Although the game is long over, and although the Tigers have begun to plan Wednesday's "Jinjing derby" with Beijing Guoan, for fans, last night's regret is still difficult to digest, especially when the team performed so well that it was finally "robbed" by the referee for two points. In fact, the game has not yet ended, the topic of "whether Barton collided" the goalkeeper has already aroused widespread discussion, the reason why it is called a discussion rather than a controversy, mainly because there is no "fight" - as a third-party broadcast agency, the reaction of the Tencent commentator is that "this penalty is bound to cause great controversy", the CCTV commentator also said that the ball is "not easy to say", and even most Shanghai Port fans believe that a foul should not be awarded... Of course, there was still a small number of people in the discussion who insisted that Barton had fouled, and the reason they gave was: the goalkeeper enjoys absolute protection in the small penalty area, and as long as there is a collision, it is considered a "collision goalkeeper" foul!
Wow~ sounds quite reasonable, and statements like this "goalkeeper in small restricted area are absolutely protected" have indeed appeared often before, and even some professionals like to use such arguments, so that the protection uncle himself believes that "goalkeepers in small restricted areas are absolutely protected". However, if you don't know, you are shocked when you check it, such a view is similar to the Mandela effect of whether it is a man from the sky or a Slovak, and FIFA's rules not only do not have the so-called "goalkeepers in small restricted areas are absolutely protected", but even "small restricted areas" and "collision goalkeepers" are not described. Yes, it's over! Whole! Not! Yes! Usually we often say "small penalty area" and "large penalty area", in FIFA rules correspond to "goal area" and "penalty area", and goalkeepers do not have any privileges except for touching the ball with their hands in the free throw area, and the rules are completely consistent with other players. Therefore, the so-called "collision goalkeeper" is theoretically just "fouling the opposing player".
In the fourth round of this Premier League competition, Arsenal 2-1 Fulham, Gabriel scored in a corner kick, and the referee looked back and confirmed that he did not hit the goalkeeper. How should this ball be judged when handed over to Zhang Long?
So why do blowing penalties against goalkeepers is significantly more fouled than other players? Because the goalkeeper can touch the ball from any part of his body in the box, it is easier for the goalkeeper to form control of the ball than other players, and once the ball is controlled, the opponent can easily be fouled when he goes to grab the ball. What's more, the rules also specifically stipulate that when the goalkeeper controls the ball with his hands, the opponent must not compete with him for the ball. In addition, such fouls basically occur in the penalty area, which is more likely to produce "obvious scoring opportunities", and the referee will pay special attention, so there is a phenomenon that the so-called "rushing goalkeeper" is much more than "rushing other players", and over time, people mistakenly believe that there is a rule of "collision goalkeeper".
In the round of 16 of the Premier League, Tottenham's 4-3 comeback win over Leeds was also considered valid, and of course, the goal was later controversial.
Now, let's look back at Barton's ball, is there a foul that "rushes the opposing player"? To solve this problem, we must first distinguish whether Yan Junling has completed the control of the ball. At this point, different judges give different understandings. Some referees believe that the first time Yan Junling touches the ball can be regarded as completing the control of the ball, but some referees believe that Yan Junling has dropped again in the process of recovery after touching the ball, and cannot be recognized as completing the control of the ball.
Of course, even if it is determined that Yan Junling has completed the control of the ball, it can be clearly seen through slow motion that Barton has jumped during the operation of the ball, and it is a vertical jump, but Yan Junling "jumped" to Barton, so it is difficult to determine that Barton grabbed the ball after Yan Junling formed control of the ball. As for the "collision", the two sides did have physical contact, but because it was Yan Junling who jumped in the direction of Barton, who should be sentenced to foul the "collision" caused by this? In fact, whether this goal should be judged or not, Yan Junling himself knows best, because in the 2019 AFC Champions League match with Urawa Red Diamonds, he encountered a similar situation, and as a result, the referee on duty resolutely ruled that the goal was valid ↓↓
Speaking of which, Urawa's Makino Tomoako still "jumped" in the direction of Yan Junling
After the game, most of the domestic media also attributed this ball to Yan Junling's mistake! It seems that Yan Guomen really has to reflect on his technical moves to save the ball, after all, in the Asian Champions League or the national team, he can't meet Zhang Long.
In fact, after a long day, this ball objectively belongs to the scope of "discretion of the referee", which is commonly known as "judgment or not", especially in the Chinese Super League, many similar situations other referees have also awarded fouls on the attacker. The reason why yesterday's ball will make the outside world so "uneasy", more importantly, is Zhang Long's serious "double standard" throughout the game, if not for the accumulation of several controversial penalties before, without his repeated downgrading of fouls on harbor players, perhaps, this ball would not have caused such a big controversy. Especially in the 80th minute, Oscar's consecutive fouls against Merida and Barton, obviously retaliated, and Zhang Long did not show a yellow card, which has caused strong dissatisfaction from the Jinmen Tigers coaching staff and fans on the scene. Five minutes later, there was the goal that was blown off, who can accept it?!
Speaking of Zhang Long, Tianjin fans will definitely be impressed by him, after all, the "drunken blowing penalty" that year made a lot of noise, although afterwards, the Chinese Football Association stood on Zhang Long's side, firmly denied the drunkenness, and Liao Bochao who was interviewed also suffered punishment, but after that, Zhang Long's performance was sorry for the support of the football association, inexplicably sent Mi Haolun, was chased by Ramirez, blew Shen Xin who had scored back to take a penalty, ignored Zhang Lie's action of smashing people with the ball, and the same action gave Dalian people and Beijing Guoan's punishment completely different... Almost every season, this Zhang Long referee will have a huge controversy, but it is such a 45-year-old national referee, who is still a fragrant food in the eyes of the Football Association referee, and will arrange a large number of law enforcement games every season, I really don't know, whose sorrow it is!