Apparently it wasnt given because it was only "fleeting". 

Fofana out of position and the wrong side of the attacker = check

Fofana grabs the attacker to stop him  = check

Fofana actions against the published rules of the game = check

Did it go on for 5 mins? = Nope - it was only fleeting.....lets let him off.

So -  it seems like it is now ok to go and punch someone in the face, or stud them in the balls - as long as its done 'fleetingly'.

https://m.allfootballapp.com/news/Headline/Fans-fume-after-VAR-denies-West-Ham-a-penalty-against-Chelsea/3515352

40 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Apparently it wasnt given because it was only "fleeting". 

Fofana out of position and the wrong side of the attacker = check

Fofana grabs the attacker to stop him  = check

Fofana actions against the published rules of the game = check

Did it go on for 5 mins? = Nope - it was only fleeting.....lets let him off.

So -  it seems like it is now ok to go and punch someone in the face, or stud them in the balls - as long as its done 'fleetingly'.

https://m.allfootballapp.com/news/Headline/Fans-fume-after-VAR-denies-West-Ham-a-penalty-against-Chelsea/3515352

I think the point is it seems likely that if he didn't want to go down, he wouldn't have. 

There doesn't seem to be any resistance, the guy has felt a hand on his wrist and fallen over. 

Is it a foul? Probably. But it's not completely clear cut. The ref had a better view than any camera. 

But then I don't think VAR should ever intervene

 

1 hour ago, bisright1 said:

I think the point is it seems likely that if he didn't want to go down, he wouldn't have. 

There doesn't seem to be any resistance, the guy has felt a hand on his wrist and fallen over. 

Is it a foul? Probably. But it's not completely clear cut. The ref had a better view than any camera. 

But then I don't think VAR should ever intervene

 

The player going down is irrelevant isn't it ?

It's a foul, Wesley was holding his arm in order to prevent him from continuing his run, he wouldn't be doing it otherwise.

VAR should own up and admit it was a mistake instead of talking about " fleeting" bo**ocks.

 

2 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

Apparently it wasnt given because it was only "fleeting". 

Fofana out of position and the wrong side of the attacker = check

Fofana grabs the attacker to stop him  = check

Fofana actions against the published rules of the game = check

Did it go on for 5 mins? = Nope - it was only fleeting.....lets let him off.

So -  it seems like it is now ok to go and punch someone in the face, or stud them in the balls - as long as its done 'fleetingly'.

https://m.allfootballapp.com/news/Headline/Fans-fume-after-VAR-denies-West-Ham-a-penalty-against-Chelsea/3515352

They just can't admit they got it wrong.

The introduction of the word "fleeting" to excuse the decision is laughable.

Total bo**ocks 

 

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

The player going down is irrelevant isn't it ?

It's a foul, Wesley was holding his arm in order to prevent him from continuing his run, he wouldn't be doing it otherwise.

VAR should own up and admit it was a mistake instead of talking about " fleeting" bo**ocks.

It's not a foul to hold someone's arm. 

Its a foul if holding that arm prevented the player continuing the run. 

From my eye, I'm not 100% certain the holding was enough to prevent the run, or whether it was the player thinking "I'm being held here, I should go down to win a penalty"

I'm pretty sure it was enough, but being pretty sure isn't enough to overturn the referee who had a better view than any camera. 

8 hours ago, bisright1 said:

I think the point is it seems likely that if he didn't want to go down, he wouldn't have. 

There doesn't seem to be any resistance, the guy has felt a hand on his wrist and fallen over. 

Is it a foul? Probably. But it's not completely clear cut. The ref had a better view than any camera. 

But then I don't think VAR should ever intervene

 

He shouldn't need to go down for the ref to give a foul. The action from fofana is not allowed - and therefore it's a foul.

5 hours ago, bisright1 said:

It's not a foul to hold someone's arm. 

Its a foul if holding that arm prevented the player continuing the run. 

From my eye, I'm not 100% certain the holding was enough to prevent the run, or whether it was the player thinking "I'm being held here, I should go down to win a penalty"

I'm pretty sure it was enough, but being pretty sure isn't enough to overturn the referee who had a better view than any camera. 

It is a foul to hold/pull another players arm (or shirt). The rules do not allow for it, at all, in any form.

I don't know where you are getting this added layer about "preventing a run" - as this is not a consideration in the rules.

Edited September 28, 20241 yr by nonotnowjim

Summerville went down far too easily, and fell forward, so was clearly looking for it.

Luckily the ref didn't buy it, unlike a certain Anthony Taylor, who would have jumped at the chance.

Fofana does need to reflect on that for sure though.

4 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

It is a foul to hold/pull another players arm (or shirt). The rules do not allow for it, at all, in any form.

I don't know where you are getting this added layer about "preventing a run" - as this is not a consideration in the rules.

So the attacker was fouling our players then. Look, both players had a handful of shirt, almost every single time this just means the ref ignored it, same as this time. 

20 minutes ago, dkw said:

So the attacker was fouling our players then. Look, both players had a handful of shirt, almost every single time this just means the ref ignored it, same as this time. 

It’s not the refs decision to ignore it. He is there to implement the rules of the game. If there is a foul, he needs to give it - not turn a blind eye for an arbitrary reason.

 

3 hours ago, Malcolm9 said:

Summerville went down far too easily, and fell forward, so was clearly looking for it.

Luckily the ref didn't buy it, unlike a certain Anthony Taylor, who would have jumped at the chance.

Fofana does need to reflect on that for sure though.

He shouldn’t need to go down at all….a foul is a foul

Edited September 28, 20241 yr by nonotnowjim

I didn’t think it was a foul on the day, and by falling forward believe the attacker oversold it. Saying that, if the rules noted above are accurate then I stand corrected. 

