Was it a foul on Simo?

[boo radley]

Come on, that's a ridiculous interpretation. If a player is running away from the goalie, has his back to him and the goalie sprints up to the player and collides with his back and drops the ball, are you saying that would be a free kick to the goalie's team?

Of course not. In that case, the forward cannot be said to be preventing the goalie from releasing the ball. To say someone prevents someone from doing something necessarily implies some sort of volition on the preventer's part. If I am trying to get into a nightclub and the bouncer stands in my way so I can't get through the door (whether deliberately or accidentally) he is preventing me from entering. If the bouncer is stood at the side of the door and there is a clear path for me to enter, yet I walk straight into him instead of going through the door then he isn't preventing entry.

According to that statement the team could line up ten in front of the keeper and they are not preventing the restart of play because the keeper could throw to the side or behind him.
you started the pedantic debate because of your interpretation.
Now I know in general you try to make an independent judgement but if the goal had cost us I think your argument would have took a different course more like Bergan and all others on here who see it as a clear foul because of the player not retreating. if it was a dead ball off the floor and the player did not retreat he would be booked.
Dead ball off the floor and Simmo is about to kick forward, player comes from behind and the ball is kicked against him as he takes the kick. the player would be booked. whistle or no whistle blown the result would be the same. Booking for player for preventing restart of play.
It was quite obvious that the striker wished to cause disruption. He may have been hoping for Simmo to drop the ball to kick off floor. Not in his wildest dreams did he expect to get away with that.
Whist other rules are open to greater debate (hand ball being deliberate) this really is not. The ref got it wrong.

 

[Darren]

It's not a ridiculous interpretation. It's one that cleaves closest to the wording of the law.

Ok, so my interpretation is ridiculous, but I suppose your example is completely reasonable. What is it with all these hypotheticals? We have a clear example that we've all watched. Find me a clip of what you describe and we'll discuss it. Again, you are extrapolating beyond the bounds of what we are discussing here. There's no need to get all reductio ad absurdum.

Your nightclub example doesn't stand, since Hines is not stood aside allowing Simmo to throw the ball like your bouncer, but colliding with him, which is kind of the point of all this.

Volition is not necessarily implied at all. Where did you get this from? If I try and walk through a doorway with someone standing in it and I can't get past because they are standing in it then they are preventing me entering. It doesn't matter if they are looking the other way and talking to someone else and they don't know I'm there. I'm being prevented from going through by a body.

The facticity of his physical presence prevents release. Ergo, foul.

You're misisng my point:

There are three possibilities in Simmo's case:

1. Hines deliberately walks into Simmo: we both agree this is a foul.
2. Hines accidentally walks into Simmo thus preventing him releasing the ball: I now agree with you that this would be a foul.
3. Simmo accidentally walks into Hines: for me that is clearly not a foul, but you seem to be saying that even if the collision between the two men is caused by Simmo's movement, then as that prevents him releasing the ball, then it would still be a foul. That, for me, is the ridiculous interpretation of the meaning of the word "prevent"

On looking at the video, it seems to me that 3 is more likely to be the case, but that, is of course, open to interpretation.

 

[super_pig]

you're all missing the point spectacularly.. should never have happened

 

[Balham]

I disagree on Hines' intent Boo. He's got his head down, heading back to a central position (don't forget, Simonsen is out by the corner of his box). He's not concentrating on what's going on around him and it took him a moment to realise that Simo had thrown the ball into him.

I've played up front and in goal for years - if I was up front and that happened I'd be highly annoyed if the goal was disallowed and if I was in goal, I'd be pissed off at myself for not checking where the striker was.

Simonsen made a mindless mistake. If Ched had scored like that we'd all be praising his opportunism where in reality, it's the keeper making a massive error which led to the goal.

 

[boo radley]

I disagree on Hines' intent Boo. He's got his head down, heading back to a central position (don't forget, Simonsen is out by the corner of his box). He's not concentrating on what's going on around him and it took him a moment to realise that Simo had thrown the ball into him.

I've played up front and in goal for years - if I was up front and that happened I'd be highly annoyed if the goal was disallowed and if I was in goal, I'd be pissed off at myself for not checking where the striker was.

Simonsen made a mindless mistake. If Ched had scored like that we'd all be praising his opportunism where in reality, it's the keeper making a massive error which led to the goal.

two outfield players, one goes to close the ball at the others feet. He tripped and stumbles in to the player with no intent gets non of the ball just the player, the player loses control and the team with the player who tripped gains possession.

Intent or not it is a foul.
I was also a striker.

