Stuart Attwell

[TBM]

However, an organisation which represents referees says it has reviewed the goal and believes the correct decisions were made.
A statement from the Professional Game Match Officials said: "According to the Laws of the Game, having stopped the game for any infringement the referee is required to 'indicate the restart of the match'.
"In practice, in the majority of cases, referees indicate for the re-start by gesturing to players to take the kick. These gestures can be minimal.
"For the more important 'ceremonial' free-kicks, which also involve control of the defensive wall, referees can indicate by using the whistle. However, there is no requirement by law to use the whistle to make the indication.
"The ball is then in play when it is kicked and moves. So, in this case, the ball was in play as soon as it is kicked by a Sunderland player.
"Also, the laws state that the free-kick must be taken from the place where the infringement occurred. Again, in this case, the referee correctly determined that the free-kick was played from the right place."

[handbags_harris]

They may well do that, but of course Stuart Attwell's their baby work in progress so they will defend the useless twat to the hilt. That free kick was clearly not deliberately taken, and therefore should have been pulled back. Attwell has bottled it though.

[Stranded]

Ah the old I'm right, so any one stating the opposite case as an ulterior motive for doing so rebuttal.

[Hoop Blah]

I caught Andy Gray discussing this on The Last Word yesterday evening.

He does make me laugh, he defended Atwell as probably maknig the right decision by the laws of the game, then said a more experienced ref would've blown his whistle before the goal was scored in order to prevent the situation.

What that experienced ref was supposed to have blown for he didn't say!

[3 veesinarow]

Football "experts", armchair fans and disgruntled managers alike - it wasn't common sense, he fcuked up.

He did not. The first and only directive issued to referees is that they apply the laws of the game. The ball was in the correct place, the referee had signalled (without needing to whistle) for the restart and the ball had been touched which meant it was in play. All laws of the game had been observed. Fair play to Torres for the quick thinking. LOL at the arm-flailers whining it's not fair. Conventions concerning re-starts are not laws, they are conventions.

[TBM]

Football "experts", armchair fans and disgruntled managers alike - it wasn't common sense, he fcuked up.

He did not. The first and only directive issued to referees is that they apply the laws of the game. The ball was in the correct place, the referee had signalled (without needing to whistle) for the restart and the ball had been touched which meant it was in play. All laws of the game had been observed. Fair play to Torres for the quick thinking. LOL at the arm-flailers whining it's not fair. Conventions concerning re-starts are not laws, they are conventions.

Although i agree with that i don't think that the defender was actually taking the kick - as why would he knock the ball back to the keeper so short for the keeper to, what, kick it up field - he could have done that himself.

Remember that corner Man Utd took a season or two back - a little touch and the player ran off, only for Giggs to run up and then dribble it in......everyone complained the corner wasn't taken, when it was by the fact the ball moved.

[soggy biscuit]

Remember that corner Man Utd took a season or two back - a little touch and the player ran off, only for Giggs to run up and then dribble it in......everyone complained the corner wasn't taken, when it was by the fact the ball moved.

If I remember correctly I think that is the one that I lolzed at because the whole 'should it count/shouldn't it count' argument conveniently ignored the fact that the ball must do a full rotation at a corner/free kick before someone else can touch it which in that case it didn't. (unless I am thinking of another incident)

[TBM]

Remember that corner Man Utd took a season or two back - a little touch and the player ran off, only for Giggs to run up and then dribble it in......everyone complained the corner wasn't taken, when it was by the fact the ball moved.

If I remember correctly I think that is the one that I lolzed at because the whole 'should it count/shouldn't it count' argument conveniently ignored the fact that the ball must do a full rotation at a corner/free kick before someone else can touch it which in that case it didn't. (unless I am thinking of another incident)

You're thinking bout another incident - as the ball was a good yard or 2 outside the corner area

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zKqmIRJkg4

[soggy biscuit]

Remember that corner Man Utd took a season or two back - a little touch and the player ran off, only for Giggs to run up and then dribble it in......everyone complained the corner wasn't taken, when it was by the fact the ball moved.

