Blades v Coventry Highlights

[LoughboroBlade]

Actually, having looked at it again, I would be about 95% certain it was over the line. Look between Long's legs (oo erre missus), there is clear grass between the goal line and the ball.

Long's attitude in his Sky interview following that slight butterfingers moment suggests that he thought it was either over or at best too-close-for-comfort. But neither that nor the angle is conclusive – and to give the goal, you have to surely be certain as an official. If it wasn't over, it would probably be down to a tiny part of the ball that catches the edge of the line.

 

[Grecian2000]

It's easy to see how the officials didn't see it in the mayhem of bodies when they missed Brayford's goal last week which was at least a yard over the line.

On balance I think I prefer a goal not given at 1-0 up and going on to win 1-0, rather than at 0-0 and going on to lose 1-0.

As we don't use goal line technology at our level then they pretty much couldn't give the goal in normal play as there were so many bodies interfering with the visibility. Whatever TV shows, or doesn't show, is irrelevant. You can't give a goal if you don't see it cross the line.,

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

McEveley and Collins are a liability and McEveley should have seen red for that tackle, but pink boots???? FFS!!!!
Collins definate handball and it did cross the line!
Their keeper is shit Long is improving and desrved MoM award.

Yes, we were very lucky, but about bloody time we had something go our way!

Collins is becoming scary he is so bad at defending. Really, is this the best we can do?

 

[Darren]

Long's attitude in his Sky interview following that slight butterfingers moment suggests that he thought it was either over or at best too-close-for-comfort. But neither that nor the angle is conclusive – and to give the goal, you have to surely be certain as an official. If it wasn't over, it would probably be down to a tiny part of the ball that catches the edge of the line.

Is that the actual law of the game or is it just something people say? Can a ref only give a goal if he is sure beyond reasonable doubt the ball crossed the line, or can he give a goal if he thinks it more likely that not it crossed the line?

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

Is that the actual law of the game or is it just something people say? Can a ref only give a goal if he is sure beyond reasonable doubt the ball crossed the line, or can he give a goal if he thinks it more likely that not it crossed the line?

If there's any doubt at all, the advantage goes to the defending team.

 

[Darren]

If there's any doubt at all, the advantage goes to the defending team.

Can you show me where it says that in the laws of the game? Genuine question, I suspect this is just something people say which has no basis in the actual laws.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

I suspect this is just something people say which has no basis in the actual laws.

I fully admit that this is just something I say rather than knowing that it has basis in the actual laws.

That said, if it does have any basis in the actual laws, I'll be well chuffed.

 

[judge]

How was he up our ass? he said the Left backs tackle was red card and it was and he said the ball was over the line.. which it was...

When you see it from.that angle there is no way the whole ball is over the line ( the real one )

 

[Darren]

I fully admit that this is just something I say rather than knowing that it has basis in the actual laws.

That said, if it does have any basis in the actual laws, I'll be well chuffed.

Just had a quick check of the laws. All they talk about is the referee's "opinion". There is no reference to certainty and no suggestion that he has to be more sure in his opinion in awarding a goal then he is, say, in awarding a throw in.

It does seem that the idea that a ref can only award a goal if he is sure the ball has crossed the line is a myth.

P25 for the ref's powers.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/Foo...ng/02/36/01/11/LawsofthegamewebEN_Neutral.pdf

 

[oldblade]

On balance it looks to me like it was over the line, though as you say it is not 100% conclusive.

But who gives a fuck? It wasn't given and we won.

It looks to me as though the majority of the ball is over the line, but the angle is such that it is virtually impossible to tell whether or not all of it is, and as such the benefit of the doubt would be given to the defending side.

But as you say, who cares. Such things have happened to us in the past.

 

[Darren]

It looks to me as though the majority of the ball is over the line, but the angle is such that it is virtually impossible to tell whether or not all of it is, and as such the benefit of the doubt would be given to the defending side.

But as you say, who cares. Such things have happened to us in the past.

As I say above, there is nothing in the laws that says the benefit has to be given to the defending side where there is doubt. If it was the ref's opinion the ball was over the line, even if he wasn't sure, he should give a goal.

For me, though, part of the drama of football is the capacity for human error. All you can ask is that refs be honest. If they are, you have to accept mistakes.

 

[HouchensHead]

As I say above, there is nothing in the laws that says the benefit has to be given to the defending side where there is doubt. If it was the ref's opinion the ball was over the line, even if he wasn't sure, he should give a goal.

For me, though, part of the drama of football is the capacity for human error. All you can ask is that refs be honest. If they are, you have to accept mistakes.

Good post mate.

 

[UnitedBlade]

As I say above, there is nothing in the laws that says the benefit has to be given to the defending side where there is doubt. If it was the ref's opinion the ball was over the line, even if he wasn't sure, he should give a goal.

For me, though, part of the drama of football is the capacity for human error. All you can ask is that refs be honest. If they are, you have to accept mistakes.

