Martin Atkinson.

[Brizzle Jordan]

THE ANGLE HE WAS LOOKING AT - IT COULD APPEAR OVER THE LINE

At the end of the day, he was wrong and wasn't even close to getting it right. He's made a massive error.

[Monkeh]

John Terry was on the line and he knew it didn't cross the line so how could Atkinson think it did?

Because Terry was on the line and Atkinson was not,

If Terry was any sort of a fair player he would of gone over to the ref and said you got that wrong but he's not he wants to win the game for chelsea and chelsea took the advantage they could get just like we did against palace,

It was a mistake thats all it happens alot and until the ref's get support it will continue to happen,

Its not the worst call ever in the history of the game,

[BCAGFC]

No part of the ball crossed the line

http://www.dailymail...l-Adebayor.html

Look at the Spurs defenders red/orange boots, they are behind the line in the 2nd photo and the ball is between them, the 1st photo is either taken before or after the 2nd one IMO.

Even allowing for the angle of the 2nd photo, his boots are not in front of the line (they look to be in the 1st but I have explained why that looks that way), if anything they are only slightly behind the line, in which case most of the ball had crossed the line but not ALL.

A lot of tinted spectacles on here.

BCAGFC

[Northampton Red]

Not sure how anyone can think that was a goal from any of the pictures or videos I've seen. The linesman's view is blocked, so it's ultimately down to the ref on this one. From his position, there is no way he could be 100% sure that ALL of the ball went over the line.

Would've made much more sense and been safer to not give the goal, even amongst the confusion. I'm sure refereeing is tough at times, and they do need video support like in rugby. Like Jordan said, bad decision, end of story.

[Monkeh]

Not sure how anyone can think that was a goal from any of the pictures or videos I've seen. The linesman's view is blocked, so it's ultimately down to the ref on this one. From his position, there is no way he could be 100% sure that ALL of the ball went over the line.

Would've made much more sense and been safer to not give the goal, even amongst the confusion. I'm sure refereeing is tough at times, and they do need video support like in rugby. Like Jordan said, bad decision, end of story.

Don't get me wrong I don't or ever thought the ball was over the line, I'm just saying it was a very bad call for which the ref has said sorry and Spurs have accepted that for me is end of story,

Not many ref's come out and put their hands up to a mistake if anything he should be congratualted on his honesty instead of going into hiding like most of the other ref's would,

[Clarky89]

John Terry was there, it hit him, he said it didn't cross the line. How much more proof can you possibly need?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!

Even Riaz's picture shows the ball DIDN'T cross the line. Assou-Ekotto's feet are dead on the line, and the ball is still a tad further ahead of his feet . . . .

[Redtucks]

But he did'nt stop spurs scoring

Ref played advantage. Correct decision - terrific refereeing.

How is it an advantage to play against 11 men rather than 10?

When Carey was sent off against Reading (for supposedly denying Roberts a goal scoring opportunity) it didn't stop Reading scoring, because they scored from the resulting penalty.

It didn't mean that Carey was then allowed to stay on.

[Riaz]

How is it an advantage to play against 11 men rather than 10?

When Carey was sent off against Reading (for supposedly denying Roberts a goal scoring opportunity) it didn't stop Reading scoring, because they scored from the resulting penalty.

It didn't mean that Carey was then allowed to stay on.

All that is totally irrelevant.

Refs have to let play develop and seek to play the advantage. In this situation tottenham gained the ultimate adavantage - had they not, only then is a player sent off for denying a goalscoring chance - The fact they would have been playing ten men - and probabaly scoring a goal from the penalty is totally irrelevant.

Reading may have missed the penalty against us.

[MarcusX]

The important thing is what angle did the ref look at and its not the goal line footage one, he's looking at the angle thats shown in this thread that makes it look like the balls crossed,

The linesman is more at fault as it should be his call to over rule the ref but again the linesman doesn't have the balls to do it and the ref gets all the stick for it,

Are you serious? I doubt the linesman could even see the ball, the player or the line. If the linesman had any say in that goal there wouild have been outrage!

It clearly wasnt over the line though

[simon uk]

From the pictures posted, it is clear the ball is very close to the line, the fact it is in the air doesn't help with making a decision, as the ref can't easily compare it to the line. The ref has a similar view to the pic riaz posted, and it sure looks close. At the end of the day spurs got smashed, so they can't really complain too much.

[Redtucks]

All that is totally irrelevant.

Refs have to let play develop and seek to play the advantage. In this situation tottenham gained the ultimate adavantage - had they not, only then is a player sent off for denying a goalscoring chance - The fact they would have been playing ten men - and probabaly scoring a goal from the penalty is totally irrelevant.