 

[secretchief]

You're misisng my point:

There are three possibilities in Simmo's case:

1. Hines deliberately walks into Simmo: we both agree this is a foul.
2. Hines accidentally walks into Simmo thus preventing him releasing the ball: I now agree with you that this would be a foul.
3. Simmo accidentally walks into Hines: for me that is clearly not a foul, but you seem to be saying that even if the collision between the two men is caused by Simmo's movement, then as that prevents him releasing the ball, then it would still be a foul. That, for me, is the ridiculous interpretation of the meaning of the word "prevent"

On looking at the video, it seems to me that 3 is more likely to be the case, but that, is of course, open to interpretation.

No, I take your point, all I'm saying is that in this case the law doesn't extend to permutation 3.

It is tersely and baldly worded very probably to attempt to minimise the necessity for interpretation, since in instances like these it is a good idea to protect the keeper from being jostled by chancers.

What's interesting here is that the referee did interpret the rule precisely in the manner of the third scenario. I think the ref thought what most people instinctively thought: 'It looks like an error on the keeper's behalf - I'll give it'. He used 'common sense'.

This is not how the rule should be applied. It's not a case of Simmo 'walking into' Hines (as you say); it's that the cycle of Simmo's arm is interrupted by the body of an opposing player.

All this reminds me of one of the first things I posted here:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6037281/goalie-punkd-into-giving-goal

 

[Bladesman]

Watched it again and its totally Simmo's fault and even Wilson had no complaints after the game.

An experienced keeper like Simmo should be looking over his shoulder.

 

[Darren]

No, I take your point, all I'm saying is that in this case the law doesn't extend to permutation 3.

It is tersely and baldly worded very probably to attempt to minimise the necessity for interpretation, since in instances like these it is a good idea to protect the keeper from being jostled by chancers.

What's interesting here is that the referee did interpret the rule precisely in the manner of the third scenario. I think the ref thought what most people instinctively thought: 'It looks like an error on the keeper's behalf - I'll give it'. He used 'common sense'.

This is not how the rule should be applied. It's not a case of Simmo 'walking into' Hines (as you say); it's that the cycle of Simmo's arm is interrupted by the body of an opposing player.

All this reminds me of one of the first things I posted here:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6037281/goalie-punkd-into-giving-goal

Just one question. Say, if Hines had run round Simmo in a wideish arc to his right, obviously not trying to interfere with him and, at the same time, Simmo had been looking to his left and didn't know where Hines was; and if then Simmo, without looking moved sharply to his right as he made to throw the ball and, as he did so, connected with Hines and dropped the ball.

Would you say that that would be a free kick to United?

 

[secretchief]

Just one question. Say, if Hines had run round Simmo in a wideish arc to his right, obviously not trying to interfere with him and, at the same time, Simmo had been looking to his left and didn't know where Hines was; and if then Simmo, without looking moved sharply to his right as he made to throw the ball and, as he did so, connected with Hines and dropped the ball.

Would you say that that would be a free kick to United?

More counterfactuals!

No, I'll play along, even though you are trying to lead me up the garden path. We are straying a long way from the point here though, which is that the circumstances of the Simmo incident should have resulted in an indirect kick, since he was prevented from releasing the ball.

The rule, properly applied, would call your example a foul. It is not a matter of interpretation. Perhaps it's a bad rule that requires refining. I don't have any interest in arguing the rights and wrongs of the laws of the game. Maybe it is imprecise. Maybe there should be latitude for interpretation. All I'm saying is that in this universe, on that Saturday, the referee was wrong not to call a foul.

 

[Darren]

More counterfactuals!

No, I'll play along, even though you are trying to lead me up the garden path. We are straying a long way from the point here though, which is that the circumstances of the Simmo incident should have resulted in an indirect kick, since he was prevented from releasing the ball.

The rule, properly applied, would call your example a foul. It is not a matter of interpretation. Perhaps it's a bad rule that requires refining. I don't have any interest in arguing the rights and wrongs of the laws of the game. Maybe it is imprecise. Maybe there should be latitude for interpretation. All I'm saying is that in this universe, on that Saturday, the referee was wrong not to call a foul.

I disagree. The obvious meaning of the phrase "X prevents Y from doing Z" is that the active party is X and the passive party is Y. If the active party is Y (i.e. if Simmo runs into Hines) then to anyone who understands English then it is clear that X has not prevented Y from doing anything.

To use my bouncer example again. If the bouncer is occupying a half a doorway, but leaves sufficient room for me to walk past him through the doorway and I walk into the bouncer rather than go through the empty space at the side of him, he is not preventing me entering is he?

