Chester 1 Morecambe 2 FT

[Keith]

If either foot had been outside the box then it would have been handball.

There's also some confusion over Danny's first booking, if you commit an offence with a throw-in, isn't the throw-in taken by the other team?

To be fair, your photo actually makes me think the official 'may' have been correct. The keeper definitely had both feet outside the box, but was leaning back a long way when he caught the ball. I felt that he was so far out that if he had been leaning back enough to catch it inside, he would have had to fall over but 'perhaps' he was close enough? Hope TV will clear it up.

For a foul throw, the opposition take it but not for time wasting, same as if the keeper is booked for time wasting over a goal kick, it doesn't become an indirect free kick to the opposition. Where I think he did get it wrong over a throw in was in the first half. Chester took a quick throw in a good position and he made them take it again, bringing the player forwards. I've not looked it up but I'm pretty sure the law regarding throw-ins states that the throw must not be taken further forwards than where the ball went out of play, ie you can take it from any point further back.

[Phoenix]

It just goes to prove we all have different views and opinions about the same incident. The ref's no different and we have to abide by his decision.

[outsider]

did you by any chance get one of the rather portly copper? who only made one trip past us ?

[RedRedWine1]

Just to clear up the rules, can a keeper have his feet outside the box and still handle the ball? Genuine question as I'm not sure of the rules and already there has been confliction in this thread regarding the ruling.

Technically he's out of his box as no part of body is in contact with the area. If he could catch the ball with his feet in the area, then why didn't he? By coming out and leaning back he has stopped our attacker claiming the ball by putting his body between his area and the direct space for Howe to run onto the ball. If the ruling is that you can lean back and claim the ball with no part of your body in the area the he may just be ok. With my Morecambe hat on its a definite foul and a sending off, with a neutral hat on it's actually too close to say if the keeper actually caught it in the area with his body outside.

Also Castaway, you are right regarding the chronologic order of the Adams sending-off. I just got giddy last night when I was writing my report up and, got mixed up with the order of events. Was a good spin-off story though, I should get a job at the Sun newspaper with my factual reporting skills. I'll run for the cover now and say Adams shouldn't have got involved at all as Ellison was going for a silly tackle on Fraser

[outsider]

i am sure as long as the ball is caught inside the box then it's ok if his feet are outside, you often see keepers sliding to keep there hands inside the box and there body's legs and feet outside.

[Keith]

Just to clear up the rules, can a keeper have his feet outside the box and still handle the ball? Genuine question as I'm not sure of the rules and already there has been confliction in this thread regarding the ruling.

Definately as outsider stated. It is where the ball is that matters, not where the keeper is. If the ball was in the area when he caught it, the officials got it right. Personally, I still think the ball was outside but it may have been closer than I initially thought.

[Keith]

Where I think he did get it wrong over a throw in was in the first half. Chester took a quick throw in a good position and he made them take it again, bringing the player forwards. I've not looked it up but I'm pretty sure the law regarding throw-ins states that the throw must not be taken further forwards than where the ball went out of play, ie you can take it from any point further back.

Okay, I now have looked it up and the ref was correct. I guess this is another of those little law changes that the FA make almost every year because I'm sure it used to be as I described. Law 15 'The Throw In'.

Readers of a certain age may remember 'Shoot' magazine, which had a 'you are the ref' column. Here 'odd' occurrences were described and you had to decide the outcome...

such as...

A player flicks the ball in to the air with his foot, then heads the ball to his own keeper, who in turn, catches the ball. What, if any offence has been committed and what should the ref do about it?

[outsider]

B) none, as you are allowed to head the ball to your own keeper to catch. Ref's action should be to book the player for showboating

[james456]

Just to clear up the rules, can a keeper have his feet outside the box and still handle the ball? Genuine question as I'm not sure of the rules and already there has been confliction in this thread regarding the ruling.

Technically he's out of his box as no part of body is in contact with the area. If he could catch the ball with his feet in the area, then why didn't he? By coming out and leaning back he has stopped our attacker claiming the ball by putting his body between his area and the direct space for Howe to run onto the ball. If the ruling is that you can lean back and claim the ball with no part of your body in the area the he may just be ok. With my Morecambe hat on its a definite foul and a sending off, with a neutral hat on it's actually too close to say if the keeper actually caught it in the area with his body outside.

Also Castaway, you are right regarding the chronologic order of the Adams sending-off. I just got giddy last night when I was writing my report up and, got mixed up with the order of events. Was a good spin-off story though, I should get a job at the Sun newspaper with my factual reporting skills. I'll run for the cover now and say Adams shouldn't have got involved at all as Ellison was going for a silly tackle on Fraser

But if a keeper jumps to catch a ball, he's not touching the ground and therefore not in contact with the area.

Anyway, here is my little analysis for yesterdays game...