A ref will often not have the best view in these situations and will always look to his linesman for decisions like this. The linesman gave no signal or even looked like he was hesitating. As you say it can't be a question of benefit of doubt, it was a decision. The linesman's view could have been hampered but unlikely. Obviously these things happen very quickly especially if the keeper actually ends up holding the ball. Brayford's "goal" the week didn't have a goalkeeper complication, although I didn't think the lino was up with play as Bray shot from the edge of the box.

I absolutely agree the capacity for human error is part of football. None of us know whether it crossed the line or not. The ref and linesman are the only arbiters and there wasn't even a discussion about it. No goal, that's it.

 

[oldblade]

As I say above, there is nothing in the laws that says the benefit has to be given to the defending side where there is doubt. If it was the ref's opinion the ball was over the line, even if he wasn't sure, he should give a goal.

For me, though, part of the drama of football is the capacity for human error. All you can ask is that refs be honest. If they are, you have to accept mistakes.

I agree, but generally a referee won't give what he can't see. And I don't think it was possible for the referee to see whether or not the ball was over the line. And it seems the linesman didn't see the ball as being over the line either.

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

Can you show me where it says that in the laws of the game? Genuine question, I suspect this is just something people say which has no basis in the actual laws.

I think the official written rule is that in all cases of doubt, West Ham receives the benefit.

 

[MobileBlade]

We will take the win, badly needed.

We certainly had luck with us today that's fact, Hammond clearly dragged a Coventry back in the area, clear penalty, his mistimed tackling pulling back players because he was done for pace could have resulted in a dismissal. Long had more saves to make, when Collins lost possession, nut megged poor miss. As I say take win but need hell of a lot more than work rate, endeavour, commitment and desire that's the minimum requirements of any professional footballer. Need quality in January, but after KM comments at AGM that's not certain to happen.

I think he gave a foul to United in that incident with Hammond. Think it was Collins who was pulled to the floor.

 

[MobileBlade]

Is that the actual law of the game or is it just something people say? Can a ref only give a goal if he is sure beyond reasonable doubt the ball crossed the line, or can he give a goal if he thinks it more likely that not it crossed the line?

You mean a bit like this one:

 

[MobileBlade]

As I say above, there is nothing in the laws that says the benefit has to be given to the defending side where there is doubt. If it was the ref's opinion the ball was over the line, even if he wasn't sure, he should give a goal.

For me, though, part of the drama of football is the capacity for human error. All you can ask is that refs be honest. If they are, you have to accept mistakes.

I think you will find that referees are coached on it being better to give a controversial offside than a controversial goal. Think the same applies in this instance.

 

[HighfieldBlade]

You mean a bit like this one:

Unbelievable. Not seen that before.

 

[Darren]

I think you will find that referees are coached on it being better to give a controversial offside than a controversial goal. Think the same applies in this instance.

That may well be the case and may be what, pragmatically, is thought to be the best approach. However, as I say, there is nothing in the actual rules to support it.

 

[finlaytheblade]

That may well be the case and may be what, pragmatically, is thought to be the best approach. However, as I say, there is nothing in the actual rules to support it.

No referee in his right mind can or will give a goal if he and is linesmen are not sure the ball has crossed the line.h
We have had 2 cases involving us 1 video evidence clearly shows ball over the line the other is inconclusive, as the officials arnt sure in both cases no goal is given. Goal line technology is the only sure way of getting it right.You could say the officials are blind but as they
like us (and there view is not always as good as ours) only see it once I can understand how the wrong decision can be made.
One went for us the other didn't of the two the one that made the biggest impact? For sure Sunday! .thankyou referee we move on.

 

[HighfieldBlade]

I wonder whether the timing and fact he's captain kept it at just a yellow – any other player makes it, probably would have been a red.

I would hope that neither of these factors sway the ref's decision. It should've been red, IMO.
That said, it's the ref's opinion that matters, not mine, and he decided it wasn't a red.

 

[BushBlade]

That may well be the case and may be what, pragmatically, is thought to be the best approach. However, as I say, there is nothing in the actual rules to support it.

Aren't refs given advice and instruction on how to interpret the rules? I'd say it's common sense that if you don't see the ball go over the line you can't give it. It's a matter of 'evidence'.

 

[Darren]

Aren't refs given advice and instruction on how to interpret the rules? I'd say it's common sense that if you don't see the ball go over the line you can't give it. It's a matter of 'evidence'.

Indeed, but my point is they don't have be "sure" it went over the goal line to award a goal, any more than they have to be sure it went over the touch line in order to award a throw in. The rules don't demand that level of certainty.

The ref gets a snap view of the incident and has to form an opinion as to whether the ball went over the line in question.

 

[OllyBlade]

For me, though, part of the drama of football is the capacity for human error. All you can ask is that refs be honest. If they are, you have to accept mistakes.

I think watching football on TV makes people forget this aspect. If you are at the game in person and there's a contentious decision it just becomes another part of the action, something to get angry about once in a while but usually, unless it is really blatant, isn't what you remember from the match. The scrutiny of TV cameras means that one incident like this becomes such a big deal.

