AFC Bournemouth star Grabban: My goal should have stood

Bournemouth Echo: GOAL THAT NEVER WAS: Lewis Grabban's effort was chalked off GOAL THAT NEVER WAS: Lewis Grabban's effort was chalked off

LEWIS Grabban felt Cherries had again been victims of a poor refereeing decision during their 0-0 draw with Championship rivals Middlesbrough on Saturday.

Grabban was denied what appeared to be a perfectly legitimate goal when he was deemed to have fouled Boro stopper Dimitrios Konstantopoulos in the build-up.

The striker netted from a tight angle after the Greek goalkeeper had unsuccessfully tried to regain possession having initially dropped the ball to prevent him carrying it out of his 18-yard box.

However, Essex-based referee Fred Graham took a different view from the majority of the Dean Court crowd and ruled out what would have been Grabban’s 16th goal of the season.

Discussing the controversial incident, which took place just before half-time, Grabban said: “It should have been a goal. The goalkeeper was scrambling to get the ball and only had one hand on it when I nicked it off him.

“He was about to go outside the area and dropped it. That was when we both went for it so I thought it was a fair challenge but the referee saw it differently. He said the goalkeeper had a hand on it and had been in control of the ball. I disagreed.

“On a personal note, it was disappointing that the goal was disallowed because it would have been nice to have had another one to my name. But the result was positive for the team and that was the main thing. These things happen and we need to move on.”

Earlier, Graham, and following consultation with linesman Dan Cook, had opted to only show Grant Leadbitter a yellow card after the Boro midfielder had petulantly kicked out at Matt Ritchie in full view of the assistant.

Asked whether he had seen the incident, Grabban joked: “No, but I heard the scream!”

He added: “Matt said he kicked him. If you kick someone off the ball, it is usually a red card. I don’t think the officials were at their best today.”

Eddie Howe said he had not witnessed the Leadbitter kick as he had turned away from the action but the Cherries boss said he had had a good view of Grabban’s disallowed effort.

“My view from seeing it live was that it should have been given,” said Howe. “I didn’t think the goalkeeper had it in both hands and under control and I thought Lewis was well within his rights to go for it. We were disappointed with the decision.”

Boro manager Aitor Karanka also said he had not seen the Leadbitter incident as he had been “speaking with my staff”.

And asked whether he felt Boro had been fortunate to see the Grabban strike chalked off, the Spaniard was non-committal and said Cherries had had more chances than his side.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:54am Mon 17 Mar 14

susi.m says...

After looking at the recorded incident several times and checking up on the FA rules - the goal should have stood.

I didn't see the kicking out at Ritchie incident - but if he did kick out it should have been a red.
After looking at the recorded incident several times and checking up on the FA rules - the goal should have stood. I didn't see the kicking out at Ritchie incident - but if he did kick out it should have been a red. susi.m
  • Score: 7

8:02am Mon 17 Mar 14

Jim_Springbourne says...

"The goalkeeper was scrambling to get the ball and only had one hand on it when I nicked it off him. "
====================
====================
=============

Law 12: Fouls and misconduct:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball:

• while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)

• while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand

• while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air

When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent
.

And that's why the ref got it right. By the laws of the game, the keeper is deemed to have control of the ball under those circumstances, and therefore cannot be challenged or have the ball kicked from him.

I have more of an issue with O'Kane's "dive". There was no reaction from Boro other than their centre half shaking Eunan's hand when he got up.
IMO he was tripped and we should have had a penalty.
"The goalkeeper was scrambling to get the ball and only had one hand on it when I nicked it off him. " ==================== ==================== ============= Law 12: Fouls and misconduct: A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball: • while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) • while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand • while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent . And that's why the ref got it right. By the laws of the game, the keeper is deemed to have control of the ball under those circumstances, and therefore cannot be challenged or have the ball kicked from him. I have more of an issue with O'Kane's "dive". There was no reaction from Boro other than their centre half shaking Eunan's hand when he got up. IMO he was tripped and we should have had a penalty. Jim_Springbourne
  • Score: 4

8:37am Mon 17 Mar 14

abc100 says...

