Last man/goal scoring opurtunity rule

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:31 am

Yesterday in the Aberdeen vs Celtic scottish cup final after 10 minutes Celtic were awarded a penalty and Andrew Considine of Aberdeen was sent off. Their was nothing malicious about the challenge just a trip when Hooper was going though on goal.
I don't have a problem with the referee sending off Considine he doesn't make the rules just has to implement them or he will be marked down and maybe given a game in the lower leagues next time out which they don't get paid as much for.
Although Celtic missed the penalty Aberdeen had 10 men for 80 minutes it killed the game as a spectacle.
Surely a yellow card and a penalty is punishment enough? It can totally kill games.

by Davie Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:40 am

People hauling down attackers clear through on goal can also totally kill games.

As a slight aside, as I understand it there is nothing in the laws about "last man". I believe it is worded just as "clear goal scoring opportunity". Can anyone confirm this? The TV pundits often translate it to "last man" but it needn't necessarily be. I've seen clear goal scoring chances denied when it wasn't last man - and conversely I've seen pundits complain someone wasn't sent off when it WAS the last man - but I guess the reason it wasn't given was because the ref thought it wasn't clear enough opportunity

by Fernando Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:00 am

i think the rule should be a penalty and a yellow card. if already on a yellow then send them off

by ncfc_Tooze Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:03 am

if giving away a penalty is not punishment enough a yellow card would suffice like nando said

by **Derbyblue** Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:18 am

I think it the card should depend on the tackle as it does outside of the box. In the Considine's case I think he should have just been booked, it wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity as the goalkeeper had run out and had collected the ball about the same time as Hooper hit the ground so he would have ended up collecting it before Hooper had gotten to the ball.

by hibbywul Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:54 am

The rule is not "last man", it is stopping a clear goal scoring opportunity that merits a red card.

There was an incident a coule of weeks ago (can't recall who was involved), the striker did not have the ball under control but was pulled down ie fouled. A yellow card and a penalty were given. Had the ball been under control it would have been a straight red.

IMO, a referee should have some courage and in some occasions award an in direct free kick in the box in a similar sitaution, but that would probably cause outrage!

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:23 am

Derbyblue wrote:I think it the card should depend on the tackle as it does outside of the box. In the Considine's case I think he should have just been booked, it wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity as the goalkeeper had run out and had collected the ball about the same time as Hooper hit the ground so he would have ended up collecting it before Hooper had gotten to the ball.

I'm not really debating the decision yesterday although I do think the ref was spot on. Considine stopped Hooper getting his shot away by tripping him. Under the rules it's a red it's that I have a problem with.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:25 am

Davie wrote:People hauling down attackers clear through on goal can also totally kill games.

Yes but they run the risk of giving away a penalty for it. The red that goes with it is a very harsh punishment for what in most cases is a slighty mistimed tackle with no malice or intent to harm.

by **Derbyblue** Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:04 am

prettyboy1304 wrote:
Davie wrote:People hauling down attackers clear through on goal can also totally kill games.

Yes but they run the risk of giving away a penalty for it. The red that goes with it is a very harsh punishment for what in most cases is a slighty mistimed tackle with no malice or intent to harm.

And sometimes its not even that when you can get a penalty and a player sent off, its no wonder some players dive if the ref says they dive they just get told to get up, and thats it.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:55 am

Derbyblue wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:
Davie wrote:People hauling down attackers clear through on goal can also totally kill games.

Yes but they run the risk of giving away a penalty for it. The red that goes with it is a very harsh punishment for what in most cases is a slighty mistimed tackle with no malice or intent to harm.
And sometimes its not even that when you can get a penalty and a player sent off, its no wonder some players dive if the ref says they dive they just get told to get up, and thats it.

Doesn't seem right does it?

by liverbnz Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:02 am

All players know the rules. You deny a clear goal scoring opportunity your game is over. It's pretty simple, just don't commit the foul. Now I know there are some genuine attempts to get the ball, but it is too much to ask refs to differentiate between genuine attempts and cleverly disguised fouls. Defenders know the risks nd they get away with enough as it is anyway.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:11 am

liverbnz wrote:All players know the rules. You deny a clear goal scoring opportunity your game is over. It's pretty simple, just don't commit the foul. Now I know there are some genuine attempts to get the ball, but it is too much to ask refs to differentiate between genuine attempts and cleverly disguised fouls. Defenders know the risks nd they get away with enough as it is anyway.

Not asking the refs to differenciate the rule is awful.

by Guest Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:43 am

It prevents a goal scoring opportunity.
Is that in the same league as a professional foul that can seriously injure a player? No.
But it goes against the spirit of the game, and can be classed as cheating.
So i think a red card is justified as well as the penalty.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:12 am

Y I Man wrote:It prevents a goal scoring opportunity.
Is that in the same league as a professional foul that can seriously injure a player? No.
But it goes against the spirit of the game, and can be classed as cheating.
So i think a red card is justified as well as the penalty.

