Pvt. Hudson
Well-Known Member
He was the last man and that was a sending off all day long.
Terrible refereeing today, it seems to be every week.
Terrible refereeing today, it seems to be every week.
They should have been down to 10 men at our Penalty
- Thread starter Pvt. Hudson
- Start date
Whats up doc
Well-Known Member
That’s not the rule, he’d only be sent off if he denied a goal scoring opportunity.
Valley Bluenose
RTV? Completed it mate!
I don't think it is. If the defender makes a genuine attempt to play the ball its a penalty and a yellow. If he doesn't attempt to play the ball its a red. Question of a goal-scoring opportunity shouldn't matter.
Only if it was an attempt to play the ball
exeterbear
Well-Known Member
Does he not have to make an attempt to get the ball or has that changed to goalscoring opportunity?
If that’s not a goal scoring opportunity, I don’t know what is
TheAnalogKid
Well-Known Member
Turning on a loose ball 10 yards from goal is a goal scoring opportunity.
No tackle or attempt to play the ball makes the foul a red card.
No tackle or attempt to play the ball makes the foul a red card.
Stuart pid
Well-Known Member
I initially thought that but I'm not sure Colak is getting to it if he doesn't pull him down anyway.
Whats up doc
Well-Known Member
It is the rule, Colak can’t score essentially therefore its not a red card.
Smkz23
Well-Known Member
It does matter, it still has to be an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
Valley Bluenose
RTV? Completed it mate!
Just checked IFAB and I think you guys are right and I've got it wrong.
Colak was never getting to the ball, it was the keeper's ball all day long, so I don't see how it could be a goal scoring opportunity.
No Hiding Place
Well-Known Member
No just apply the rules when it's Alfredo in the wrong.
MainStandLoyal
Well-Known Member
Think the rule is that he’s not in control of the ball it’s not a red.
No Hiding Place
Well-Known Member
FFS.
High Society
Well-Known Member
No, he didn’t try to play the ball so it’s a red
GreigC
Well-Known Member
If Antonio Čolak had been replaced by Usain Bolt for 15 seconds, he still wasn’t getting to that ball before David Marshall
There was no opportunity to score a goal, therefore it’s not a red card
It’s actually frightening how many folk don’t know the laws of the game that we all spend so much time watching (including from time to time, Willie Collum)
Whats up doc
Well-Known Member
Your wrong sorry, it needs to still deny a goal scoring opportunity. The ball was at the goalies feet therefore not a goal scoring op.
barrheadbear
Well-Known Member
In what way was it a goalscoring opportunity? Colak didn't have possession of the ball, it was comfortable at the feet of the keeper, who was at least 15 yards away.
Barryhopez
Well-Known Member
Fuckin hell, man... 
temperance
Well-Known Member
Lundstram didn’t try to play the ball, was that a red card offence? I don’t think so, and the rule states that it’s a red if you deliberately prevent a goal scoring opportunity, and it doesn’t look like Colak was getting to 5he ball.
Craigie
Well-Known Member
bilkobear
Well-Known Member
I don't think it deserved a red if I am honest.
However, it had to be a penalty and it was stupid from the defender.
Funnily enough, I caught a bit of Alan Rough talking about Lundstram's sending off and he made a comment that such professional fouls should be a sending-off because it was blatant cheating.
I did notice that he never mentioned blatant cheating in regard to the foul on Colak.
Ho hum.
Uddytrueblue
Member
Right decision
That rule is only in association with denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
ie. If you deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity in the penalty area with a genuine attempt to play the ball, it's a penalty and yellow card.
If you deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity in the penalty area with NO genuine attempt to play the ball, it's a penalty and red card.
In this case, the goalkeeper was getting the ball comfortably before Colak if he wasn't impeded. So there's no obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Glad you explained that before I did. It’s never ever a red card.
instructor
Well-Known Member
It was a soft penalty award as there was no danger of the ball not getting to the goalie but a technical penalty. The challenge itself didn't warrant a red and because there was no goal scoring opportunity a yellow was the correct decision for the pull back.
But it shouldn’t matter if we take our chances
Copyright @ the FF zoomers
Copyright @ the FF zoomers
buzzardbear244
Well-Known Member
I think it was Mc Fadden in the commentary team that explained why it wasn't a red and in my opinion he got it spot on.If anyone has the clip then stick it up will explain quite a bit.
scottishpoet
Well-Known Member
There are two rules being discussed. Rather than one or the other, i believe both come into play.
Was it goalscoring opportunity.. no, so no rec
If it had been a goal scoring opportunity then no attdmpt to play the ball so it would have been a red
Was it goalscoring opportunity.. no, so no rec
If it had been a goal scoring opportunity then no attdmpt to play the ball so it would have been a red
Only if it’s an obvious goal scoring opportunity which it wasn’t.
No. See post 30.
You are sort of right.
Denial of a goalscoring opportunity is the red card offence in this instance.
EXCEPT if the offence is inside the penalty area and involves a genuine attempt to play the ball. In that case a penalty AND red card is deemed an excessively high punishment so a yellow card is given.
In this case there was no obvious goalscoring opportunity as the ball was rolling through to the keeper. So no red card offence.
kensington blue nose
Well-Known Member
I think this is where a rule change could help...
It is blatant cheating and is worthy of more than a yellow, but not as harsh as a red... sin bin for 5 minutes maybe? Soemthing along those lines?
As it is, in the rules, it was a yellow all day long. I am confident we'll get it overturned.
Sheik Ma Shammy
Well-Known Member
100% agree.
ChildOfGoth
Well-Known Member
See your point mate there was doubt but it’s the only reason the defender fouled him to stop him getting there . He thought he could get the ball or at least panicked with the thought . Also all he had the risk that the goalie could be dispossessed .
Imo he was getting the ball but equally was instantly under pressure and that being a goalie v striker spelled TROUBLE for him
bilkobear
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is something that should be looked at.
A punishment that even if there is a mistake by an official, doesn't lead to an entire game being both totally changed and often ruined.
garytcrsc
Well-Known Member
If that's the case then the Lundstram red was correct as he didn't attempt to play the ball. The call was correct (the yellow, not the Lundstram red).
New York Bear
Well-Known Member
It was a back pass, which the keeper can't pick up. I'm clutching at straws
The Golden God
Well-Known Member
Some amount of Michael Stewart approaches on here.
It takes about 30 seconds to read the law regarding this
It takes about 30 seconds to read the law regarding this
High Society
Well-Known Member
It’s a foul in the penalty area
There was no attempt to play the ball
It’s a red card
You’re right it’s frightening how many people don’t know the rules
Seriously that is not correct. There's no law stating any foul in the penalty area with no attempt to play the ball is a red card. It has to deny a clear goalscoring opportunity before the attempt to play the ball comes into consideration.
High Society
Well-Known Member
You’re wrong. If a player is heading away from goal and is fouled by a player making no attempt to get the ball then it’s a red.
goal Scoring opportunity doesn’t come into effect.
goal Scoring opportunity doesn’t come into effect.
I'm not wrong. Find me where it says that in the laws of the game.