Jim_Springbourne wrote:
"The goalkeeper was scrambling to get the ball and only had one hand on it when I nicked it off him. " ==================== ==================== ============= Law 12: Fouls and misconduct: A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball: • while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) • while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand • while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent . And that's why the ref got it right. By the laws of the game, the keeper is deemed to have control of the ball under those circumstances, and therefore cannot be challenged or have the ball kicked from him. I have more of an issue with O'Kane's "dive". There was no reaction from Boro other than their centre half shaking Eunan's hand when he got up. IMO he was tripped and we should have had a penalty.
The Okane one was right in front of me, it looked like he thought he was going to get caught so he went down, he didn't appeal for anything and was embarrassed that he had gone to ground, it wasn't a dive and he wasn't looking for a penalty but the ref would of thought he had dived as he was behind him, we saw it as he was running straight towards us in the north stand block 14, had the Boro players thought he dived they would of been right in his face
[quote][p][bold]Jim_Springbourne[/bold] wrote: "The goalkeeper was scrambling to get the ball and only had one hand on it when I nicked it off him. " ==================== ==================== ============= Law 12: Fouls and misconduct: A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball: • while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) • while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand • while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent . And that's why the ref got it right. By the laws of the game, the keeper is deemed to have control of the ball under those circumstances, and therefore cannot be challenged or have the ball kicked from him. I have more of an issue with O'Kane's "dive". There was no reaction from Boro other than their centre half shaking Eunan's hand when he got up. IMO he was tripped and we should have had a penalty.[/p][/quote]The Okane one was right in front of me, it looked like he thought he was going to get caught so he went down, he didn't appeal for anything and was embarrassed that he had gone to ground, it wasn't a dive and he wasn't looking for a penalty but the ref would of thought he had dived as he was behind him, we saw it as he was running straight towards us in the north stand block 14, had the Boro players thought he dived they would of been right in his face abc100
  • Score: -2

9:24am Mon 17 Mar 14

coops1965cherry says...

Jim_Springbourne wrote:
"The goalkeeper was scrambling to get the ball and only had one hand on it when I nicked it off him. "
====================

====================

=============

Law 12: Fouls and misconduct:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball:

• while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)

• while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand

• while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air

When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent
.

And that's why the ref got it right. By the laws of the game, the keeper is deemed to have control of the ball under those circumstances, and therefore cannot be challenged or have the ball kicked from him.

I have more of an issue with O'Kane's "dive". There was no reaction from Boro other than their centre half shaking Eunan's hand when he got up.
IMO he was tripped and we should have had a penalty.
You may be able to quote the rule, chapter and verse but you are incorrect regarding the interpretation of the state of play.

In my opinion the goal keeper was not in full control of the ball at any time therefor Graban was entitled to kick the ball away.

U T C I A D.
[quote][p][bold]Jim_Springbourne[/bold] wrote: "The goalkeeper was scrambling to get the ball and only had one hand on it when I nicked it off him. " ==================== ==================== ============= Law 12: Fouls and misconduct: A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball: • while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) • while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand • while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent . And that's why the ref got it right. By the laws of the game, the keeper is deemed to have control of the ball under those circumstances, and therefore cannot be challenged or have the ball kicked from him. I have more of an issue with O'Kane's "dive". There was no reaction from Boro other than their centre half shaking Eunan's hand when he got up. IMO he was tripped and we should have had a penalty.[/p][/quote]You may be able to quote the rule, chapter and verse but you are incorrect regarding the interpretation of the state of play. In my opinion the goal keeper was not in full control of the ball at any time therefor Graban was entitled to kick the ball away. U T C I A D. coops1965cherry
  • Score: 7

10:28am Mon 17 Mar 14

Jim_Springbourne says...

In your opinion maybe, but the law I quoted is clear, and contrary to your opinion.
Which bit of the law above is incorrect?
In your opinion maybe, but the law I quoted is clear, and contrary to your opinion. Which bit of the law above is incorrect? Jim_Springbourne
  • Score: -6

10:34am Mon 17 Mar 14

mark.s says...

I've seen the footage several times and still can't make my mind up as to whether the keeper was in control of the ball or not. So hard for the ref to do it in real time.

"When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent" - Hands? He for a brief moment had one hand on the ball against the ground. I would imagine whether that constitutes 'control' of the ball is very grey.

The protection and bias that referees show to Goalkeepers in general has gone way too far though, it's fascicle. An attacker only has to look at the keeper the wrong way and a foul is given these days.

Generally speaking - you win some and you lose some.

I think we have suffered more than our fair share of decisions going to bigger clubs mostly at away games, but I think we expected that coming up here.
I've seen the footage several times and still can't make my mind up as to whether the keeper was in control of the ball or not. So hard for the ref to do it in real time. "When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent" - Hands? He for a brief moment had one hand on the ball against the ground. I would imagine whether that constitutes 'control' of the ball is very grey. The protection and bias that referees show to Goalkeepers in general has gone way too far though, it's fascicle. An attacker only has to look at the keeper the wrong way and a foul is given these days. Generally speaking - you win some and you lose some. I think we have suffered more than our fair share of decisions going to bigger clubs mostly at away games, but I think we expected that coming up here. mark.s
  • Score: 4

10:43am Mon 17 Mar 14

Jim_Springbourne says...

".....between his hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)...... " even for a fraction of a second. Otherwise, where do you draw the line?

I agree with Mark s in his third paragraph, except that I'd replace the word "Referees" with "Laws of the game", as the former have to enforce the latter, they don't write them.
".....between his hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)...... " even for a fraction of a second. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? I agree with Mark s in his third paragraph, except that I'd replace the word "Referees" with "Laws of the game", as the former have to enforce the latter, they don't write them. Jim_Springbourne
  • Score: -1

12:30pm Mon 17 Mar 14

nonnogeppetto says...

mark.s wrote:
I've seen the footage several times and still can't make my mind up as to whether the keeper was in control of the ball or not. So hard for the ref to do it in real time.

