ball something Ospina didn't do. It can be given as a foul because Valdes had two hands on the ball meaning he is in control of it but Fisk was wrong in deeming it a yellow card offence... I've just re-watched it on YouTube, he also issues Drogba his 2nd yellow and red card whilst he is on the ground, which is actually against the rules, the player has to be on their feet to be issued with a caution, so all round bad officiating from Fisk. 

 

When you run at full force to make a challenge, you have to be in control, Ospina wasn't. If that was a sliding tackle, the players played the ball and then the slide challenges comes in late and with force, it's a yellow card, minimum, all day long. Same goes for a goalkeeper coming to claim a ball and hitting the attacker with force after failing to make contact with the ball.