 

[Balham]

two outfield players, one goes to close the ball at the others feet. He tripped and stumbles in to the player with no intent gets non of the ball just the player, the player loses control and the team with the player who tripped gains possession.

Intent or not it is a foul.
I was also a striker.

In the case above that's a foul but that's not the same - Hines didn't get any of Simonsen; Simonsen moved towards Hines and then pretty much rolled the ball straight into him. An analogy with outfield players doesn't really work as there's no rule about preventing outfielders releasing the ball.

 

[secretchief]

I disagree. The obvious meaning of the phrase "X prevents Y from doing Z" is that the active party is X and the passive party is Y. If the active party is Y (i.e. if Simmo runs into Hines) then to anyone who understands English then it is clear that X has not prevented Y from doing anything.

To use my bouncer example again. If the bouncer is occupying a half a doorway, but leaves sufficient room for me to walk past him through the doorway and I walk into the bouncer rather than go through the empty space at the side of him, he is not preventing me entering is he?

It is not an obvious meaning, since, as we've established, the law doesn't encompass intent and so notions of 'active' and 'passive' aren't necessary to apply. What your definition would do is cloud the issue. We would get people walking across and behind the goalkeeper all the time and the referee would have to determine whether they meant to do it or not. Well gee... Hines looks like he's just jogging back. He must just be jogging back!

Surely you can see this.

I understand English perfectly well, well enough to know that the rules of football are designed for uncomplicated and unambiguous application, and not deliberately vague so that when people want to split hairs they can do so to the tenth decimal point.

Oh, so now the bouncer is occupying half the doorway. Unless he is a moonlighting Zavon Hines this proves nothing, since in the real-life example we are talking about 'sufficient room' wasn't left. In your hypothetical example designed to demonstrate that the rule has problematic contours, I've already accepted that it does. I don't care about the validity of the rule. All I'm saying is that it wasn't properly applied.

I'm sorry to be flippant but I'm conscious of becoming a bore, here.

 

[boo radley]

In the case above that's a foul but that's not the same - Hines didn't get any of Simonsen; Simonsen moved towards Hines and then pretty much rolled the ball straight into him. An analogy with outfield players doesn't really work as there's no rule about preventing outfielders releasing the ball.

yes there is from a dead ball free kick. dont retreat and you get booked.
or even a throw in where you have to give two yards.

 

[j j]

Goalie has ball, goes to release it, meets strikers and loses control of the ball. Goalie error? Yes. Shouldn't have happened. Foul/obstruction? Yes. Goal shouldn't have stood. No bouncers involved. We got three points. Manager not one to whine on.

 

[Balham]

yes there is from a dead ball free kick. dont retreat and you get booked.
or even a throw in where you have to give two yards.

OK then - attacker slides in to make a tackle, the ball goes out for a throw to the defending side. The attacker's momentum takes him over the touchline. The defender takes the throw too quickly, hitting the attacker who's less than 2m away but has his back to the defender as he tries to get back onto the pitch. Attacker gains possession, goes through and scores.

The laws of the game (law 15) states that an infringement only occurs "If an opponent unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower" and although the interpretation states that opponents must be 2m away, the interpretation is there to deal with players deliberately standing too close.

I'd argue that there's nothing unfair about what the attacker's done and the goal should stand. It's the same with Simonsen's mistake on Saturday. Maybe we should send this in to the You Are The Ref column in the Guardian?!

 

[Darren]

It is not an obvious meaning, since, as we've established, the law doesn't encompass intent and so notions of 'active' and 'passive' aren't necessary to apply. What your definition would do is cloud the issue. We would get people walking across and behind the goalkeeper all the time and the referee would have to determine whether they meant to do it or not. Well gee... Hines looks like he's just jogging back. He must just be jogging back!

Surely you can see this.

I understand English perfectly well, well enough to know that the rules of football are designed for uncomplicated and unambiguous application, and not deliberately vague so that when people want to split hairs they can do so to the tenth decimal point.

Oh, so now the bouncer is occupying half the doorway. Unless he is a moonlighting Zavon Hines this proves nothing, since in the real-life example we are talking about 'sufficient room' wasn't left. In your hypothetical example designed to demonstrate that the rule has problematic contours, I've already accepted that it does. I don't care about the validity of the rule. All I'm saying is that it wasn't properly applied.

I'm sorry to be flippant but I'm conscious of becoming a bore, here.

Referees have to determine all the time when two players collide who might be at fault so I see no problem with them having to interpret what happened in the Simmo/Hines situation.