"When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent" - Hands? He for a brief moment had one hand on the ball against the ground. I would imagine whether that constitutes 'control' of the ball is very grey.

The protection and bias that referees show to Goalkeepers in general has gone way too far though, it's fascicle. An attacker only has to look at the keeper the wrong way and a foul is given these days.

Generally speaking - you win some and you lose some.

I think we have suffered more than our fair share of decisions going to bigger clubs mostly at away games, but I think we expected that coming up here.
The fact that you had to look at it several times, something that the ref could not do, suggests that the ref gave the keeper the benefit of doubt. However as you say one day the benefit of doubt will go in our favour
[quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: I've seen the footage several times and still can't make my mind up as to whether the keeper was in control of the ball or not. So hard for the ref to do it in real time. "When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent" - Hands? He for a brief moment had one hand on the ball against the ground. I would imagine whether that constitutes 'control' of the ball is very grey. The protection and bias that referees show to Goalkeepers in general has gone way too far though, it's fascicle. An attacker only has to look at the keeper the wrong way and a foul is given these days. Generally speaking - you win some and you lose some. I think we have suffered more than our fair share of decisions going to bigger clubs mostly at away games, but I think we expected that coming up here.[/p][/quote]The fact that you had to look at it several times, something that the ref could not do, suggests that the ref gave the keeper the benefit of doubt. However as you say one day the benefit of doubt will go in our favour nonnogeppetto
  • Score: 4

1:28pm Mon 17 Mar 14

cherrygood says...

I haven't seen a replay of it but i was about twenty yards from the incident at the time. Can anyone tell me if Grabban touched the ball before the goalkeeper grabbed the ball on the second occasion with one hand, because if he didn't i thought the rules were that the goalkeeper having initially caught the ball and then dropped it is prohibited from touching the ball again until another player has touched it.

Good finish by Grabban from a tight angle mind.
I haven't seen a replay of it but i was about twenty yards from the incident at the time. Can anyone tell me if Grabban touched the ball before the goalkeeper grabbed the ball on the second occasion with one hand, because if he didn't i thought the rules were that the goalkeeper having initially caught the ball and then dropped it is prohibited from touching the ball again until another player has touched it. Good finish by Grabban from a tight angle mind. cherrygood
  • Score: 9

2:37pm Mon 17 Mar 14

coops1965cherry says...

cherrygood wrote:
I haven't seen a replay of it but i was about twenty yards from the incident at the time. Can anyone tell me if Grabban touched the ball before the goalkeeper grabbed the ball on the second occasion with one hand, because if he didn't i thought the rules were that the goalkeeper having initially caught the ball and then dropped it is prohibited from touching the ball again until another player has touched it.

Good finish by Grabban from a tight angle mind.
No he did not, not as far as I could see anyway.

You are right and on top of that he was not in full control of the ball he released the ball deliberately because he was going to carry it outside the box. Irrespective of what another post on here said, that was a perfectly good goal, Graban was entitled to tackle the ball away as he only had one hand on it.

U T C I A D .
[quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: I haven't seen a replay of it but i was about twenty yards from the incident at the time. Can anyone tell me if Grabban touched the ball before the goalkeeper grabbed the ball on the second occasion with one hand, because if he didn't i thought the rules were that the goalkeeper having initially caught the ball and then dropped it is prohibited from touching the ball again until another player has touched it. Good finish by Grabban from a tight angle mind.[/p][/quote]No he did not, not as far as I could see anyway. You are right and on top of that he was not in full control of the ball he released the ball deliberately because he was going to carry it outside the box. Irrespective of what another post on here said, that was a perfectly good goal, Graban was entitled to tackle the ball away as he only had one hand on it. U T C I A D . coops1965cherry
  • Score: 3

3:13pm Mon 17 Mar 14

cherrygood says...

coops1965cherry wrote:
cherrygood wrote: I haven't seen a replay of it but i was about twenty yards from the incident at the time. Can anyone tell me if Grabban touched the ball before the goalkeeper grabbed the ball on the second occasion with one hand, because if he didn't i thought the rules were that the goalkeeper having initially caught the ball and then dropped it is prohibited from touching the ball again until another player has touched it. Good finish by Grabban from a tight angle mind.
No he did not, not as far as I could see anyway. You are right and on top of that he was not in full control of the ball he released the ball deliberately because he was going to carry it outside the box. Irrespective of what another post on here said, that was a perfectly good goal, Graban was entitled to tackle the ball away as he only had one hand on it. U T C I A D .
As invariably happens in these situations, referee hasn't got a clue what has happened and goes for the easy way out of giving a free kick to the keeper. Mind you I was about the same distance as the referee from the ball at the time and I can't fully recall the incident from start to finish.

