Robbie Keane- what else should we expect from him

[Supersub6]

I'm not sure where he gets the 'could' from really, if your boot is so far off the ground that it's in the vicinity of a player's face, that's dangerous, end of.

When he started the move for the overhead kick, Docherty was nowhere near him and he only ended up near him because he was attempting to get into a position to block the kick, therefore, it was Docherty who put himself in danger and that would be what Mike Dean would tell the VAR and the VAR operator in that instance would go along with that from what he has seen because it was not a clear and obvious mistake, in fact, it wasn't a mistake at all.

[sinkov]

"Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."

Maybe they've changed the rule from the above Sub, I don't know, they seem to change them every couple of weeks, but if the above is the current law then I can't see an issue, (1) Wood was trying to play the ball, (2) there was a possibility that Docherty could have got a mouthful of Chris's boot, (3) and Docherty's arm was raised to protect himself from said boot, and so was clearly concerned about getting an injury. Guilty on all three counts, free-kick to Wolves.

Of course I realise that games are refereed these days on a whim, and not on a strict application of the laws as they stand, so the decision didn't surprise me. Doesn't make it the right decision though, and say 20 years ago that would have been a free-kick to Wolves and no one would have bat an eyelid.

[Norder]

.


looks too close for comfort in the first image.





....but not in the others, in fact - I think Boly was closer to Wood than Docherty, but in no danger - as I see it, it cant be dangerous if players are far enough away that they wont make contact - Docherty certainly was - so no dangerous play there for me. As for the handball, he'd seen its angle and his arm was pretty much in place as he made the jump, was nothing to do with protecting him - imo.

[sinkov]

In the third photo, they appear to be so close they're almost touching."it cant be dangerous if players are far enough away that they wont make contact". They were so close that when Docherty came down he landed on Wood's head.

[Supersub6]

In the third photo, they appear to be so close they're almost touching."it cant be dangerous if players are far enough away that they wont make contact". They were so close that when Docherty came down he landed on Wood's head.

He put himself in that position, infact, had he not done he would not have handled the ball. In my opinion that is what Mike Dean saw and this was backed up by VAR and by a lot of refereed on the board which I go on regularly. Docherty put himself in the firing line by choice.

[sinkov]

He put himself in that position, infact, had he not done he would not have handled the ball. In my opinion that is what Mike Dean saw and this was backed up by VAR and by a lot of refereed on the board which I go on regularly. Docherty put himself in the firing line by choice.

Saw what you're saying is, if a striker is lining up an overhead kick, no defender has the right to attempt a headed clearance as this may put himself in danger. Fair enough, it's lunacy, but par for the course in football these days.

[Supersub6]

Saw what you're saying is, if a striker is lining up an overhead kick, no defender has the right to attempt a headed clearance as this may put himself in danger. Fair enough, it's lunacy, but par for the course in football these days.

A defender has every right to try to attempt what Doherty did, however, it does not automatically mean that the striker is at fault. As has been shown in this particular case, Doherty was well away from Wood when he went for the overhead kick and I don't think that he was trying to head the ball, he was trying to make a block, however, Wood kicked thin air but Doherty handled the ball. Mike Dean is a very experienced official and will have seen this situation or. very similar, many times and his interpretation is exactly as I saw it and VAR confirmed that.

I thought that Bardsley was also fouled when he was making the header but nobody said anything about that.

[Norder]

In the third photo, they appear to be so close they're almost touching."it cant be dangerous if players are far enough away that they wont make contact". They were so close that when Docherty came down he landed on Wood's head.

He, is moving onto Wood (as sub)- who's already at full stretch , and still there's no danger, because there must be 3 feet in it I'd say - then as Wood drops back - Docherty is still on the rise and moving over Wood - by that time, any risk of injury has gone....other than, as you say sinkov - for Wood.

[sinkov]

So now you're saying that the referee and VAR get it right every time ? The fact that they see it differently to me just makes me more sure I'm probably right.

I'm not sure why you would think Docherty was making a block, he wasn't between Wood and the goal so there was no possibilty of blocking the shot. It looks clear to me that Docherty was challenging for the ball with his head, as he is perfectly entitled to do, as the ball was arriving at head height, Wood's boot was six foot off the ground and put Docherty in danger. Six feet up in the air is header territory, if a player chooses to put his boot up there the onus is on him to ensure it's safe, not the player attempting to head the ball.

I've no idea how they work these days, or what their thinking is at any given moment, but is it possible they saw two offences, a handball and dangerous play, but could only penalise one, and chose to penalise the handball ?

[Supersub6]

So now you're saying that the referee and VAR get it right every time ? The fact that they see it differently to me just makes me more sure I'm probably right.

I'm not sure why you would think Docherty was making a block, he wasn't between Wood and the goal so there was no possibilty of blocking the shot. It looks clear to me that Docherty was challenging for the ball with his head, as he is perfectly entitled to do, as the ball was arriving at head height, Wood's boot was six foot off the ground and put Docherty in danger. Six feet up in the air is header territory, if a player chooses to put his boot up there the onus is on him to ensure it's safe, not the player attempting to head the ball.

I've no idea how they work these days, or what their thinking is at any given moment, but is it possible they saw two offences, a handball and dangerous play, but could only penalise one, and chose to penalise the handball ?

sinkov-- you know my views on VAR! All I will say is that, had I been refereeing, I would have given the handball because Wood made no contact with anything but the ball hit Doherty on the hand and stopped its progress. In the modern interpretation, his arm was up in the air in an unnatural positon, which I also personally disagree with, however, in the modern game it is handball.

We will disagree which is fair enough, however, I considered it be an excellent spot by Mike Dean because a lot of people watching were not aware that it was handball ---until the dreaded VAR got involved. Remember that, if this incident had happened on any English League ground outside of the PL, the penalty was given by the referee spotting a handball and who did not consider that there was dangerous play. You would still disagree with the decision and I would still agree with it ---VAR does not even come into the equation --it is merely you and I that have a difference of opinion which still happens on football grounds all over the country ---when they let the fans back in!