Roche - 7. Couple of good saves.
Adams - 6. Shouldn't have got himself sent off.
McStay - 7. Put in the tackles.
Bentley - 6. Didn't notice him but can't say he did anythign wrong.
McGivern - 6. Shame he got injured, did ok.
Parrish - 4. Got skinned a couple of times, reluctant to tackle. Lost the ball a bit too much.
Drummond - 7. Solid.
Stanley - 7. Good goal.
McLachlan - 6. Again, did ok, shame he got injured.
Carlton - 7. Did pretty well, caused problems.
Howe - 6. Ok.

Artel - no rating, came on late.
Taylor - 6. Came on a bit late to do much but put a shift in.

[seasonsinthesun]

Does Danny Adams have a straight 3 match ban? If so , who will play Left back and how does Sammy re-jig the defence?

[marky]

It's normally just a 1 match ban for a second yellow card. Given we've been playing Adams as central defender I would say it's a straight swop with Artell, or possibly put Parrish there with McCann as right wing-back?

[Phoenix]

The 2nd yellow means a 1 match ban. But, the 2 yellows will be added to the running total so if he had 4 before yesterday, that will be another match ban for accumulating 5 yellows.

[steve mfc]

A hard earned three points yesterday, it was always going to be a difficult match with Chester having a new manager albeit for the third time, you knew they would be up for it and they certainly were.

Commitment is one thing but some of their tackling was bordering on dirty play which was only made worse by a lenient referee.

Harris being one of the worst offenders, Linwood was climbing all over Howe every time the ball was played in the air but was seldom penalised.

I though it was a bit of a mixed reception from the home support when the announcer introduced Wright before the match and the poor turn out says it all.

[marky]

According to the website (assuming it is up to date), yesterday was his first yellow of the season. Rene Howe is one yellow away from a ban. Amazingly, Bentley, Stanley & Drummond are yet to be cautioned this season, which for players in their positions either impressive or indicative of standing off players. I'll let those who've seen more matches than I have be the judge of that one

[Keith]

And for Keith, catching the ball outside the area that turned the game;

From the 'photos' thread...

Ian's photos just added including what could be the deciding picture over the handball (non-) incident.

Hmm, I'm back to thinking it WAS handball, red card, no 'straight down the other end & score'...

If you look at both photos, the keeper actually takes two paces to get to the position he is is for Ian's photo (look at his right foot, he's already stepped back once after Brian's image). If he has just caught the ball literally as Ian pressed the shutter, then he is just legal but I saw it as the keeper stepped back in to the area after catching it, in the photos, that would be as he took the step back with his right leg. Hope some video of the incident exists. Not that it matters, but the Chester lot are saying the ref was favourable towards us, ignoring everything they got in their favour!

[marky]

Keith, it would more than likely have been a yellow. The Brentford 'keeper was booked after a similar incident in the FA Cup match against Havant & Waterlooville.

[shrimper]

Where I think he did get it wrong over a throw in was in the first half. Chester took a quick throw in a good position and he made them take it again, bringing the player forwards. I've not looked it up but I'm pretty sure the law regarding throw-ins states that the throw must not be taken further forwards than where the ball went out of play, ie you can take it from any point further back.

Okay, I now have looked it up and the ref was correct. I guess this is another of those little law changes that the FA make almost every year because I'm sure it used to be as I described. Law 15 'The Throw In'.

Readers of a certain age may remember 'Shoot' magazine, which had a 'you are the ref' column. Here 'odd' occurrences were described and you had to decide the outcome...

such as...

A player flicks the ball in to the air with his foot, then heads the ball to his own keeper, who in turn, catches the ball. What, if any offence has been committed and what should the ref do about it?

An offence HAS been committed (I think you'll find, haven't checked). The player is using a trick to circumvent the laws of the game and that's an offence. Think it would be a free kick to the opposing side, just as if it had been a back pass.

[Keith]

A player flicks the ball in to the air with his foot, then heads the ball to his own keeper, who in turn, catches the ball. What, if any offence has been committed and what should the ref do about it?

B) none, as you are allowed to head the ball to your own keeper to catch. Ref's action should be to book the player for showboating

An offence HAS been committed (I think you'll find, haven't checked). The player is using a trick to circumvent the laws of the game and that's an offence. Think it would be a free kick to the opposing side, just as if it had been a back pass.

Looks like you are getting there between you!

Yellow card and an indirect free kick (as per back pass). Anyone else fancy setting one?

[Keith]

Keith, it would more than likely have been a yellow. The Brentford 'keeper was booked after a similar incident in the FA Cup match against Havant & Waterlooville.

Not sure about that, had the keeper not handled the ball, Howe was clear on goal after err... apparently shoving the last defender over! (I'm sure he didn't, I'm sure their guy was falling over anyway! ) I'd suggest the Brentford keeper would have got away with it because the ref would have bottled it, sending off a Football League team's keeper against a non-league team!

[P/T Indie]

Parrish - 4. Got skinned a couple of times, reluctant to tackle. Lost the ball a bit too much.


At first I thought you were been a bit harsh there maybe a 5/6 as their winger caught him out of position a few times but then I have just seen the goals on the Championship and Parish was no where to be seen for their 1st the winger could have had an afternoon nap before putting the cross in such was the amount of time he had then parish suddenly comes running into position just as the cross finally goes in.