As you say good goal or at least a free kick and a yellow or red card for the keeper for deliberate handball in a possible goal scoring opportunity.
[quote][p][bold]coops1965cherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: I haven't seen a replay of it but i was about twenty yards from the incident at the time. Can anyone tell me if Grabban touched the ball before the goalkeeper grabbed the ball on the second occasion with one hand, because if he didn't i thought the rules were that the goalkeeper having initially caught the ball and then dropped it is prohibited from touching the ball again until another player has touched it. Good finish by Grabban from a tight angle mind.[/p][/quote]No he did not, not as far as I could see anyway. You are right and on top of that he was not in full control of the ball he released the ball deliberately because he was going to carry it outside the box. Irrespective of what another post on here said, that was a perfectly good goal, Graban was entitled to tackle the ball away as he only had one hand on it. U T C I A D .[/p][/quote]As invariably happens in these situations, referee hasn't got a clue what has happened and goes for the easy way out of giving a free kick to the keeper. Mind you I was about the same distance as the referee from the ball at the time and I can't fully recall the incident from start to finish. As you say good goal or at least a free kick and a yellow or red card for the keeper for deliberate handball in a possible goal scoring opportunity. cherrygood
  • Score: 1

3:32pm Mon 17 Mar 14

raybren says...

If you watch the highlights , Grabban clearly kicks the ball from the keepers hand , sorry folks the ref was right !
If you watch the highlights , Grabban clearly kicks the ball from the keepers hand , sorry folks the ref was right ! raybren
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Mon 17 Mar 14

coops1965cherry says...

raybren wrote:
If you watch the highlights , Grabban clearly kicks the ball from the keepers hand , sorry folks the ref was right !
I disagree raybren, yes he kicks the ball away from his hand not hands but he deliberately dropped the ball before that and re-collected it but only with one hand, deliberate hand ball and he only had one hand on the ball and by that ruling he never had full control of the ball.

U T C I A D.
[quote][p][bold]raybren[/bold] wrote: If you watch the highlights , Grabban clearly kicks the ball from the keepers hand , sorry folks the ref was right ![/p][/quote]I disagree raybren, yes he kicks the ball away from his hand not hands but he deliberately dropped the ball before that and re-collected it but only with one hand, deliberate hand ball and he only had one hand on the ball and by that ruling he never had full control of the ball. U T C I A D. coops1965cherry
  • Score: 1

4:14pm Mon 17 Mar 14

raybren says...

Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw !
Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw ! raybren
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Mon 17 Mar 14

cherrygood says...

raybren wrote:
Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw !
Have just watched it again for the first time and it was pretty much as I remembered it. Keeper collected the ball then dropped it when he realised his momentum was carrying him out the box. At that point he cannot handle the ball again until another player touches it. If referee deemed he had possession with one hand on the ball then he has committed deliberate handball and the decision should have been a free kick and at least a yellow card.

As I said previously the ref took the easy option not the right one.
[quote][p][bold]raybren[/bold] wrote: Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw ![/p][/quote]Have just watched it again for the first time and it was pretty much as I remembered it. Keeper collected the ball then dropped it when he realised his momentum was carrying him out the box. At that point he cannot handle the ball again until another player touches it. If referee deemed he had possession with one hand on the ball then he has committed deliberate handball and the decision should have been a free kick and at least a yellow card. As I said previously the ref took the easy option not the right one. cherrygood
  • Score: 1

5:23pm Mon 17 Mar 14

big_afcb_fan says...

beat the addicks tomorrow night and we will forget all about this 'was it/wasn't it a foul'! i mentioned it on the match report thread that EH should not have changed a winning side, big mistake really.

utc
beat the addicks tomorrow night and we will forget all about this 'was it/wasn't it a foul'! i mentioned it on the match report thread that EH should not have changed a winning side, big mistake really. utc big_afcb_fan
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Jim_Springbourne says...

cherrygood wrote:
raybren wrote:
Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw !
Have just watched it again for the first time and it was pretty much as I remembered it. Keeper collected the ball then dropped it when he realised his momentum was carrying him out the box. At that point he cannot handle the ball again until another player touches it. If referee deemed he had possession with one hand on the ball then he has committed deliberate handball and the decision should have been a free kick and at least a yellow card.

As I said previously the ref took the easy option not the right one.
That is wrong on several points, cherrygood, sorry.

Not an offence... it would be seen in the same way as catching the ball and losing it on landing, then gathering it again for example.
What would be an offence would be if the keeper dropped the ball deliberately (i.e. not under pressure or at risk of carrying it out of his area due to momentum), rolled it to the edge of his area and picked it up when an opponent approached him. It's that kind of timewasting tactic that the law was introduced in 1992 to stop, along with the passback rule.
What happened on Sat was NOT an offence as you describe.
.
The handling of the ball again would in any case be a technical offence (like offside), not a penal one and would not result in a cation or a sending off, just an indirect free kick.