Reading may have missed the penalty against us.

"It is a sending off offence to deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick."

"The referee may play advantage whenever an infringement or offence occurs and should consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:

the severity of the offence - if the infringement warrants an expulsion, the referee must stop play and send the player off unless there is a subsequent opportunity to score a goal."

Nothing there says that once the goal was scored, the original offence goes unpunished.

If, hypothecically, Cech had punched Adebayor, or broke his leg with a dangerous tackle (violent conduct), would he still get away with it because the ref had played advantage?

[grifty]

In this photo the ball is 95% over the line. Ekotto right boot is level with the back of the line and the ball is further into the goal that that.

I don't think the whole ball went over, but it must be a matter of milli-meters that hasn't.

[Riaz]

"It is a sending off offence to deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick."

"The referee may play advantage whenever an infringement or offence occurs and should consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:

the severity of the offence - if the infringement warrants an expulsion, the referee must stop play and send the player off unless there is a subsequent opportunity to score a goal."

Nothing there says that once the goal was scored, the original offence goes unpunished.

If, hypothecically, Cech had punched Adebayor, or broke his leg with a dangerous tackle (violent conduct), would he still get away with it because the ref had played advantage?

But they scored, so Cech didn't prevent the goal-scoring opportunity - he merely fouled adebayor - another player took the chance to score.

Violent conduct is totally irrelevant - because that's a sending off and play has to be stopped for that reason

[Jordan Tansley]

In this photo the ball is 95% over the line. Ekotto right boot is level with the back of the line and the ball is further into the goal that that.

I don't think the whole ball went over, but it must be a matter of milli-meters that hasn't.

In the photo the ball is nowhere near past the post.

That point is just as ridiculous as yours because the angle makes it appear that way.

Come on guys, it's really bloody simple.

[Redtucks]

But they scored, so Cech didn't prevent the goal-scoring opportunity - he merely fouled adebayor - another player took the chance to score.

Violent conduct is totally irrelevant - because that's a sending off and play has to be stopped for that reason

The original goal scoring opportunity was Adebayor's, that was what the foul prevented.

The fact that advantage was played and a goal was scored doesn't absolve the original offence.

Violent conduct is not irrelevant, it's a sending off the same as denying a goal scoring opportunity. The ref can decide to play advantage and then award a red card.

[Judge Roughneck]

I'd say nearer halfway than 95% over.

Ultimately he's guessing. What makes this incident different, and much much worse from a refereeing perspective, is that all other supposed errors are due to officials failing to see something, be it a handball, a player offside, even a ball crossing the line. It's human error and understandable. The only explanation is that the officials just didn't see it and that's the end of the matter.

With yesterday's incident, the ball never crossed the line, and the referee never saw it cross the line, so how is awarding a goal justifiable?

[grifty]

In the photo the ball is nowhere near past the post.

Sorry mate, I do believe you don't know which way the goal is. Anything left of the line is a goal. As Judgered has just shown by drawing a line from the ball, the middle is over the line. You make it sound the ball is on the edge of the 6 yard box.

[Alex_BCFC]

Whilst it was a big error, he only gave what he thought he saw like any ref can. The real issue is why football is so far behind sports like tennis and cricket.

[WellRedPhil]

"It is a sending off offence to deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick."

"The referee may play advantage whenever an infringement or offence occurs and should consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:

the severity of the offence - if the infringement warrants an expulsion, the referee must stop play and send the player off unless there is a subsequent opportunity to score a goal."

Nothing there says that once the goal was scored, the original offence goes unpunished.

If, hypothecically, Cech had punched Adebayor, or broke his leg with a dangerous tackle (violent conduct), would he still get away with it because the ref had played advantage?

Which there was, so what's your point? It's there in black and white, Cech did not deny a goal scoring opportunity as a goal was scored therefore it was not a red card. If he'd have punched Adebayor the ref would have sent Cech off after the goal because he would have committed a red card offence, violent conduct. As it was he didn't commit a red card offence, because he didn't deny a goal-scoring opportunity.

[lager loud]

Sorry mate, I do believe you don't know which way the goal is. Anything left of the line is a goal. As Judgered has just shown by drawing a line from the ball, the middle is over the line. You make it sound the ball is on the edge of the 6 yard box.

Using the logic that anything to the left of the line is beyond the line, the crossbar must be about two yards behind the goal line.

Any angle other than right in line can be very deceptive. I don't think the ball got any further than directly above the line, but I'm glad I didn't have to make an instant, binding decision about it.