However, was it a penalty or free kick outside the box given where the contact/pull first occurred? 

2 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

It’s not the refs decision to ignore it. He is there to implement the rules of the game. If there is a foul, he needs to give it - not turn a blind eye for an arbitrary reason.

 

He shouldn’t need to go down at all….a foul is a foul

So if both players are shirt pulling at the exact same time, who gets the foul? Both of them, take turns maybe?

13 hours ago, bisright1 said:

It's not a foul to hold someone's arm. 

Its a foul if holding that arm prevented the player continuing the run. 

From my eye, I'm not 100% certain the holding was enough to prevent the run, or whether it was the player thinking "I'm being held here, I should go down to win a penalty"

I'm pretty sure it was enough, but being pretty sure isn't enough to overturn the referee who had a better view than any camera. 

Holding another player's arm is definitely NOT allowed.

 

23 minutes ago, dkw said:

So if both players are shirt pulling at the exact same time, who gets the foul? Both of them, take turns maybe?

I dont know the exact rules, in the highly unusual circumstances of 2 players both doing the exact same action at the exact same time. I dont recall having ever seen it.

I would expect that the ref would have to make a decision on which player's actions had a greater impact on the play. If one player's pull was more forceful or caused the other player to lose balance, that player would likely be penalised. 

But lets be honest, in most instances there is always an instigator and someone who does the action first. 

In this case, there was a clear foul from Fofana - who also started and ended the incident. We got away with one - which is brilliant. But the ref either a) missed it (a clear and obvious error) or b) blatantly chose to disregard the rules of the game (a clear and obvious error). This was then compounded by the VAR official who either a) does not know the rules - or more likely - b) blatently chose to disregards the rules of the game, AND disregards the operating instructions of VAR (highlight clear and obvious errors). 

It is shocking that there is so little regard for the rules of the game by UK officials. 

 

 

52 minutes ago, PhilH930 said:

I didn’t think it was a foul on the day, and by falling forward believe the attacker oversold it. Saying that, if the rules noted above are accurate then I stand corrected. 

However, was it a penalty or free kick outside the box given where the contact/pull first occurred? 

It would have been a penalty - I initially thought a free kick, but it was pointed out on the match thread that the rules state that if the pulling happens in the box, even if it started outside, a pen kick is given.

41 minutes ago, dkw said:

So if both players are shirt pulling at the exact same time, who gets the foul? Both of them, take turns maybe?

Ref makes a decision on who pulled first, or which was more extreme. I thought it would be a drop ball, but as they are uncontested these days I suppose it's not an option.

It's a great question though, one for " you are the ref" !

35 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

It would have been a penalty - I initially thought a free kick, but it was pointed out on the match thread that the rules state that if the pulling happens in the box, even if it started outside, a pen kick is given.

Strange that sliding tackles (even from behind) carry a different logic (so I think).  

28 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

It would have been a penalty - I initially thought a free kick, but it was pointed out on the match thread that the rules state that if the pulling happens in the box, even if it started outside, a pen kick is given.

When you think about it, we are focusing on the ref, when in fact it starts with player's who are cheating. Always gone on of course, I can't believe how ref's have allowed the ridiculous holding and grappling at corners to go on unpunished.

The one that annoys me most is players going down as if poleaxed if his face is touched. Even if it's a "fleeting" touch.!

Tonali shows how bad the players are, pretending Grealish elbowed him to the ground, replays show you something different 

1 hour ago, PhilH930 said:

Strange that sliding tackles (even from behind) carry a different logic (so I think).  

Yep - i agree. Although i guess that's because a tackle is a 1 off thing, unlike a pull which can be ongoing over a number of seconds.

1 hour ago, POCH OUT said:

Tonali shows how bad the players are, pretending Grealish elbowed him to the ground, replays show you something different 

that's what VAR should be used for. 

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

When you think about it, we are focusing on the ref, when in fact it starts with player's who are cheating. Always gone on of course, I can't believe how ref's have allowed the ridiculous holding and grappling at corners to go on unpunished.

The one that annoys me most is players going down as if poleaxed if his face is touched. Even if it's a "fleeting" touch.!

What came first - the chicken or the egg?

Refs often don't give fouls unless the player goes down. Which in turn makes players go down on purpose even when they could stay on their feet. Players then realised they can fool refs, which they got away with for so long. 

If refs simply gave fouls when it was a clear foul, regardless of if the attacker went down or not, and always punished clear dives, then it would minimise the exaggeration.

4 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Holding another player's arm is definitely NOT allowed.

 

It's not an automatic foul though. That's not the rules 

11 hours ago, bisright1 said:

It's not an automatic foul though. That's not the rules 

The rules clearly state it isn't allowed - and there are no provisions within the rules that make exceptions, concessions or flexibility to this. 

I have posted the exact rules already on this thread....and a link to the FA website.

3 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

The rules clearly state it isn't allowed - and there are no provisions within the rules that make exceptions, concessions or flexibility to this. 

I have posted the exact rules already on this thread....and a link to the FA website.

No it doesn't.

"Holding an opponent includes the act of preventing him from moving past or a round using the hands, the arms or the body.

Holding is only a foul if it prevents him from moving."

My argument, and the argument of the refs on the day, is that the holding did not completely prevent the player from moving. The player falling to the ground did. 

That's what it means by fleeting. 

Now I think it just about met the threshold of a penalty, but I can see why it didn't meet the threshold to overturn a decision. Because VAR needs to only be used for absolutely clear errors. The ref knew he had been held, he just didn't think it was a big enough hold to prevent the player from moving