Anyway my last post on the subject as we are going round in circles. I will just say if we conceded a goal in exactly the same manner and it was given, I would be screaming blue murder.
[quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raybren[/bold] wrote: Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw ![/p][/quote]Have just watched it again for the first time and it was pretty much as I remembered it. Keeper collected the ball then dropped it when he realised his momentum was carrying him out the box. At that point he cannot handle the ball again until another player touches it. If referee deemed he had possession with one hand on the ball then he has committed deliberate handball and the decision should have been a free kick and at least a yellow card. As I said previously the ref took the easy option not the right one.[/p][/quote]That is wrong on several points, cherrygood, sorry. Not an offence... it would be seen in the same way as catching the ball and losing it on landing, then gathering it again for example. What would be an offence would be if the keeper dropped the ball deliberately (i.e. not under pressure or at risk of carrying it out of his area due to momentum), rolled it to the edge of his area and picked it up when an opponent approached him. It's that kind of timewasting tactic that the law was introduced in 1992 to stop, along with the passback rule. What happened on Sat was NOT an offence as you describe. . The handling of the ball again would in any case be a technical offence (like offside), not a penal one and would not result in a cation or a sending off, just an indirect free kick. Anyway my last post on the subject as we are going round in circles. I will just say if we conceded a goal in exactly the same manner and it was given, I would be screaming blue murder. Jim_Springbourne
  • Score: 2

6:16pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Nat1234 says...

nonnogeppetto wrote:
mark.s wrote:
I've seen the footage several times and still can't make my mind up as to whether the keeper was in control of the ball or not. So hard for the ref to do it in real time.

"When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent" - Hands? He for a brief moment had one hand on the ball against the ground. I would imagine whether that constitutes 'control' of the ball is very grey.

The protection and bias that referees show to Goalkeepers in general has gone way too far though, it's fascicle. An attacker only has to look at the keeper the wrong way and a foul is given these days.

Generally speaking - you win some and you lose some.

I think we have suffered more than our fair share of decisions going to bigger clubs mostly at away games, but I think we expected that coming up here.
The fact that you had to look at it several times, something that the ref could not do, suggests that the ref gave the keeper the benefit of doubt. However as you say one day the benefit of doubt will go in our favour
Conspiracy , conspiracy . All the officials are against us .
[quote][p][bold]nonnogeppetto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: I've seen the footage several times and still can't make my mind up as to whether the keeper was in control of the ball or not. So hard for the ref to do it in real time. "When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent" - Hands? He for a brief moment had one hand on the ball against the ground. I would imagine whether that constitutes 'control' of the ball is very grey. The protection and bias that referees show to Goalkeepers in general has gone way too far though, it's fascicle. An attacker only has to look at the keeper the wrong way and a foul is given these days. Generally speaking - you win some and you lose some. I think we have suffered more than our fair share of decisions going to bigger clubs mostly at away games, but I think we expected that coming up here.[/p][/quote]The fact that you had to look at it several times, something that the ref could not do, suggests that the ref gave the keeper the benefit of doubt. However as you say one day the benefit of doubt will go in our favour[/p][/quote]Conspiracy , conspiracy . All the officials are against us . Nat1234
  • Score: -4

6:43pm Mon 17 Mar 14

canfordcherry says...

susi.m wrote:
After looking at the recorded incident several times and checking up on the FA rules - the goal should have stood.

I didn't see the kicking out at Ritchie incident - but if he did kick out it should have been a red.
Leadbitter and Matt had challenged for the ball and were laying tangled with Matt holding him down. As he got up he pushed Leadbitters head down. Leadbitter got up and as Matt cut across him he kicked out at the back of Matts calf. It wasn't hard enough to cause an injury but he meant to do it, right in front of the assistant, and should, in my opinion, have gone.
[quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: After looking at the recorded incident several times and checking up on the FA rules - the goal should have stood. I didn't see the kicking out at Ritchie incident - but if he did kick out it should have been a red.[/p][/quote]Leadbitter and Matt had challenged for the ball and were laying tangled with Matt holding him down. As he got up he pushed Leadbitters head down. Leadbitter got up and as Matt cut across him he kicked out at the back of Matts calf. It wasn't hard enough to cause an injury but he meant to do it, right in front of the assistant, and should, in my opinion, have gone. canfordcherry
  • Score: 1

6:52pm Mon 17 Mar 14

cherrygood says...

Jim_Springbourne wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
raybren wrote:
Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw !
Have just watched it again for the first time and it was pretty much as I remembered it. Keeper collected the ball then dropped it when he realised his momentum was carrying him out the box. At that point he cannot handle the ball again until another player touches it. If referee deemed he had possession with one hand on the ball then he has committed deliberate handball and the decision should have been a free kick and at least a yellow card.

As I said previously the ref took the easy option not the right one.
That is wrong on several points, cherrygood, sorry.

Not an offence... it would be seen in the same way as catching the ball and losing it on landing, then gathering it again for example.
What would be an offence would be if the keeper dropped the ball deliberately (i.e. not under pressure or at risk of carrying it out of his area due to momentum), rolled it to the edge of his area and picked it up when an opponent approached him. It's that kind of timewasting tactic that the law was introduced in 1992 to stop, along with the passback rule.
What happened on Sat was NOT an offence as you describe.
.
The handling of the ball again would in any case be a technical offence (like offside), not a penal one and would not result in a cation or a sending off, just an indirect free kick.

