Ливерпүүл болон Ноттингем Форест багуудын тоглолтын үеэр гарсан торгуулийн цохилтын шийдвэр нь өнгөрсөн улирлын жишигтэй зөрчилдөж байгаа нь шүүгчдийн дүрэм тайлбарлах асуудалд тодорхой бус байдал үүссэнийг харууллаа.
Өнгөрсөн бямба гарагт Ливерпүүл болон Ноттингем Форест багуудын тоглолтын хоёрдугаар хагаст хаалгач Алиссон Неко Уильямсыг алдаатай тогтоосноор торгуулийн цохилт олгосон юм. Энэхүү шийдвэр нь өнгөрсөн улиралд ижил төстэй нөхцөл байдлуудад гаргаж байсан шүүгчдийн дүгнэлттэй зөрчилдөж байгаа нь мэргэжилтнүүд болон хөгжөөн дэмжигчдийн дунд маргаан үүсгэв.
2024-25 оны улирлын зарчмын дагуу хаалгачдын ийм төрлийн үйлдлийг зөвхөн “болчимгүй” гэж үзсэн тохиолдолд л торгуулийн цохилт олгох ёстой байсан юм. Хэрэв хаалгач гоол оруулахаас сэргийлэх оролдлого хийж байх явцад хүрэлцэл үүссэн бол үүнийг тоглолтын салшгүй хэсэг гэж үзэн торгуулийн цохилт олгохгүй байх хандлагатай байв.
Өнгөрсөн улиралд тоглогч цохилт, дамжуулалт эсвэл төвлөрүүлэлт хийсний дараа гарсан 14 удаагийн торгуулийн цохилтын гомдлыг хянахад шийдвэрүүд туйлын тогтворгүй байсныг судалгаа харуулж байна. Хариуцсан байгууллагууд Манчестер Юнайтед болон Ливерпүүлийн эсрэг тоглолтуудад торгуулийн цохилт олгосон нь зөв байсан гэж үзсэн ч, бусад олон тохиолдолд шүүгчийн шийдвэр болон хөндлөнгийн хяналтын комиссын дүгнэлт хоорондоо таарахгүй байв.
Шүүгчид “хөлбөмбөг юуг хүлээж байна” гэсэн ерөнхий зарчмыг баримталдаг ч энэ нь яг ямар агуулгатай болох талаар нэгдсэн ойлголт байхгүй байгаа нь асуудлыг улам хурцатгаж байна. Ливерпүүлийн талбайд болсон тоглолтын хувьд Алиссон бөмбөгийг бус эсрэг багийн тоглогчийг унагасан тул торгуулийн цохилт олгосон нь шударга шийдвэр гэж үзэж байгаа ч энэхүү жишиг нь улирлын туршид үргэлжлэх эсэх нь тодорхойгүй үлдлээ.
Дэлгэрэнгүйг эх сурвалжаас харах
↓Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
The penalty awarded to Nottingham Forest midway through the second half of their match at Liverpool on Saturday — when goalkeeper Alisson brought down Neco Williams — was out of step with several similar incidents last season, but in line with some others.
It is one of the areas where inconsistency is rife, not only among referees but also the independent panel that judges their decisions and people across the game.
The principle being applied in the 2024-25 season, when I was a member of the panel, was that such challenges by onrushing goalkeepers should result in penalties only if their actions were deemed reckless.
Neco Williams is fouled by Alisson (Dan Mullan/Getty Images)
Otherwise, the contact was written off as an inevitable consequence of a goalkeeper’s attempt to prevent a goal. As referees, we were told that this was what ‘football expects’, and that the Premier League agreed.
It is part of an overall trend where, last season, there were 14 incidents involving penalty appeals for a challenge on a player immediately after he had completed a shot, pass or cross. The outcomes were as follows:
Penalties awarded on the pitch
- To Fulham at Manchester United, for a foul by Harry Maguire
- To Manchester City at Liverpool, for a foul by Alisson.
Penalties that should have been awarded
- To Manchester City at home to Tottenham Hotspur (but not a clear error, so VAR was correct to keep out of the decision)
- To Manchester City at Newcastle United (VAR should have intervened)
- To Crystal Palace at Fulham (not a clear error).
Trying to work out the actual policy and its application is difficult, even for someone with an expert eye.
The challenge by Maguire that was penalised against Fulham was late and reckless, but Alisson’s actions against City look only careless. Neither of the incidents involving Spurs or Palace seemed like penalties in real time, and I would back the referees in both cases for playing on, but the panel ruled otherwise.
Maguire’s challenge on Raul Jimenez of Fulham was reckless (Matt McNulty/Getty Images)
The tackle on City’s Phil Foden at Newcastle does look reckless, so a penalty would have been justified. But in the ‘no offence’ bucket there were challenges that were at least as bad.
Had there been a consistent approach, West Ham United, who ended up relegated, would have had penalties at home to Sunderland, Bournemouth and Everton, but the referees saw nothing wrong and were told afterwards that they were right to play on.
Alisson fouls Matheus Nunes of Manchester City for a penalty last season (Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images)
The issue needs to be addressed by the game so referees have a clearer understanding of what is expected. It’s all very well saying that officials should deliver what ‘football expects’, but that’s of no use if there is a complete lack of consensus on what those expectations are.
Back to Anfield yesterday.
Most officials would agree that Alisson did not play the ball, and he brought down an opponent, so the penalty was a fair outcome.
Let’s see if this interpretation continues throughout the season, so at least everyone knows where they stand and what to expect.
