ECFC v Cambridge Official match day thread

[Red Bill]

How do you determine intent? Unless the player committing a foul tells the referee that that's what he was planning to do how can the referee know beyond doubt that a challenge wasn't simply mistimed or a complete accident?

That was the thrust of what was discussed at the forum and how that's exactly what refs are expected to do.

 

[Sexton Blake]

Wheeler completely out-jumped the defender, largely because he was attacking the ball and the defender was back peddling and had hardly any momentum.

Watching it in slow motion and frame by frame David Wheeler makes a prodigious jump way above the defender.
Before his momentum takes him into contact with the defender the latter has already started to jump with his hands raised. In particular his left hand which makes contact with the ball is waving all over the place.
In an attempt to get himself out of trouble he then tries to persuade the ref that Wheeler's challenge was unfair. Referee was unimpressed and correctly awards a penalty.

 

[Alistair20000]

TBF, I though T. Kettle had a good game, he was a bit over-lenient to their rough handling of Wheeler but otherwise even-handed I thought.

I have seen some erratic performances from the whistling T Kettle in the past but agree with this analysis.

We have had the benefit of penalty largesse from Trevor previously. I recall him (and lino) giving us a doubtful one in favour of Barry Corr against Walsall back in 2010.

Hard to judge the one on Saturday from where I was on the BB. I think 6' 4" The Proper Chap was in the way.

 

[LOG]

In the extract above, Wheeler has already fouled their player in order to gain that height.

No, it's before your "foul" unless you think that Wheeler was travelling backwards.

Shaun Derry didn't have any complaints about the penalty award - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNed3VZUEnk

 

[geoffwp]

In the extract above, Wheeler has already fouled their player in order to gain that height!

But he didn't Pete. I saw it and I've watched it. I can't understand how you can argue that. Wheelers speed and agility wins that challenge while the player makes a hash of it. Please post a freeze frame to convince me otherwise if it's that obvious.

 

[Spoonz Red E]

How do you determine intent? Unless the player committing a foul tells the referee that that's what he was planning to do how can the referee know beyond doubt that a challenge wasn't simply mistimed or a complete accident?/QUOTE]

Sometime's it's pretty obvious ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKip2W3mOCc

 

[iscalad]

Watching it in slow motion and frame by frame David Wheeler makes a prodigious jump way above the defender.
Before his momentum takes him into contact with the defender the latter has already started to jump with his hands raised. In particular his left hand which makes contact with the ball is waving all over the place.
In an attempt to get himself out of trouble he then tries to persuade the ref that Wheeler's challenge was unfair. Referee was unimpressed and correctly awards a penalty.

Now you've gone and upset Pete. Tsk,tsk

 

[Jason H]

Sometime's it's pretty obvious ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKip2W3mOCc

Wot no Boris?

 

[PeteUSA]

Now you've gone and upset Pete. Tsk,tsk

I'm not upset, we got three points and I dont care how they were arrived at. I do take back the suggestion that Wheeler gained the height he did by using the Cambridge defender for leverage; it was a phenominal (sic) jump since he was almost standing still. I stand by my original point though that the defender had no control over where his arms were, since Wheeler was on the way down with his forward momentum taking him into the back of the defender. As harsh as it might have seemed, Wheeler could have been penalised for falling into the defender (I think thats why the defender is appealing) but the soft issue of the award (as some have said) was to suggest that ball was handled deliberately. Ask yourself, like Mr Kettle could have done: what was the purpose of a blatent handball that he was bound to see? I dont believe it was deliberate, since once Wheeler dropped down on him, he had little or no room to do very much at all?

 

[Red Bill]

I'm not upset, we got three points and I dont care how they were arrived at. I do take back the suggestion that Wheeler gained the height he did by using the Cambridge defender for leverage; it was a phenominal (sic) jump since he was almost standing still. I stand by my original point though that the defender had no control over where his arms were, since Wheeler was on the way down with his forward momentum taking him into the back of the defender. As harsh as it might have seemed, Wheeler could have been penalised for falling into the defender (I think thats why the defender is appealing) but the soft issue of the award (as some have said) was to suggest that ball was handled deliberately. Ask yourself, like Mr Kettle could have done: what was the purpose of a blatent handball that he was bound to see? I dont believe it was deliberate, since once Wheeler dropped down on him, he had little or no room to do very much at all?

Judging by the berating the Cambridge goalkeeper gave the guilty defender after the penalty was awarded, I imagine he was asking the same question!

I have to say that at the time I thought it was a penalty but it was along way from the BB where I was standing. But in all fairness to both sides of this argument, this all seems to come about from the question of what is an unnatural hand position, for most examples you see it appears to be that only when your arms are down tucked in to your sides, but as many players, pundits and fans have pointed out, you can't jump without raising your arms or turn without putting an arm out for balance and in general unless you're a soldier standing to attention, arms by your sides is a far more unnatural position.

This is an impossible call for refs in reality and I still say that a penalty should be awarded if the defending team gains an advantage from a hand ball regardless of whether it was intensional or not. That may seem unlucky or even unfair but its no more unlucky or unfair than it is for the attacking team losing their advantage and IMO the benefit should always be in favour of the attacking team.