Anyway my last post on the subject as we are going round in circles. I will just say if we conceded a goal in exactly the same manner and it was given, I would be screaming blue murder.
He did drop the ball deliberately after securing possession. When a keeper mishandles a cross he hasn't got possession in the first place. Two different scenarios. Its all open to interpretation I suppose, its how I understand that particular rule. When a keeper has possession of the ball is also open to interpretation and I've seen refs give different decisions in sililar scenarios.

Then there is the famous Gray Sherwood incident in the 1984 cup final......
[quote][p][bold]Jim_Springbourne[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raybren[/bold] wrote: Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw ![/p][/quote]Have just watched it again for the first time and it was pretty much as I remembered it. Keeper collected the ball then dropped it when he realised his momentum was carrying him out the box. At that point he cannot handle the ball again until another player touches it. If referee deemed he had possession with one hand on the ball then he has committed deliberate handball and the decision should have been a free kick and at least a yellow card. As I said previously the ref took the easy option not the right one.[/p][/quote]That is wrong on several points, cherrygood, sorry. Not an offence... it would be seen in the same way as catching the ball and losing it on landing, then gathering it again for example. What would be an offence would be if the keeper dropped the ball deliberately (i.e. not under pressure or at risk of carrying it out of his area due to momentum), rolled it to the edge of his area and picked it up when an opponent approached him. It's that kind of timewasting tactic that the law was introduced in 1992 to stop, along with the passback rule. What happened on Sat was NOT an offence as you describe. . The handling of the ball again would in any case be a technical offence (like offside), not a penal one and would not result in a cation or a sending off, just an indirect free kick. Anyway my last post on the subject as we are going round in circles. I will just say if we conceded a goal in exactly the same manner and it was given, I would be screaming blue murder.[/p][/quote]He did drop the ball deliberately after securing possession. When a keeper mishandles a cross he hasn't got possession in the first place. Two different scenarios. Its all open to interpretation I suppose, its how I understand that particular rule. When a keeper has possession of the ball is also open to interpretation and I've seen refs give different decisions in sililar scenarios. Then there is the famous Gray Sherwood incident in the 1984 cup final...... cherrygood
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Mon 17 Mar 14

nonnogeppetto says...

Nat1234 wrote:
nonnogeppetto wrote:
mark.s wrote:
I've seen the footage several times and still can't make my mind up as to whether the keeper was in control of the ball or not. So hard for the ref to do it in real time.

"When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent" - Hands? He for a brief moment had one hand on the ball against the ground. I would imagine whether that constitutes 'control' of the ball is very grey.

The protection and bias that referees show to Goalkeepers in general has gone way too far though, it's fascicle. An attacker only has to look at the keeper the wrong way and a foul is given these days.

Generally speaking - you win some and you lose some.

I think we have suffered more than our fair share of decisions going to bigger clubs mostly at away games, but I think we expected that coming up here.
The fact that you had to look at it several times, something that the ref could not do, suggests that the ref gave the keeper the benefit of doubt. However as you say one day the benefit of doubt will go in our favour
Conspiracy , conspiracy . All the officials are against us .
if you are able to can you expand on your comment!
At least it has taken your attention away from Rantie!
[quote][p][bold]Nat1234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nonnogeppetto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: I've seen the footage several times and still can't make my mind up as to whether the keeper was in control of the ball or not. So hard for the ref to do it in real time. "When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent" - Hands? He for a brief moment had one hand on the ball against the ground. I would imagine whether that constitutes 'control' of the ball is very grey. The protection and bias that referees show to Goalkeepers in general has gone way too far though, it's fascicle. An attacker only has to look at the keeper the wrong way and a foul is given these days. Generally speaking - you win some and you lose some. I think we have suffered more than our fair share of decisions going to bigger clubs mostly at away games, but I think we expected that coming up here.[/p][/quote]The fact that you had to look at it several times, something that the ref could not do, suggests that the ref gave the keeper the benefit of doubt. However as you say one day the benefit of doubt will go in our favour[/p][/quote]Conspiracy , conspiracy . All the officials are against us .[/p][/quote]if you are able to can you expand on your comment! At least it has taken your attention away from Rantie! nonnogeppetto
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Mon 17 Mar 14

rednblack37 says...

cherrygood wrote:
Jim_Springbourne wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
raybren wrote:
Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw !
Have just watched it again for the first time and it was pretty much as I remembered it. Keeper collected the ball then dropped it when he realised his momentum was carrying him out the box. At that point he cannot handle the ball again until another player touches it. If referee deemed he had possession with one hand on the ball then he has committed deliberate handball and the decision should have been a free kick and at least a yellow card.

As I said previously the ref took the easy option not the right one.
That is wrong on several points, cherrygood, sorry.

Not an offence... it would be seen in the same way as catching the ball and losing it on landing, then gathering it again for example.
What would be an offence would be if the keeper dropped the ball deliberately (i.e. not under pressure or at risk of carrying it out of his area due to momentum), rolled it to the edge of his area and picked it up when an opponent approached him. It's that kind of timewasting tactic that the law was introduced in 1992 to stop, along with the passback rule.
What happened on Sat was NOT an offence as you describe.
.
The handling of the ball again would in any case be a technical offence (like offside), not a penal one and would not result in a cation or a sending off, just an indirect free kick.