[lager loud]

Which there was, so what's your point? It's there in black and white, Cech did not deny a goal scoring opportunity as a goal was scored therefore it was not a red card. If he'd have punched Adebayor the ref would have sent Cech off after the goal because he would have committed a red card offence, violent conduct. As it was he didn't commit a red card offence, because he didn't deny a goal-scoring opportunity.

Depends how you read it. Cech did stop Adebayor from having a goal scoring opportunity - and the rule refers to "an opponent", not the opposing team being denied the opportunity.

It's about time they changed this rule/interpretation for fouls inside the penalty area, anyway. Being awarded a penalty gives a different goal scoring opportunity, which is effectively what happened yesterday by the ref playing a brief advantage. So the foul doesn't deny the attacking team a goalscoring opportunity, it just changes its nature.

Wonder what would have happened if Bale had missed? Maybe the ref would have given the goal anyway!

[Monkeh]

Depends how you read it. Cech did stop Adebayor from having a goal scoring opportunity - and the rule refers to "an opponent", not the opposing team being denied the opportunity.

It's about time they changed this rule/interpretation for fouls inside the penalty area, anyway. Being awarded a penalty gives a different goal scoring opportunity, which is effectively what happened yesterday by the ref playing a brief advantage. So the foul doesn't deny the attacking team a goalscoring opportunity, it just changes its nature.

Wonder what would have happened if Bale had missed? Maybe the ref would have given the goal anyway!

but spurs were not denied a goal scoring oppertunity because they scored, if there is a foul that stops a goal scoring opertunitiy then its a red card, the fact it didn't means it was not a red card and the correct call was made,

Its in the rule book you can't argue about it the correct call was made end of story you are arguing for arguments sake

[terpin]

Wonder what would have happened if Bale had missed? Maybe the ref would have given the goal anyway!

Even if he had missed he would have still have had a "goal scoring opportunity" therefore no red card can be possible for Cech if he plays advantage. It was the correct decision by Atkinson - no question.

Slightly different as it was outside the box but in the Arsenal - Barca Champions League final a few years back when the ref sent Lehmann off everyone in a similar incident to the Cech one the general opinion was that the goal should have stood and a yellow card for Lehmann. The ref made a mistake and red carded Lehmann and disallowed the goal.

[grifty]

Using the logic that anything to the left of the line is beyond the line, the crossbar must be about two yards behind the goal line.

Any angle other than right in line can be very deceptive. I don't think the ball got any further than directly above the line, but I'm glad I didn't have to make an instant, binding decision about it.

I was explaining to him where the goal was rather than where the ball is in with that statement. For anyone to claim that the ball is nowhere near the line is frankly ridiculous.

[Jordan Tansley]

I was explaining to him where the goal was rather than where the ball is in with that statement. For anyone to claim that the ball is nowhere near the line is frankly ridiculous.

You seem to have completely missed the point. I'll simplify it, yeah?

In the photo the ball appears about a foot in front of the post... Because of the angle. Likewise it appears over the line... Because of the angle.

The itv graphic showed the ball didn reach the line. They had the benefit of every angle, not just the most selective one people find.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I think that the most important point here is that the referee must be 100% certain and it is quite evident that in this case there is no way that he could have been.

As for the Adebayor foul by Cech, for me the law is a complete arse in that a player who has committed a cynical, premeditated professional foul is allowed to stay on the field whatever the outcome of the original move.

[grifty]

You seem to have completely missed the point. I'll simplify it, yeah?

In the photo the ball appears about a foot in front of the post... Because of the angle. Likewise it appears over the line... Because of the angle.

The itv graphic showed the ball didn reach the line. They had the benefit of every angle, not just the most selective one people find.

I don't care what bumboy Premier League loser argument you want to make up to make yourself look big!

I am Ledley King and had a far better view than you. The ball was on the line. So there!

[Redtucks]

Which there was, so what's your point? It's there in black and white, Cech did not deny a goal scoring opportunity as a goal was scored therefore it was not a red card. If he'd have punched Adebayor the ref would have sent Cech off after the goal because he would have committed a red card offence, violent conduct. As it was he didn't commit a red card offence, because he didn't deny a goal-scoring opportunity.

Cech did deny Adebayor a goal scoring opportunity.

In most cases where a goal scoring opportunity is denied, the side gets a penalty kick, which is itself a goal scoring opportunity, and the player denying the original opportunity gets a red card.