We are arguing about what the word "prevents" means in the relevant law. You seem to be saying that it means that if a goalkeeper cannot physically release the ball because of another player then that amounts to prevention within the meaning of that law, even if the situation was brought about entirely by the goalkeeper. So, it must follow that if a goalie has the ball in his hands, an opposition player is running away from him and the goalie runs right up behind him and tries to throw the ball out when he is 6 inches from the other guy's back, then it is a free kick to the goalie as, due to the other player's proximity, it is impossible for the goalie to release the ball - even though this was entirely due to the goalie's actions.

I am sure you agree that that would be absurd, but if you do then it must be the case that the word "prevent" in the law does imply some sort of intention/recklessness/negligence on the part of the foward. If the goalie can't throw out the ball because of his own action, then the foward cannot be said to have prevented him releasing it.

 

[j j]

We are arguing about what the word "prevents" means in the relevant law. You seem to be saying that it means that if a goalkeeper cannot physically release the ball because of another player then that amounts to prevention within the meaning of that law, even if the situation was brought about entirely by the goalkeeper. So, it must follow that if a goalie has the ball in his hands, an opposition player is running away from him and the goalie runs right up behind him and tries to throw the ball out when he is 6 inches from the other guy's back, then it is a free kick to the goalie as, due to the other player's proximity, it is impossible for the goalie to release the ball - even though this was entirely due to the goalie's actions.

What you describe is a free kick to the goalie and possibly a booking for getting in the way. It is not "entirely due to the goalie's actions" as the opposition is expected to give the goalie chance to release the ball. Otherwise we go back to the 70s and the centre forward standing in front of the goalie to stop the game from flowing, give his defenders chance to regroup and try and nick the ball.

 

[Darren]

What you describe is a free kick to the goalie and possibly a booking for getting in the way. It is not "entirely due to the goalie's actions" as the opposition is expected to give the goalie chance to release the ball. Otherwise we go back to the 70s and the centre forward standing in front of the goalie to stop the game from flowing, give his defenders chance to regroup and try and nick the ball.

What, even if the foward is running away sharply and the goalie runs right up to his back?

 

[secretchief]

Referees have to determine all the time when two players collide who might be at fault so I see no problem with them having to interpret what happened in the Simmo/Hines situation.

We are arguing about what the word "prevents" means in the relevant law. You seem to be saying that it means that if a goalkeeper cannot physically release the ball because of another player then that amounts to prevention within the meaning of that law, even if the situation was brought about entirely by the goalkeeper. So, it must follow that if a goalie has the ball in his hands, an opposition player is running away from him and the goalie runs right up behind him and tries to throw the ball out when he is 6 inches from the other guy's back, then it is a free kick to the goalie as, due to the other player's proximity, it is impossible for the goalie to release the ball - even though this was entirely due to the goalie's actions.

I am sure you agree that that would be absurd, but if you do then it must be the case that the word "prevent" in the law does imply some sort of intention/recklessness/negligence on the part of the foward. If the goalie can't throw out the ball because of his own action, then the foward cannot be said to have prevented him releasing it.

The whole point of the law is so that referees don't have to make interpretations on collisions because when the ball is in the keeper's hands different rules apply. That's why there is a law about it! This is not a challenge in open play, as you are sneakily implying. You may not see a problem, I've pointed out plenty - nothing other, in fact, than the reason that the rule is written as unambiguously as it is. Because people would constantly try to exploit the indeterminacy of it and it would create more problems than it would solve.

I agree with your characterisation of my argument, but your example that follows is, as I have previously observed, a reductio ad absurdum which is not germane to the Simmo/Hines debacle, so you are proving nothing. Of course in your ridiculous example it would be absurd but you are having yourself on if you think that the corollary to that is that the law implies intention. It would be absurd, but it would still be the law. Even if the law isn't configured to encompass your bizarre permutation, it doesn't follow that the law as it is written is suspended in favour of interpretation about intent etc.

 

[stannyblade]

The only question for me is. Who bumped who? If Hines was the bumper then foul but if it was simmo then no foul for me.

 

[Darren]

The whole point of the law is so that referees don't have to make interpretations on collisions because when the ball is in the keeper's hands different rules apply. That's why there is a law about it! This is not a challenge in open play, as you are sneakily implying. You may not see a problem, I've pointed out plenty - nothing other, in fact, than the reason that the rule is written as unambiguously as it is. Because people would constantly try to exploit the indeterminacy of it and it would create more problems than it would solve.

I agree with your characterisation of my argument, but your example that follows is, as I have previously observed, a reductio ad absurdum which is not germane to the Simmo/Hines debacle, so you are proving nothing. Of course in your ridiculous example it would be absurd but you are having yourself on if you think that the corollary to that is that the law implies intention. It would be absurd, but it would still be the law. Even if the law isn't configured to encompass your bizarre permutation, it doesn't follow that the law as it is written is suspended in favour of interpretation about intent etc.