Anyway my last post on the subject as we are going round in circles. I will just say if we conceded a goal in exactly the same manner and it was given, I would be screaming blue murder.
He did drop the ball deliberately after securing possession. When a keeper mishandles a cross he hasn't got possession in the first place. Two different scenarios. Its all open to interpretation I suppose, its how I understand that particular rule. When a keeper has possession of the ball is also open to interpretation and I've seen refs give different decisions in sililar scenarios.

Then there is the famous Gray Sherwood incident in the 1984 cup final......
Great goal, I can see it now, oh for those days again.........strike
rs like Andy Gray and Mick Harford took no prisoners and keepers loved the battle!
[quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jim_Springbourne[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raybren[/bold] wrote: Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw ![/p][/quote]Have just watched it again for the first time and it was pretty much as I remembered it. Keeper collected the ball then dropped it when he realised his momentum was carrying him out the box. At that point he cannot handle the ball again until another player touches it. If referee deemed he had possession with one hand on the ball then he has committed deliberate handball and the decision should have been a free kick and at least a yellow card. As I said previously the ref took the easy option not the right one.[/p][/quote]That is wrong on several points, cherrygood, sorry. Not an offence... it would be seen in the same way as catching the ball and losing it on landing, then gathering it again for example. What would be an offence would be if the keeper dropped the ball deliberately (i.e. not under pressure or at risk of carrying it out of his area due to momentum), rolled it to the edge of his area and picked it up when an opponent approached him. It's that kind of timewasting tactic that the law was introduced in 1992 to stop, along with the passback rule. What happened on Sat was NOT an offence as you describe. . The handling of the ball again would in any case be a technical offence (like offside), not a penal one and would not result in a cation or a sending off, just an indirect free kick. Anyway my last post on the subject as we are going round in circles. I will just say if we conceded a goal in exactly the same manner and it was given, I would be screaming blue murder.[/p][/quote]He did drop the ball deliberately after securing possession. When a keeper mishandles a cross he hasn't got possession in the first place. Two different scenarios. Its all open to interpretation I suppose, its how I understand that particular rule. When a keeper has possession of the ball is also open to interpretation and I've seen refs give different decisions in sililar scenarios. Then there is the famous Gray Sherwood incident in the 1984 cup final......[/p][/quote]Great goal, I can see it now, oh for those days again.........strike rs like Andy Gray and Mick Harford took no prisoners and keepers loved the battle! rednblack37
  • Score: 0

7:30pm Mon 17 Mar 14

cherrygood says...

rednblack37 wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
Jim_Springbourne wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
raybren wrote:
Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw !
Have just watched it again for the first time and it was pretty much as I remembered it. Keeper collected the ball then dropped it when he realised his momentum was carrying him out the box. At that point he cannot handle the ball again until another player touches it. If referee deemed he had possession with one hand on the ball then he has committed deliberate handball and the decision should have been a free kick and at least a yellow card.

As I said previously the ref took the easy option not the right one.
That is wrong on several points, cherrygood, sorry.

Not an offence... it would be seen in the same way as catching the ball and losing it on landing, then gathering it again for example.
What would be an offence would be if the keeper dropped the ball deliberately (i.e. not under pressure or at risk of carrying it out of his area due to momentum), rolled it to the edge of his area and picked it up when an opponent approached him. It's that kind of timewasting tactic that the law was introduced in 1992 to stop, along with the passback rule.
What happened on Sat was NOT an offence as you describe.
.
The handling of the ball again would in any case be a technical offence (like offside), not a penal one and would not result in a cation or a sending off, just an indirect free kick.

Anyway my last post on the subject as we are going round in circles. I will just say if we conceded a goal in exactly the same manner and it was given, I would be screaming blue murder.
He did drop the ball deliberately after securing possession. When a keeper mishandles a cross he hasn't got possession in the first place. Two different scenarios. Its all open to interpretation I suppose, its how I understand that particular rule. When a keeper has possession of the ball is also open to interpretation and I've seen refs give different decisions in sililar scenarios.

Then there is the famous Gray Sherwood incident in the 1984 cup final......
Great goal, I can see it now, oh for those days again.........strike