If you compare the ultimate outcome of the incident in the City v Reading game, with the ultimate outcome of that in the Chelsea game, the same offence was committed, but.....

in the Reading game, Carey was sent off, Reading still had a goal scoring opportunity (the penalty) and scored. (I know he could have missed, but technically so could Bale).

So Reading had a goal and played the rest of the game against 10 men.

In the Chelsea game, WHERE THE REF PLAYED THE ADVANTAGE TO SPURS, the outcome was that Spurs had a goal and played the rest of the game against 11 men.

Which team benefitted the most? Reading or Spurs (where the advantage was played)?

It could be argued that if a goal, or a penalty, is ultimately scored, the offending player should not be sent off (which is what happened with Chelsea).

But if it's a red card in the first instance, surely it should be the same in the second instance.

I am not arguing whether the ref was right or wrong in either case, it's just that something just doesn't seem quite right, or fair, to me.

It could be argued that, as in rugby, the ref should be allowed to award a penalty-goal (penalty-try) when a clear scoring oppotunity is denied.

But then that's opening another can of worms.

[Riaz]

Cech did deny Adebayor a goal scoring opportunity.

In most cases where a goal scoring opportunity is denied, the side gets a penalty kick, which is itself a goal scoring opportunity, and the player denying the original opportunity gets a red card.

If you compare the ultimate outcome of the incident in the City v Reading game, with the ultimate outcome of that in the Chelsea game, the same offence was committed, but.....

in the Reading game, Carey was sent off, Reading still had a goal scoring opportunity (the penalty) and scored. (I know he could have missed, but technically so could Bale).

So Reading had a goal and played the rest of the game against 10 men.

In the Chelsea game, WHERE THE REF PLAYED THE ADVANTAGE TO SPURS, the outcome was that Spurs had a goal and played the rest of the game against 11 men.

Which team benefitted the most? Reading or Spurs (where the advantage was played)?

It could be argued that if a goal, or a penalty, is ultimately scored, the offending player should not be sent off (which is what happened with Chelsea).

But if it's a red card in the first instance, surely it should be the same in the second instance.

I am not arguing whether the ref was right or wrong in either case, it's just that something just doesn't seem quite right, or fair, to me.

It could be argued that, as in rugby, the ref should be allowed to award a penalty-goal (penalty-try) when a clear scoring oppotunity is denied.

But then that's opening another can of worms.

You keep going on about what would happen if he was sent off - but that is totally irrelevant to the rules - the ref played advantage and spurs scored.

I dont think you understand WHY the rule exists - A red card is given as a last resort - to give an advantage to the team who have been cheated a almost certain goal - in this case, Tottenham were not prevented from scoring the goal.

Personally - I think, that if a penalty is given, then only a yellow should be shown (unless its a violent offence of course). A red card for a player makes sense, if its outside the box and only a free kick is given - They are unlikely to score. But when a penalty is given, the red card is a double whammy. One nil down AND down to ten men isnt fair.

I would'nt be surprised if the rules are changed, so that only a yellow card is issued - when a penalty is given - It makes sense.

[Monkeh]

Cech did deny Adebayor a goal scoring opportunity.

In most cases where a goal scoring opportunity is denied, the side gets a penalty kick, which is itself a goal scoring opportunity, and the player denying the original opportunity gets a red card.

If you compare the ultimate outcome of the incident in the City v Reading game, with the ultimate outcome of that in the Chelsea game, the same offence was committed, but.....

in the Reading game, Carey was sent off, Reading still had a goal scoring opportunity (the penalty) and scored. (I know he could have missed, but technically so could Bale).

So Reading had a goal and played the rest of the game against 10 men.

In the Chelsea game, WHERE THE REF PLAYED THE ADVANTAGE TO SPURS, the outcome was that Spurs had a goal and played the rest of the game against 11 men.

Which team benefitted the most? Reading or Spurs (where the advantage was played)?

It could be argued that if a goal, or a penalty, is ultimately scored, the offending player should not be sent off (which is what happened with Chelsea).

But if it's a red card in the first instance, surely it should be the same in the second instance.

I am not arguing whether the ref was right or wrong in either case, it's just that something just doesn't seem quite right, or fair, to me.

It could be argued that, as in rugby, the ref should be allowed to award a penalty-goal (penalty-try) when a clear scoring oppotunity is denied.

But then that's opening another can of worms.

You are wrong,

He did deny Adebyor but he DID NOT DENY SPURS a goal score oppertunitie as Bale scored where as Carey denied Roberts and reading a goal scoring oppertunitie and was rightly sent off,

Denying a goal scoring oppertunitie is against the team not the man, he did not deny spurs therefore the correct call was made,

You are so wrong it hurts my brain