If I remember correctly I think that is the one that I lolzed at because the whole 'should it count/shouldn't it count' argument conveniently ignored the fact that the ball must do a full rotation at a corner/free kick before someone else can touch it which in that case it didn't. (unless I am thinking of another incident)

You're thinking bout another incident - as the ball was a good yard or 2 outside the corner area

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zKqmIRJkg4

yeah wrong one. There was someone that happened in the last year or so where pundits were claiming someone as clever and getting around the rules and blasting some ref while ignore the fact the ref had it right for another reason anyway.

[Kitsondinho]

The best thing about that was Utd played another short corner from the retake and scored anyway.

As for the Attwell debate, I finally saw it on SSN this morning. It was a goal, Turner was an idiot for tapping the ball back like that. Yes it was unfair, but many things that happen in football are unfair. Owen leaving his leg out to be tripped v Argentina in 2002 was unfair, it wasn't diving but he 'won' that penalty. It wasn't very sporting from Owen but I didn't care at the time and still don't. What Liverpool did wasn't very sporting but it wasn't against the rules, so they did nothing wrong!

[soggy biscuit]

All of this just stops people from discussing Gerrard albowing an opponent in the head.

Top skillz by the England captain

[3 veesinarow]

Football "experts", armchair fans and disgruntled managers alike - it wasn't common sense, he fcuked up.

He did not. The first and only directive issued to referees is that they apply the laws of the game. The ball was in the correct place, the referee had signalled (without needing to whistle) for the restart and the ball had been touched which meant it was in play. All laws of the game had been observed. Fair play to Torres for the quick thinking. LOL at the arm-flailers whining it's not fair. Conventions concerning re-starts are not laws, they are conventions.

Although i agree with that i don't think that the defender was actually taking the kick - as why would he knock the ball back to the keeper so short for the keeper to, what, kick it up field - he could have done that himself.

Remember that corner Man Utd took a season or two back - a little touch and the player ran off, only for Giggs to run up and then dribble it in......everyone complained the corner wasn't taken, when it was by the fact the ball moved.

Everyone "knows" that Turner didn't think he was taking the free-kick and didn't mean to kick the ball like that...but he did.
We all remember Pires trying to be a smart-arse with that sideways penalty - he didn't mean to mistouch it like that...but he did. He couldn't play it again, he wasn't given another dab at it simply because he didn't mean to do it and the game continued. So it was then , so it is now. It was highly unusual, but the goal should stand.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Everyone "knows" that Turner didn't think he was taking the free-kick and didn't mean to kick the ball like that...but he did.

We all remember Pires trying to be a smart-arse with that sideways penalty - he didn't mean to mistouch it like that...but he did. He couldn't play it again, he wasn't given another dab at it simply because he didn't mean to do it and the game continued. So it was then , so it is now. It was highly unusual, but the goal should stand.

In the same way that the first time a keeper who was holding the ball in one hand had it knocked out of his grasp by an attacker everyone cried foul and that it shouldn't happen - but it was perfectly right.

Now keepers hold on with two hands and look behind them - perhaps a bit more care will be taken with free kicks from now onwards.

[handbags_harris]

Football "experts", armchair fans and disgruntled managers alike - it wasn't common sense, he fcuked up.

He did not. The first and only directive issued to referees is that they apply the laws of the game. The ball was in the correct place, the referee had signalled (without needing to whistle) for the restart and the ball had been touched which meant it was in play. All laws of the game had been observed. Fair play to Torres for the quick thinking. LOL at the arm-flailers whining it's not fair. Conventions concerning re-starts are not laws, they are conventions.

Although i agree with that i don't think that the defender was actually taking the kick - as why would he knock the ball back to the keeper so short for the keeper to, what, kick it up field - he could have done that himself.

Remember that corner Man Utd took a season or two back - a little touch and the player ran off, only for Giggs to run up and then dribble it in......everyone complained the corner wasn't taken, when it was by the fact the ball moved.

Everyone "knows" that Turner didn't think he was taking the free-kick and didn't mean to kick the ball like that...but he did.
We all remember Pires trying to be a smart-arse with that sideways penalty - he didn't mean to mistouch it like that...but he did. He couldn't play it again, he wasn't given another dab at it simply because he didn't mean to do it and the game continued. So it was then , so it is now. It was highly unusual, but the goal should stand.