rs like Andy Gray and Mick Harford took no prisoners and keepers loved the battle!
Probably wouldn't be given today, but I agree perfectly good goal, and I was a regular visitor to Vicarage Road in those days.
[quote][p][bold]rednblack37[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jim_Springbourne[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raybren[/bold] wrote: Hi coops . It ' s a bit like being one of those rugby judges trying to work out whether it ' s a try or not from the replays ! Looked at it again and don ' t think he had the ball in his hands until one hand on , from which Grabban then kicked , so foul . Anyway respect your view , maybe like the game , a no score draw ![/p][/quote]Have just watched it again for the first time and it was pretty much as I remembered it. Keeper collected the ball then dropped it when he realised his momentum was carrying him out the box. At that point he cannot handle the ball again until another player touches it. If referee deemed he had possession with one hand on the ball then he has committed deliberate handball and the decision should have been a free kick and at least a yellow card. As I said previously the ref took the easy option not the right one.[/p][/quote]That is wrong on several points, cherrygood, sorry. Not an offence... it would be seen in the same way as catching the ball and losing it on landing, then gathering it again for example. What would be an offence would be if the keeper dropped the ball deliberately (i.e. not under pressure or at risk of carrying it out of his area due to momentum), rolled it to the edge of his area and picked it up when an opponent approached him. It's that kind of timewasting tactic that the law was introduced in 1992 to stop, along with the passback rule. What happened on Sat was NOT an offence as you describe. . The handling of the ball again would in any case be a technical offence (like offside), not a penal one and would not result in a cation or a sending off, just an indirect free kick. Anyway my last post on the subject as we are going round in circles. I will just say if we conceded a goal in exactly the same manner and it was given, I would be screaming blue murder.[/p][/quote]He did drop the ball deliberately after securing possession. When a keeper mishandles a cross he hasn't got possession in the first place. Two different scenarios. Its all open to interpretation I suppose, its how I understand that particular rule. When a keeper has possession of the ball is also open to interpretation and I've seen refs give different decisions in sililar scenarios. Then there is the famous Gray Sherwood incident in the 1984 cup final......[/p][/quote]Great goal, I can see it now, oh for those days again.........strike rs like Andy Gray and Mick Harford took no prisoners and keepers loved the battle![/p][/quote]Probably wouldn't be given today, but I agree perfectly good goal, and I was a regular visitor to Vicarage Road in those days. cherrygood
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Mon 17 Mar 14

dustbindanny says...

Once again, little old Bournemouth has been 'done' by a bad decision from a referee? I feel sometimes that the powers that be do not want to see little clubs overcome the big clubs? We won that match on Saturday , but you can't beat the referee, if he has any conscience, I hope he feels guilty of a bad error on his behalf, but, don't hold your breath!
Once again, little old Bournemouth has been 'done' by a bad decision from a referee? I feel sometimes that the powers that be do not want to see little clubs overcome the big clubs? We won that match on Saturday , but you can't beat the referee, if he has any conscience, I hope he feels guilty of a bad error on his behalf, but, don't hold your breath! dustbindanny
  • Score: 2

12:05am Tue 18 Mar 14

galadriel says...

According to the Middlesbrough Gazette, the ball was 'dug out' by Grabban from under the goalie...isn't it funny how the viewpoint differs depending whose side you're on?! Strange how their manager 'didn't see' it either....Watching the replay it looked an ok goal to me. But with 10 points from 4 games I'm happy.
According to the Middlesbrough Gazette, the ball was 'dug out' by Grabban from under the goalie...isn't it funny how the viewpoint differs depending whose side you're on?! Strange how their manager 'didn't see' it either....Watching the replay it looked an ok goal to me. But with 10 points from 4 games I'm happy. galadriel
  • Score: 0

8:41am Tue 18 Mar 14

kangman2012 says...

Nat1234 wrote:
nonnogeppetto wrote:
mark.s wrote:
I've seen the footage several times and still can't make my mind up as to whether the keeper was in control of the ball or not. So hard for the ref to do it in real time.

"When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent" - Hands? He for a brief moment had one hand on the ball against the ground. I would imagine whether that constitutes 'control' of the ball is very grey.

The protection and bias that referees show to Goalkeepers in general has gone way too far though, it's fascicle. An attacker only has to look at the keeper the wrong way and a foul is given these days.

Generally speaking - you win some and you lose some.

I think we have suffered more than our fair share of decisions going to bigger clubs mostly at away games, but I think we expected that coming up here.
The fact that you had to look at it several times, something that the ref could not do, suggests that the ref gave the keeper the benefit of doubt. However as you say one day the benefit of doubt will go in our favour
Conspiracy , conspiracy . All the officials are against us .
What a "Carry-On" Nat1234 - "Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it Infamy - UTC!
[quote][p][bold]Nat1234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nonnogeppetto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: I've seen the footage several times and still can't make my mind up as to whether the keeper was in control of the ball or not. So hard for the ref to do it in real time. "When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent" - Hands? He for a brief moment had one hand on the ball against the ground. I would imagine whether that constitutes 'control' of the ball is very grey. The protection and bias that referees show to Goalkeepers in general has gone way too far though, it's fascicle. An attacker only has to look at the keeper the wrong way and a foul is given these days. Generally speaking - you win some and you lose some. I think we have suffered more than our fair share of decisions going to bigger clubs mostly at away games, but I think we expected that coming up here.[/p][/quote]The fact that you had to look at it several times, something that the ref could not do, suggests that the ref gave the keeper the benefit of doubt. However as you say one day the benefit of doubt will go in our favour[/p][/quote]Conspiracy , conspiracy . All the officials are against us .[/p][/quote]What a "Carry-On" Nat1234 - "Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it Infamy - UTC! kangman2012
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree