John
|
|
« Reply #80 on: February 23, 2015, 15:03:20 pm » |
|
That doesn't say anything to do with the matter in hand (excuse the pun)? It doesn't say anything about a goalkeeper handling outside his area. If the goalkeeper is outside his area and deliberately handles, it's difficult to see how that wouldn't be construed as an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
|
Legend Legend
Marvellous, Marvo
The legend that is Marvo
|
|
|
John
|
|
« Reply #81 on: February 23, 2015, 15:13:39 pm » |
|
Reading through FIFA rules, it leaves me in no doubt that the York keeper should have been sent off if he handled outside the area. It must have been a goalscoring opportunity, we scored! I can only assume the Referee (and assistant) didn't give it or see it.
|
Legend Legend
Marvellous, Marvo
The legend that is Marvo
|
|
|
guest47
|
|
« Reply #82 on: February 23, 2015, 15:27:15 pm » |
|
I thought the keeper should have got a red card but the chap sitting next to me rightly pointed out he didn't deny a goalscoring opportunity - because we scored.
|
|
|
|
Zen Master
|
|
« Reply #83 on: February 23, 2015, 16:01:14 pm » |
|
Playing an advantage that we scored from doesn't negate the fact that an infringement had happened that could have resulted in a red card. Whether it should have is another matter. I think being so early in the game played a part (not that it should).
Did York have a keeper on the bench?
|
I think someone should just take this city of Peterborough and just... just flush it down the f***in' toilet
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2022
|
|
|
TbananaG
|
|
« Reply #84 on: February 23, 2015, 16:17:16 pm » |
|
I thought the keeper should have got a red card but the chap sitting next to me rightly pointed out he didn't deny a goalscoring opportunity - because we scored.
Again an open question - I don't know the answer - but is it successfully denying the goal scoring opportunity that's the red card offence or attempting to deny the goal scoring opportunity (even if you don't succeed and the goal is scored)....? I go back to the Derby example on Saturday - Bent put the ball in after a foul on Ince by the keeper, but Derby had to take the penalty and the keeper was red-carded. Seems like a different answer to the same question.....? Or what about the Rooney "dive" against Preston: if Rooney hadn't got out the way, the keeper would have wiped him out, but Rooney chose to dive in taking exaggerated evasive action. Oddly, you could even say that's a penalty but a yellow card to Rooney....?! Who'd be a ref?
|
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
|
« Reply #85 on: February 23, 2015, 16:35:31 pm » |
|
You are correct with your first response. I wasn't at Saturday's game, only seen the limited highlights but: Regarding the keeper, he didn't Deny an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO) because we scored therefore not a red card offence. Could have been interpreted as 'unsporting behaviour' and cautioned but the official on the day obviously didn't. If a keeper slides out of the area still in control of the ball with his hands the official would need to interpret the intention, the overall impact (DOGSO etc..) and the offence location etc. before deciding what sanction would be administered (if any) above a Direct Free Kick (DFK). In answer to a previous question: if an offence is committed that would warrant the award of a red card the referee would normally stop play and send off the player and restart as appropriate. Easy if DOGSO, however there may be an opportunity to play a good advantage and award at the next stoppage. Officials are loathe to do this because if the ball doesn't go dead for a number of subsequent phases of play and the player who should have been dismissed is involved in a game changing situation (goal etc..) it would not look particularly good. Similar to someone who has committed a second cautionable offence, the official will invariably stop play instead of playing advantage and cautioning later as he would for a first offence. Hope that helps?
|
|
« Last Edit: February 23, 2015, 16:37:14 pm by Deepcut Cobbler »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.” Laurence Binyon
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2009
|
|
|
bri77
|
|
« Reply #86 on: February 23, 2015, 16:42:33 pm » |
|
So an official can play an advantage and then brandish a red after.
I didn't know if that could happen (the reasons you've given make perfect sense) as I couldn't recall one occasion where it had happened.
|
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
|
« Reply #87 on: February 23, 2015, 17:01:09 pm » |
|
So an official can play an advantage and then brandish a red after.
I didn't know if that could happen (the reasons you've given make perfect sense) as I couldn't recall one occasion where it had happened.
He could but invariably not for the above reasons. It could be embarrassing and very contentious if you send off a player for an offence he committed prior to him scoring or integral to assisting a goal. The advice is don't and I also do not recall it ever happening. An extreme example would be if a player committed serious foul play, violent conduct or any of the other red card offences that couldn't be overlooked/ignored because of the eventual outcome (e.g. DOGSO) and the ball fell to an opposition attacking player who had an open goal, I would allow the player to score before stopping play and then administering the red because it isn't a DOGSO offence and must be sanctioned. If he doesn't score, bring it back and award the appropriate re-start (DFK/PK) although this wouldn't necessarily be DOGSO. Personal judgement/interpretation is a very contentious subject especially if it goes wrong!
|
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.” Laurence Binyon
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2009
|
|
|
|