CCM v WU.. Spool Bowl.. Our hope for redemption!

[AuzDutchy]

My main gripe re: Kaltak is his long passes, and a reliance on him to distribute.

His long passes are too lofted, and float in the air too long, making it very easy to defend. I can see what hes going for, Monty seems to be pushing him to do the Patrick pass but he hasnt got the technique. WU pressed us all the way back to Kaltak most of the game, leaving him alone and focussing on closing his passing options down.

When he gets the ball, he seems to look up very quickly, except hes looking far down the field when players around him are probably better suited to distribute

 

[style_cafe]

Yep, looks clear to me too, should have been a goal.

No interference, cleared within seconds and away from the game ball passage of play. I saw one or two WU players who weren't involved in the passage of play slow down and then protest once we scored, but during the live-action, no one seemed to care.

"When there are two soccer balls on the pitch, the rules stipulate that the game should be stopped temporarily to remove the extra ball – but only if it directly interferes with match play. In the event where play is not interrupted by the presence of a second ball, then the referee should rid the field of that soccer ball at the earliest opportunity."

FFC is correct in saying the Laws of the game are crystal clear.
However, you must look at the Law and not only read it but interpret it correctly.
In this instance, the referee is given licence by FIFA to determine if the game should be stopped "but only if it directly interferes with match play". (it being the 2nd ball)

When Balard throws the ball in to Nisbet, putting the game into match play, Pain is approx. 11 m from Nisbet and walking towards Nisbet.

As Nisbet receives the match ball, the 2nd ball has crossed the sideline and is approx 3m into the field of play and approx. 4-5m from Pain who raises his arms. At this stage the match ball,which is still in play ,is approx 7m in front of Pain, who is still walking and trying to gain an advantage by stopping play.

As the match ball is approx. 7m away it is not directly interfering with match play.

As the game continues with the game ball being controlled by Nisbet, Pain continues to watch Nisbet and the game ball which is now approx 6m from the 2nd ball.
So again not directly interfering with match play.

Nisbet continues to play the match ball.
The 2nd ball rolls towards Pain before it is kicked away by Balard when it is approx 1.5m from Pain.
The 2nd ball is still not directly interfering with match play as Pain starts protesting and makes no effort to engage in the match play.

Also, at this time the referee has allowed play to continue and thus has determined that the 2nd ball has not interfered directly with match play.

The fact that Pain and other players wave their arms around should have no bearing under the rules, as the match play (where the match ball is ) is far enough away to not be directly interfered with.

As play continues Nisbet passes to Cummings who scores a goal.
Lucas awards the goal,thus confirming that the 2nd ball has not directly interfered with match play.

There is some discussion apparently with the VAR.
The commentators who obviously are unaware of the rules (like most of us) make some assumptions.

Referee Lucas was correct in his original decision to award the goal, but has on advice taken the opinion of the VAR and rescinded his decision.

The VAR is incorrect as the 2nd ball, at no stage, directly interferes with the match play.

 

[marinermick]

Nice summation and trying to justify the goal but the match ball interferes with Pain not the other match ball. Whether he deliberately or not deliberately stops (referee can’t interpret this as he would not know, nor do we), Pain does stop because the second ball is at his feet. He points to it. Otherwise he would have closed Nisbet down.

 

[Michael]

My main gripe re: Kaltak is his long passes, and a reliance on him to distribute.

His long passes are too lofted, and float in the air too long, making it very easy to defend. I can see what hes going for, Monty seems to be pushing him to do the Patrick pass but he hasnt got the technique. WU pressed us all the way back to Kaltak most of the game, leaving him alone and focussing on closing his passing options down.

When he gets the ball, he seems to look up very quickly, except hes looking far down the field when players around him are probably better suited to distribute

He also hates the much simpler yet more effective pass to his wide open LB. I counted a good 15 occasions where he chose the long diagonal instead of the firm ball into the advancing LB whether it was storm or fazz. Storms become a real leader and he’s been so much more solid than the old storm just quietly.

 

[turbo]

Nice summation and trying to justify the goal but the match ball interferes with Pain not the other match ball. Whether he deliberately or not deliberately stops (referee can’t interpret this as he would not know, nor do we), Pain does stop because the second ball is at his feet. He points to it. Otherwise he would have closed Nisbet down.

The second ball was not at Pain’s feet or anywhere near him when he threw his hands up and stopped. That’s the moment Pain raises his hands, our player at the sideline had just thrown the live ball in and the other was rolled on. Nobody could have any genuine doubt about which ball Pain should be closing down. If Nizzy went back down the right or Pain actually went for the wrong one I’d agree with you.



The law states the referee determines whether the second ball is interfering and can allow play to continue if it doesn’t, the whole problem is he appears to have made a decision it wasn’t and not had the spine to stick with it. If the ref had explained it by saying he didn’t believe it was interfering and the player should play the whistle rather than determining that himself - just as they do for any foul - WU won’t have been happy but it’s pretty hard to argue against. Or he could have blown the whistle / AR raise the flag right away. They’ve put us in a situation where we can’t have a positive outcome from this attack through no fault of our own.