All laws have to be interpreted. That's why I have a job!

As you have accepted the (admittedly) absurd example I gave, it must follow that if a collision is caused by the goalie, then the forward does not prevent the goalie releasing the ball and it is thus not a free kick. (by the way, I have not said there has to be intention on the part of the foward - negligence or recklessness will do). That was all I was trying to establish.

My interpretation of the Hines/Simmo incident is that S bumps into H not vice versa. As such, the collission is S's fault and thus not a free kick. I accept the video evidence is open to debate, but bearing in mind the linseman has to make a snap decision on what he sees, I don't think he can be criticised.

 

[Darren]

The only question for me is. Who bumped who? If Hines was the bumper then foul but if it was simmo then no foul for me.

You said in one sentence what I have been trying to say in about 532 posts!

 

[Quiff Boy]

Regardless of who's fault it may have been, it was an awful moment

Memories of Alan Kelly hobbling around the penalty area trying to get that awful back-pass onto his good foot before falling flat on his arse and giving the ball away

 

[secretchief]

All laws have to be interpreted. That's why I have a job!

As you have accepted the (admittedly) absurd example I gave, it must follow that if a collision is caused by the goalie, then the forward does not prevent the goalie releasing the ball and it is thus not a free kick. (by the way, I have not said there has to be intention on the part of the foward - negligence or recklessness will do). That was all I was trying to establish.

My interpretation of the Hines/Simmo incident is that S bumps into H not vice versa. As such, the collission is S's fault and thus not a free kick. I accept the video evidence is open to debate, but bearing in mind the linseman has to make a snap decision on what he sees, I don't think he can be criticised.

Holy cow. Of course laws have to be interpreted. I have never disputed this. You are misrepresenting my point.

What I said was that if the goalkeeper is in possession of the ball and is prevented from releasing it then whatever collision occurs does not require a judgement (or interpretation) about intent/cause etc.

You are still implicitly harping on about this active/passive dichotomy that I disposed with a few posts back in claiming that 'the forward does not prevent the goalie releasing the ball'. You lost this point. The release is still prevented due to their proximity, the agency matters not. Read the rule.

Your interpretation about 'collisions' and 'faults' is fresh air. It's not in the law.

 

[Darren]

Holy cow. Of course laws have to be interpreted. I have never disputed this. You are misrepresenting my point.

What I said was that if the goalkeeper is in possession of the ball and is prevented from releasing it then whatever collision occurs does not require a judgement (or interpretation) about intent/cause etc.

You are still implicitly harping on about this active/passive dichotomy that I disposed with a few posts back in claiming that 'the forward does not prevent the goalie releasing the ball'. You lost this point. The release is still prevented due to their proximity, the agency matters not. Read the rule.

Your interpretation about 'collisions' and 'faults' is fresh air. It's not in the law.

Of course the agency matters. You have accepted that if a goalie runs into a foward who is some distance away and then can't release the ball because of the foward's proximity, then it is not a foul. Why is it not a foul? Because the goalie is the agent of the foward's proximity.

This all boils down to how you interpret "prevent" in the relevant law. You have a rather eccentric interpretation of the word if I may say so, but seem determined to stick to it.

 

[secretchief]

Of course the agency matters. You have accepted that if a goalie runs into a foward who is some distance away and then can't release the ball because of the foward's proximity, then it is not a foul. Why is it not a foul? Because the goalie is the agent of the foward's proximity.

This all boils down to how you interpret "prevent" in the relevant law. You have a rather eccentric interpretation of the word if I may say so, but seem determined to stick to it.

I never accepted it wasn't a foul. Read it again. I accepted it was absurd but it would be a foul.

 

[Darren]

I never accepted it wasn't a foul. Read it again. I accepted it was absurd but it would be a foul.

Really? Well if you really think that I think you are leaving the bounds of rationality and its time to end this discussion.

 

[JohnDenver]

Aw. I'm enjoying the legalese of this thread much more than the horrors of the Welsh one...

 

[Darren]

Aw. I'm enjoying the legalese of this thread much more than the horrors of the Welsh one...

Well if I got some support when people put forward very novel arguments (meaning "completely barmy" in legalese), I might be inclined to carry on....

 

[JohnDenver]

Well if I got some support when people put forward very novel arguments (meaning "completely barmy" in legalese), I might be inclined to carry on....

I'm just a bystander indulging in vicarious pleasure. You can't lay a hand on me.