Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Last, and our usual 15 second analysis.
It was already featured on Football Focus earlier in the day, and that’s on iPlayer so not sure we can throw too many of our toys out over that one…
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] MOTD
- Thread starter Hendrax
- Start date
It was already featured on Football Focus earlier in the day, and that’s on iPlayer so not sure we can throw too many of our toys out over that one…
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
As above discussed in some detail on football focus, both Dublin & Keown thought goal, but said the application of the rules made the incident a problem for officials as the keeper briefly had 2 hands on the ball, but his own momentum took him into Maupay. Think they concluded Palace were fortunate that was chalked off.
I am a little unclear of the rules here.
As you say, Butland never had full control of the ball, he crashed into Maupay (who did not foul him) meaning he spilt the ball. It’s a strange one.
Bob!
Coffee Buyer
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,484
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Agreed, and in my view it's wrong as he was carried by momentum into Maupay and never had a stable grip of the ball.
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
Quite right. If he had a stable grip on the ball it would have still been in his hands after the mild collision
They do - because that is now the rule. Even one hand is deemed to be in control if the ball is also touching something else, like the ground. Basically gives the GK a get out of jail card if he collides with someone and drops the ball.
Bad rule.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I can remember a goal where Zamora kicked the ball out of the keeper’s hands. That was before the rules changed.
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,499
So if he did have both hands on the ball - that means he is theoretically 'in control' and Maupay can't legally kick it out of hands.
Fine.
But If Maupay didn't commit a foul and the goalkeepeer dropped it because he happened to crash into something (in this case Maupay, but could equally have been one of his own players or the post) how is it not ok for Maupay to then kick it in?
I wasn't expecting it to be given once I'd seen the replay but I am still not sure WHY it couldn't be given. Bearing in mind (as established on another thread) I don't actually understand the rules of football very well.
Fine.
But If Maupay didn't commit a foul and the goalkeepeer dropped it because he happened to crash into something (in this case Maupay, but could equally have been one of his own players or the post) how is it not ok for Maupay to then kick it in?
I wasn't expecting it to be given once I'd seen the replay but I am still not sure WHY it couldn't be given. Bearing in mind (as established on another thread) I don't actually understand the rules of football very well.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
There was an incident a month or so ago involving a PL goalkeeper (De Gea?) where this happened.
sams dad
I hate Palarse
Away at Chesterfield?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
That’s the one.
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 9,021
I'd need the rules clarifying too as I rewatched it today and Butland was not in full possession of the ball prior to Maupay making contact. In the NFL that's a fumble.
One thing that someone mentioned to me was Neal's raised boot may have been considered dangerous play.
I have to say at the time I was not too outraged at the decision it's only looking at the angle from behind the goal where you can see that Butland did not have full possession that I thought we were unfortunate to have it chalked off.
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
I agree and I thought that Jonathan Pearce called it correctly on the BBC commentary. Butland gets both hands on the ball but it is just beginning to come out of his grasp when it makes contact with Maupay's knee.
I agree to an extent, in that morally, if you like, the goal should have stood. It was scored fair and square, and Maupay committed no foul - but the rule as been laid down this season that if the GK gets both hands to the ball, no matter how tenuous or fleeting his grasp, he is deemed to be in control and the ball cannot be taken off him.
As I said earlier, it is a bad law; plain daft, in fact, and not in the spirit of the game at all. Shame on the rule makers, but that's the rule we have to live with (until hopeully it gets changed).
Last edited:
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
If he was fumbling it at the moment Maupay challenged, then it was not 'taken off him'.
schmunk
Centrist Dad
It was Jordan Pickford.
If he had both hands on the ball, he is deemed to be in control, therefore the ball is not available for other players to use. One way or another (including his own very tenuous grip on the ball) it was removed from his possession.
Quibbling about the wording of 'taken off him' won't change the rule - he was in control of the ball, but after contact he wasn't any more, and once he ceased to be in contact with it by the letter of the law it was deemed a foul. Daft rule, yes - in a world ruled by common sense it would have been a goal, but at the moment, in this context, we aren't in a world ruled by common sense.
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
So is it deemed in control if a goalie parries a shot? It looked like a long parry and his fingers were not wrapped around at any point that made me feel it was under control.
Also a bit bizarre in that he could have fallen over and the ball may have been knocked away by contact with the ground. It looked as though he did the same thing but with another solid, i.e. Maupay. The movement towards the ball was carried out through the goalies momentum and not the player.