I don't see a thread discussing the Joe Hart incident that led to CA's second disallowed goal which is a surprise. Surely we haven't all bought into the MOTD and newspaper crap that this was somehow a miraculous and correct decision by the ref. They blather on about the ball having to leave the area from a free kick but... the ball did leave the area. The fact that Hart touched it beforehand is irrelevant. How many times do we see players moving the ball round to find the perfect spot before taking a kick? The ref obviously has the latitude to decide when a free kick is actually 'taken' but in this and so many other cases his decisions yesterday favoured City. As many have said it's becoming increasingly obvious that ref's are favouring the big money clubs.
It was touched twice in the area therefore it was not in play when it left the area. The linesman actually informed the ref through his mike. He gave City the advantage in quite a few decisions but that one was correct. As said before it was a great 5-2 draw...
The free kick was taken by the first inadvertent touch and the ball did not leave the area from that. It was only after Hart's second touch that it left the area but the second touch was illegal so the ref correctly ordered a retake. What is the problem? I don't think that Dean saw it, it was the linemans who gave it and I suppose we could curse our luck that he saw it. Anywhere else on the pitch it would have been an indirect free kick to us but inside the penalty area is a special case. It is the same law that saved Green's blushes against West Ham, not 10 yards as was stated at the time.
Dean actually put his whistle in his mouth before before Charlie had got his shot away. The Norwegian broadcaster had a very good close up on Dean. He had his eyes on the situation with a clear view to the incident. The decission was made long before the ball hit the back of the net. Correct call and that decision had nothing to do with big club/little club bias. Apart from that he was pretty **** throughout yesterday.
Judging by the way he refereed that situation I actually think he would. As I said in my post above, he made the decission before Charlie got his shot away and before he could have been influenced by the City players.
I still want to know what's the difference between players tapping and dragging the ball around deliberately prior to taking a free kick and what Hart did. When he connected properly the ball did go well outside the area so why pull it back for the first touch? Yes, the decision can be seen as technically correct if you follow the rules dogmatically but most of the time ref's use some latitude with things such as taking kicks from the exact spot, opposition retreating 10 yards and so on. For some reason in this case the man in black decided to strictly apply the letter of the law but as with 90% of his other decisions it strongly favoured the big money club.
It was called as an indirect free kick because of the offside. You can't touch the ball twice in a row when taking an indirect free kick. From the rulebook: (1)"If, when the free kick is taken by the defending team from inside its own penalty area, the ball does not travel directly out of the penalty area: the kick is retaken" BUT this is were it becomes interesting. (2)"Free kick taken by the goalkeeper If, after the ball is in play, the goalkeeper touches the ball again (except with his hands), before it has touched another player: an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team, the kick to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred" Only logic I can make if Mike Dean was right is that (1) overrules (2). Clive Whittingham put it perfectly in his match report: "Hart made a mess of the resulting free kick, accidentally treading on the ball with his left foot as he went to clear it with his right and sending the ball straight back to Austin on the edge of the area who lashed it back past the stricken keeper and into the bottom corner. Referee Mike Dean, on advice from his assistant, correctly ruled the goal out as a double touch from Hart necessitated a retake – a rule that rewards incompetence and failure.
The main issue was that the ball was only in play after Harts 2nd touch as that was when the ball went outside the penalty area, the ball was not in play after the first touch so 1 above applies......
The thing that bugs me was that he saw that because as real time it looked like a fumble and the lineo didn't even blink. He must of sensed it as he did blow straight away as Charlie smashed it in … he also dived. Still we know the truth from seeing the tele but at real time no one could understand it. Furious fans thought it was bias … I was still reeling from the offside as i thought he timed it OK … TV showed he was 2 yards offside You have to say it was a correct decision I hope TV stays out of the game IMO
I don't think he actually saw it Dave, he was 50 yards away on the half way line, it appears that the linesman told him about the double kick thus allowing Dean to blow his whistle as quick as he did.....
The fact is Hart SHOULD have told one of his players to come for the ball after he touched it as it was his fault, there is NO other way around it, simple as that, by him kicking it twice must mean QPR get a free kick in the area, and anyhow who said the ball had to be played outside the area why ?and wrong again. In my 37 years of football it is a first for me, like Howard diving on the ball outside the penalty area and getting away with that, that cost us SAFC 2 points most likely and the ref could not have seen the 2 kicks, impossible from where he was standing!
The laws of the game..... Agree about Howard, should have either been an indirect freekick or drop ball, there again Mason had bit of a mare, what was it all about with the Gomez dive? Mason puts whistle to mouth to blow for something then indicates for play to continue.....very strange.
Strange rule, rewarding or at the very least not sanctioning incompetence. If this situation occurs in injury time, what could the referee do if a goalkeeper decides to do this repeatedly until time ticks out?
Yellow card for time wasting, then 2nd yellow with dismissal.....probably award an indirect free kick to opposition.....
The ball wasn't in play mate. It only is in play when it has cleared the area from a keeper's free kick.
Norway's rule (2) here is what should be looked at. What if Hart miss kicked the ball, saw that it was going straight to Charlie, but managed to run after it and stop it before it left the area? Would we have got a free kick from where he made his second touch? If the answer is yes then it must be the same outcome for what actually happened. Additionally, he could have played the advantage rule so that the goals stands! I feel hard done by!
Rules really should be so much simpler, like these:- [video=youtube;_f_p0CgPeyA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA&feature=youtu.be&a[/video]
He sensed nothing Oddball. He didn't even see it. He was 40 yards away and there were two players in front of him. It was the lino who copped it and informed him through his earpiece.
