Righto, Jaccob Steinberg’s report is with us.
That means we’re finished here, so all that’s to do is enjoy Rob Smyth’s coverage of Manchester United v Arsenal. Not bad!
So enjoy the rest of the weekend and peace out.
“You wrote,” begins Philip Cornwall, my production editor – gulp! – “‘I agree. As soon as I saw the shove, I said no goal, but we didn’t even get that far because there was a prior infringement.’
This got me thinking. I don’t think there was a prior infringement. The offence cited is being closer than a yard to a wall, which is defined as three or more defenders. Guehi only got within a yard of the closest of the men in the wall after the shove – so the shove was the first infringement.
I imagine we will see lots of examples of attackers less than a yard away at free-kicks who do not shove anyone, and no offence given. The law is there to prevent interference with defenders. Guehi interfered with defenders and then got close to the wall. Palace fans will feel aggrieved because of other goals standing despite infractions of the law cited, yet it was surely right that the goal was disallowed.”
Yup, I agree the call was correct and would’ve been for the foul, even if there was no law stipulating how close to the wall an attacker can get. As for Guehi, the split-second before contact, he was almost in the wall, so I’m not sure the contact infringement could come prior to the proximity infringement, as to infringe he necessarily had to be proximate/