I remember after the 2009 play-off final walking away just with a sense of how shit we played, then chatting with someone else about it after (non-Blade) they said 'well you should have had a penalty'. It didn't really seem relevant to me at the time but was maybe an example of how you get a different sense of the important thing in a game from TV.

 

[BushBlade]

Indeed, but my point is they don't have be "sure" it went over the goal line to award a goal, any more than they have to be sure it went over the touch line in order to award a throw in. The rules don't demand that level of certainty.

The ref gets a snap view of the incident and has to form an opinion as to whether the ball went over the line in question.

Sorry, I'm struggling to phrase this correctly. The referrees apply the rules of the game but they are instructed by the FA on how to interpret the rules and how to apply them. It isn't in the rules of the game that the ref must see the ball cross the line because it is assumed that the ref will only give what he (or his supporting officials) sees.
So if a ref gives a goal that he didn't see, he'll be marked down for doing so by his assessors. Not because he's broken the rules of football but because he's gone against the guidance given by the arbiters of football on how to apply the rules.

 

[Darren]

Sorry, I'm struggling to phrase this correctly. The referrees apply the rules of the game but they are instructed by the FA on how to interpret the rules and how to apply them. It isn't in the rules of the game that the ref must see the ball cross the line because it is assumed that the ref will only give what he (or his supporting officials) sees.
So if a ref gives a goal that he didn't see, he'll be marked down for doing so by his assessors. Not because he's broken the rules of football but because he's gone against the guidance given by the arbiters of football on how to apply the rules.

The rules talk about the "opinion" of the referee. The referee can only have an opinion as to whether the ball crossed a relevant line if he sees it. What I am talking about is a situation where for, example, the ball is going in, and a defender lunges out a foot and clears it. The ref saw the incident, but it happened so quickly that he can't be 100% sure if the ball crossed the line. He then has to decide whether it is more likely or not that the ball crossed the line. The laws do not say that he should think, "well I am 95% sure it crossed the line, but as I have a 5% doubt, I can't give a goal".

You might also get a situation where the ref should give a goal even if he does not actually see the ball crossed the line. Say a shot is looping over a goalie with a defender rushing back to cover. The defender is standing two yards behind the line with his head about to connect with the ball. However at the crucial point where the head connects with the ball the goalie gets in the way, so the ref doesn't see where the actual connection happened. However, as the ref can see the defender was two yards into the goal, it could well be his opinion that the ball must have been behind the line and he would then give a goal.

 

[BushBlade]

The rules talk about the "opinion" of the referee. The referee can only have an opinion as to whether the ball crossed a relevant line if he sees it. What I am talking about is a situation where for, example, the ball is going in, and a defender lunges out a foot and clears it. The ref saw the incident, but it happened so quickly that he can't be 100% sure if the ball crossed the line. He then has to decide whether it is more likely or not that the ball crossed the line. The laws do not say that he should think, "well I am 95% sure it crossed the line, but as I have a 5% doubt, I can't give a goal".

You might also get a situation where the ref should give a goal even if he does not actually see the ball crossed the line. Say a shot is looping over a goalie with a defender rushing back to cover. The defender is standing two yards behind the line with his head about to connect with the ball. However at the crucial point where the head connects with the ball the goalie gets in the way, so the ref doesn't see where the actual connection happened. However, as the ref can see the defender was two yards into the goal, it could well be his opinion that the ball must have been behind the line and he would then give a goal.

The rules couldn't be that specific though. Which is why they aren't and why the FA (or FIFA via the FA) give guidance on interpretation. I don't know the precise wording but I suspect it is something like you can only give a goal when it is beyond reasonable doubt that it crossed the line. Which would allow for your scenario. Of course there's another argument about how you quantify 'reasonable doubt' but I need to go and get a new tire now as I got a flat and I'm driving on three and a half wheels.

 

[Darren]

The rules couldn't be that specific though. Which is why they aren't and why the FA (or FIFA via the FA) give guidance on interpretation. I don't know the precise wording but I suspect it is something like you can only give a goal when it is beyond reasonable doubt that it crossed the line. Which would allow for your scenario. Of course there's another argument about how you quantify 'reasonable doubt' but I need to go and get a new tire now as I got a flat and I'm driving on three and a half wheels.

I checked the rules. All it talks about is the referee's "opinion" and "opinion" is much less than certainty. The rules definitely do not say that a goal can only be awarded if its is beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Balham]

Indeed, but my point is they don't have be "sure" it went over the goal line to award a goal, any more than they have to be sure it went over the touch line in order to award a throw in. The rules don't demand that level of certainty.

The ref gets a snap view of the incident and has to form an opinion as to whether the ball went over the line in question.

The difference is that the impact of deciding that the ball did, in fact, cross the touchline has far less bearing on the outcome of the game than deciding that the ball did cross the goal line.

While we're on the subject - the whole of the ball has to cross the whole of the line. The number of throw ins/goal kicks/corners given when that criterion hasn't been satisfied winds me up.