 

[marinermick]

The second ball was not at Pain’s feet or anywhere near him when he threw his hands up and stopped. That’s the moment Pain raises his hands, our player at the sideline had just thrown the live ball in and the other was rolled on. Nobody could have any genuine doubt about which ball Pain should be closing down. If Nizzy went back down the right or Pain actually went for the wrong one I’d agree with you.

View attachment 2373

The law states the referee determines whether the second ball is interfering and can allow play to continue if it doesn’t, the whole problem is he appears to have made a decision it wasn’t and not had the spine to stick with it. If the ref had explained it by saying he didn’t believe it was interfering and the player should play the whistle rather than determining that himself - just as they do for any foul - WU won’t have been happy but it’s pretty hard to argue against. Or he could have blown the whistle / AR raise the flag right away. They’ve put us in a situation where we can’t have a positive outcome from this attack through no fault of our own.

One snapshot in a moment that was obviously at the wrong time does not support your narrative.

We’ve already discussed the errors of the official and that doesn’t change the law of the interference.

 

[turbo]

One snapshot in a moment that was obviously at the wrong time does not support your narrative.

And what supports yours? I chose that specifically because it's the moment he decides to protest rather than play, anything that follows for him doesnt hold much weight because he's already stopped.. Pain wasn't close enough to close down Nisbet anyway nor did he make any effort to. Interference is not his decision to make and that's the crux of the issue. The referee directs the game not the players, if you want to stop and make a decision for him sometimes that wont go your way and I dont see how this is an exception.

 

[Corsair]

The key for me is we all know if we hadn't scored the ref wouldn't have brought it back, the game would have carried on. He looked at it and decided it was play on. Goal should have stood.

 

[Ironbark]

Yeah there's some interpretation required for this one.

Frankly though - it was clear which was the active ball, the 2nd ball simply did not move into an area that impacted play.
The players who backed off did so without a whistle or the call of the ref. We all know you play until you hear a whistle.
If a player heard a shout from the bench or crowd, or decided for themselves, that an attacker is offside and the defenders stop chasing without a whistle it's on them. You play as if it's on and only drop off if you hear a whistle. End of.

So 'it interfered because players stopped playing' isn't actually interference, it's players making incorrect decisions. The active ball was clear as day and not near the thrown on ball.

In the end we won 4-2 so this is a pretty moot point now.

 

[marinermick]

And what supports yours? I chose that specifically because it's the moment he decides to protest rather than play, anything that follows for him doesnt hold much weight because he's already stopped.. Pain wasn't close enough to close down Nisbet anyway nor did he make any effort to. Interference is not his decision to make and that's the crux of the issue. The referee directs the game not the players, if you want to stop and make a decision for him sometimes that wont go your way and I dont see how this is an exception.

You're the one making the claim of an injustice here so the burden of proof falls on you to provide the evidence. All I have read so is long ramblings about subjective things like Pain's intentions, Diamanti's intended actions, the referee's decision making etc. Oh, and a photo that was no where near the actual moment of interference as some sort of magical proof.

Despite that let me humour you by providing my photo. This one shows the ball at Pain's feet, hands in the air and stopped. Acquilina kicking the ball away so the second ball interferes with him as well. The photo, while unable to show that Nisbet has stopped as well (the video confirms Nisbet stops), it does show Nisbet looking cross to Pain and his gestations at the point of Nisbet's stopping.

Given both Pain and Nisbet have both stopped (Nisbet albeit momentarily but Pain for a length of time), and given the pace of the game at this level, there would have been plenty of time for Pain to close Nisbet down if he would have ran before this picture occurred. The distance looks a tad over ten metres for me. Easily done. Also remember we already see this snapshot when Pain has stopped, therefore Pain would have had more time than this photo shows.

As a side how loose is TS's marking of the Mariners's most potent weapon!

 

[marinermick]

So 'it interfered because players stopped playing' isn't actually interference, it's players making incorrect decisions. The active ball was clear as day and not near the thrown on ball.

Your first sentence is actually incorrect. Law says nothing about player's decision making as well.

 

[turbo]

This one shows the ball at Pain's feet, hands in the air and stopped. Acquilina kicking the ball away so the second ball interferes with him as well.

Bloke has stopped engaging in play from my screenshot onwards. He wasn't interfered with he stopped of his own volition. If he was playing on he wouldnt have been anywhere near the ball that was removed by Aquilina.

Ultimately this comes down to the interpretation of interference, the law is clear the referee does not need to stop the game if he deems the second ball not to be interfering. It should still be removed as soon as practical (it was). Either it was interfering and should have been halted immediately or the ref backs their decision and any actions in playing on stand. The law doersnt allow for two bites at it or cover any proximity of future events to the play on call. At what point were we in the clear? Next out? 2 more passes? Opponent gets possession?