The two incidents highlighted:

1) The corner - a deliberately taken corner to try to deceive the opposition. Fair play, deliberate touch. Whoever took the corner intended to take it in that manner.

2) The penalty - Robert Pires intended to take the kick sideways. That is his fault that he misplaced the pass from the penalty.

The free kick on Saturday - Michael Turner was giving the ball back to his keeper to take the kick. He didn't take the kick himself. The intention wasn't there, and for that reason in my mind the game should have been called back once Torres stole the ball and ran through.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Intention is absolutely irrelevant.

Once the referee has indicated that the kick should be taken, the next kick of the ball by that team *is* the kick being taken.

It really is as simple as that.

[handbags_harris]

Everyone "knows" that Turner didn't think he was taking the free-kick and didn't mean to kick the ball like that...but he did.

We all remember Pires trying to be a smart-arse with that sideways penalty - he didn't mean to mistouch it like that...but he did. He couldn't play it again, he wasn't given another dab at it simply because he didn't mean to do it and the game continued. So it was then , so it is now. It was highly unusual, but the goal should stand.

In the same way that the first time a keeper who was holding the ball in one hand had it knocked out of his grasp by an attacker everyone cried foul and that it shouldn't happen - but it was perfectly right.

Now keepers hold on with two hands and look behind them - perhaps a bit more care will be taken with free kicks from now onwards.

If an attacker knocks the ball out of the keeper's hands nowadays, not only is a free kick awarded but the attacker is booked for unsporting behaviour/ungentlemanly conduct/whatever it is. In the same way that you can't knock the ball away when the keeper goes to kick it from his hands, or attempt to block the kick/keeper. Free kick, booking. Bit of a poor argument that one.

[handbags_harris]

Intention is absolutely irrelevant.

Once the referee has indicated that the kick should be taken, the next kick of the ball by that team *is* the kick being taken.

It really is as simple as that.

Of course it is, intention has everything to do with it. How many times has a referee signalled that he is ready for the resumption of play only for a player to give the ball to another player to take, regardless of whether the ball was already in the correct spot or not? Happens all the time in the later stages of games when a team is winning by the odd goal or two...

[Svlad Cjelli]

Intention is absolutely irrelevant.

Once the referee has indicated that the kick should be taken, the next kick of the ball by that team *is* the kick being taken.

It really is as simple as that.

Of course it is, intention has everything to do with it. How many times has a referee signalled that he is ready for the resumption of play only for a player to give the ball to another player to take, regardless of whether the ball was already in the correct spot or not? Happens all the time in the later stages of games when a team is winning by the odd goal or two...

Perhaps now he'll know to throw the ball to the keeper - or perhaps leave it for him to reach, as it was in the correct position already.

Just how is the ref meant to know that the kick he took wasn't intentional. What if he'd played it properly forwards and Torres had got it and scored - could he then say "that wasn't a real free-kick, I was passing it to someone else to take?" The only way it can possibly work is that the first kick after the ref indicates to play is the kick. End of!

Anyway, it's obvious that he was trying to get the kick taken closer to the goal so the keeper wouldn't be so exposed - why should he get away with that?

[Croydon Royal]

Just simply playing Devil's Advocate here (I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if it's already been mentioned), but say if Turner picked up the ball then and threw it back to the keeper rather than kicked it - as players sometimes do when leaving it for the keeper to take the kick - do you really think that Atwell would have blown up for handball?

The rules of the game state that Atwell was correct to let the goal stand, but if you don't let common sense apply you'd end up with 100s of these incidents every week, with referees giving penalties for pushing every time a corner kick is taken, and goalkeepers being penalised about 3 times per game for holding on to the ball for 6.1 seconds.

[Silver Fox]

if Turner picked up the ball then and threw it back to the keeper rather than kicked it - as players sometimes do when leaving it for the keeper to take the kick - do you really think that Atwell would have blown up for handball?

Of course not, the game wouldn't have restarted