ECFC v Cambridge Official match day thread

[IndoMike]

In the old days we had Bailey and Whitehead as enforcers if any of the opposition got out of hand, but of course it's better that the referees protect players who are getting rough treatment. Remember seeing a photo of George Best and he was black and blue as a result of bad tackles.

 

[antman]

That's fair enough- what I don't like is that when borderline penalties are given against us people are apoplectic with age, yet when we receive a soft penalty it barely gets a mention. I think people should try and be as neutral as possible when assessing referee decisions. Although from the replay I think we were quite lucky to be awarded the penalty, I accept that it was based on the views of people who were actually there.

.

I don't agree actually. Bigger clubs naturally get more of those borderline decisions than smaller ones do because refs are swayed by home crowds, you even see this at the highest level. The appeal for the penalty was audible on the stream and all our players nearby claimed it. There's no doubt in my mind this influenced the ref. For what it's worth I do think it's a penalty because if the player is watching the ball and not the man, and the defender wasn't and Wheeler was, he doesn't have his hand so far up when the ball is coming close. But we need to make as much noise on those as fans as we can.

Personally I never use the phrase "soft pen". It's either a foul or it isn't, if the contact is exaggerated by the player or it's not intentional people seem to think that somehow it's "soft" but if it's a foul, it's a foul.

 

[rustle]

In the old days we had Bailey and Whitehead as enforcers if any of the opposition got out of hand, but of course it's better that the referees protect players who are getting rough treatment. Remember seeing a photo of George Best and he was black and blue as a result of bad tackles.

And Noel Blake!

 

[fred binneys head]

Surely a penalty is given if the referee thinks it's a foul, not if it is actually a foul? Therefore you can be given a soft penalty or a clear penalty.

 

[antman]

Surely a penalty is given if the referee thinks it's a foul, not if it is actually a foul? Therefore you can be given a soft penalty or a clear penalty.

The phrase "soft pen" is usually reserved for those cases where people are saying, "yeah, it's a pen but it didn't look very bad, or the striker also dived". If it's not a foul and the ref gives it, it's just simply the wrong decision, obviously a matter of opinion but you don't see people saying when it's clearly the wrong decision on a replay that it's "soft", they are saying the ref made a mistake.

 

[tonykellowfan]

By the letter of the law it was a pen, no question. It wasn't a borderline decision, it hit his hand in the penalty area while he had his hand up in the air trying to stop Wheeler heading the ball.

 

[John William]

I don't agree actually. Bigger clubs naturally get more of those borderline decisions than smaller ones do because refs are swayed by home crowds, you even see this at the highest level. The appeal for the penalty was audible on the stream and all our players nearby claimed it. There's no doubt in my mind this influenced the ref. For what it's worth I do think it's a penalty because if the player is watching the ball and not the man, and the defender wasn't and Wheeler was, he doesn't have his hand so far up when the ball is coming close. But we need to make as much noise on those as fans as we can.

Personally I never use the phrase "soft pen". It's either a foul or it isn't, if the contact is exaggerated by the player or it's not intentional people seem to think that somehow it's "soft" but if it's a foul, it's a foul.

Intention is actually the key issue with fouls. It is never a foul if it is unintentional, though referees often seem to forget that bit. However, it can be a foul even if the player doesn't actually touch the opponent. From the Laws of the Game:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

 

[John William]

By the letter of the law it was a pen, no question. It wasn't a borderline decision, it hit his hand in the penalty area while he had his hand up in the air trying to stop Wheeler heading the ball.

Not necessarily. The key issue in the Laws of the Game is whether it was intentional - the wording is "handles the ball deliberately". However, guidance to referees says they can take into account the position of the players hands and other relevant issues in deciding whether there was intent.

Penalties are usually awarded in the circumstances of Saturday's incident, of course, but a referee can decide that even if the hands are in an unusual position the player did not handle the ball deliberately.

 

[antman]

Intention is actually the key issue with fouls. It is never a foul if it is unintentional, tt[/I]

This is only true for hand ball. Otherwise you are not correct.

 

[malcolms]

Not necessarily. The key issue in the Laws of the Game is whether it was intentional - the wording is "handles the ball deliberately". However, guidance to referees says they can take into account the position of the players hands and other relevant issues in deciding whether there was intent.

Penalties are usually awarded in the circumstances of Saturday's incident, of course, but a referee can decide that even if the hands are in an unusual position the player did not handle the ball deliberately.

I think they issue with Saturday's incident didn't really revolve around whether the ball was in contact with his hand (it clearly was) The reality was the fact that Wheeler had both (not one) of his arms on the guy's shoulders and was levering his way skywards. Should it have been given as a foul on the defender? probably, but as I said earlier, he got away with it so good luck to him.