 

[marinermick]

Bloke has stopped engaging in play from my screenshot onwards. He wasn't interfered with he stopped of his own volition. If he was playing on he wouldnt have been anywhere near the ball that was removed by Aquilina.

Ultimately this comes down to the interpretation of interference, the law is clear the referee does not need to stop the game if he deems the second ball not to be interfering. It should still be removed as soon as practical (it was). Either it was interfering and should have been halted immediately or the ref backs their decision and any actions in playing on stand. The law doersnt allow for two bites at it or cover any proximity of future events to the play on call. At what point were we in the clear? Next out? 2 more passes? Opponent gets possession?

Again you are making judgements on the referee’s performance or lack of that is not in question. Your last four questions are also speculative questions that can’t be answered.

Your two bites comment is also misleading. The laws allow for the referee to change his mind if he thinks he made an error or if the AR and VAR provides him with more information.

 

[style_cafe]

One snapshot in a moment that was obviously at the wrong time does not support your narrative.

We’ve already discussed the errors of the official and that doesn’t change the law of the interference.

Mick if you go to Paramount plus and watch the replay up until Balard picks up the ball to throw it it then pause it. Once paused double click the play/pause button and it will give you a frame by frame of the replay each time you double click. It then becomes clear that the 2nd ball doesnt get to Pains feet as Balard kicks it away when its a metre and a half from Pain.Other freeze frames show Pain never even attempted to close Nisbet down as he was too far away from him.

 

[style_cafe]

You're the one making the claim of an injustice here so the burden of proof falls on you to provide the evidence. All I have read so is long ramblings about subjective things like Pain's intentions, Diamanti's intended actions, the referee's decision making etc. Oh, and a photo that was no where near the actual moment of interference as some sort of magical proof.

Despite that let me humour you by providing my photo. This one shows the ball at Pain's feet, hands in the air and stopped. Acquilina kicking the ball away so the second ball interferes with him as well. The photo, while unable to show that Nisbet has stopped as well (the video confirms Nisbet stops), it does show Nisbet looking cross to Pain and his gestations at the point of Nisbet's stopping.

Given both Pain and Nisbet have both stopped (Nisbet albeit momentarily but Pain for a length of time), and given the pace of the game at this level, there would have been plenty of time for Pain to close Nisbet down if he would have ran before this picture occurred. The distance looks a tad over ten metres for me. Easily done. Also remember we already see this snapshot when Pain has stopped, therefore Pain would have had more time than this photo shows.

As a side how loose is TS's marking of the Mariners's most potent weapon!

View attachment 2375

Wasnt TS off by then?

 

[marinermick]

Mick if you go to Paramount plus and watch the replay up until Balard picks up the ball to throw it it then pause it. Once paused double click the play/pause button and it will give you a frame by frame of the replay each time you double click. It then becomes clear that the 2nd ball doesnt get to Pains feet as Balard kicks it away when its a metre and a half from Pain.Other freeze frames show Pain never even attempted to close Nisbet down as he was too far away from him.

I did that hence the photo I posted.

The law doesn’t make allowances for player’s intentions and thought processes or future scenarios.

 

[marinermick]

Wasnt TS off by then?

Ooh you are right. That free defender looks like him in my grainy photo.

 

[style_cafe]

You're the one making the claim of an injustice here so the burden of proof falls on you to provide the evidence. All I have read so is long ramblings about subjective things like Pain's intentions, Diamanti's intended actions, the referee's decision making etc. Oh, and a photo that was no where near the actual moment of interference as some sort of magical proof.

Despite that let me humour you by providing my photo. This one shows the ball at Pain's feet, hands in the air and stopped. Acquilina kicking the ball away so the second ball interferes with him as well. The photo, while unable to show that Nisbet has stopped as well (the video confirms Nisbet stops), it does show Nisbet looking cross to Pain and his gestations at the point of Nisbet's stopping.

Given both Pain and Nisbet have both stopped (Nisbet albeit momentarily but Pain for a length of time), and given the pace of the game at this level, there would have been plenty of time for Pain to close Nisbet down if he would have ran before this picture occurred. The distance looks a tad over ten metres for me. Easily done. Also remember we already see this snapshot when Pain has stopped, therefore Pain would have had more time than this photo shows.

As a side how loose is TS's marking of the Mariners's most potent weapon!

View attachment 2375

Mick the view from the north shows Pain is 1.5m away.Unless he has feet 3 times the size of Ronald McDonald its not at his feet

 

[Melange]

I think what you're both missing is the third ball up on that grassy knoll

 

[shipwreck]

Changing the subject because if that goal had been allowed, me might not have won at all, who knows?

Did anyone else notice Benis body language at Ayongos goal? Didn't even flinch, cheer or smile. Seemed pissed the cummings got the ball before him and then cut it back for the assist.


Thoughts?