A slightly mistimed tackle with no malice or intent to hurt just an honest attempt to get the ball is against the spirit of the game? Is it cheating?

I'm sorry mate but I've never heard anything more ridiculous. Strikers miss chances and midfielders misplace passes. It's a mistake the fact it gives away a free kick or penalty and if it goes along with a yellow should be enough.A red is very harsh/

by **Derbyblue** Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:20 am

Y I Man wrote:It prevents a goal scoring opportunity.
Is that in the same league as a professional foul that can seriously injure a player? No.
But it goes against the spirit of the game, and can be classed as cheating.
So i think a red card is justified as well as the penalty.

I don't think you can really say trying to take the ball off your opposition's striker when they're in your box and looking to shoot is against the spirit of the game, it's pretty much the idea of defending, yes sometimes there are tackles with malice and intent to hurt the opponent but no defender would do this inside their own box. Also if you're going to call trying fairly, but failing to take the ball of an opponent in the box and they fall down as cheating and so worth a red card, what about diving or over reacting?

by Guest Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:20 am

A miss timed tackle is different, soz, i should of mentioned that.
But more often than not, a red is shown for a deliberate foul.
For an innocuous tackle, there have been occasions when the ref has shown a yellow card instead of a red. Vidic in the FA Cup for example.

by Davie Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:24 am

Red card for denying a goal scoring opportunity - firing squad for diving. Does that work?

by **Derbyblue** Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:37 am

Davie wrote:Red card for denying a goal scoring opportunity - firing squad for diving. Does that work?

That's a great idea, who gets to do the shooting though?

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:19 am

Y I Man wrote:A miss timed tackle is different, soz, i should of mentioned that.
But more often than not, a red is shown for a deliberate foul.
For an innocuous tackle, there have been occasions when the ref has shown a yellow card instead of a red. Vidic in the FA Cup for example.

The ref of that game was marked down for not sending Vidic off and had a game in league 1 thenext week. The FA's put pressure on the refs to implement this law as they get pressure from UEFA I just think the laws an ass.

by liverbnz Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:35 pm

prettyboy1304 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:All players know the rules. You deny a clear goal scoring opportunity your game is over. It's pretty simple, just don't commit the foul. Now I know there are some genuine attempts to get the ball, but it is too much to ask refs to differentiate between genuine attempts and cleverly disguised fouls. Defenders know the risks nd they get away with enough as it is anyway.

Not asking the refs to differenciate the rule is awful.

What do you mean?

by **Derbyblue** Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:42 am

liverbnz wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:All players know the rules. You deny a clear goal scoring opportunity your game is over. It's pretty simple, just don't commit the foul. Now I know there are some genuine attempts to get the ball, but it is too much to ask refs to differentiate between genuine attempts and cleverly disguised fouls. Defenders know the risks nd they get away with enough as it is anyway.

Not asking the refs to differenciate the rule is awful.

What do you mean?

He thinks that the rule saying it has to be a red card is an awful rule, as it ruins games.

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:55 am

Derbyblue wrote:
liverbnz wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:All players know the rules. You deny a clear goal scoring opportunity your game is over. It's pretty simple, just don't commit the foul. Now I know there are some genuine attempts to get the ball, but it is too much to ask refs to differentiate between genuine attempts and cleverly disguised fouls. Defenders know the risks nd they get away with enough as it is anyway.

Not asking the refs to differenciate the rule is awful.

What do you mean?
He thinks that the rule saying it has to be a red card is an awful rule, as it ruins games.

I gathered that from his OP. What I wanted him to do was explain why should the responsibility by left with referees when it's the players that commit the fouls. The ref's job is hard enough without having to decide whether a player had made a genuine attempt for the ball or a cleverly disguised foul. The puishment isn't perfect, there probably isn't any that do suit the crime, but red card and free kick/penalty is the best that can be done. Anything that deters cheating is always a good thing.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:08 am

liverbnz wrote:
Derbyblue wrote:
liverbnz wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:All players know the rules. You deny a clear goal scoring opportunity your game is over. It's pretty simple, just don't commit the foul. Now I know there are some genuine attempts to get the ball, but it is too much to ask refs to differentiate between genuine attempts and cleverly disguised fouls. Defenders know the risks nd they get away with enough as it is anyway.

Not asking the refs to differenciate the rule is awful.

What do you mean?
He thinks that the rule saying it has to be a red card is an awful rule, as it ruins games.

I gathered that from his OP. What I wanted him to do was explain why should the responsibility by left with referees when it's the players that commit the fouls. The ref's job is hard enough without having to decide whether a player had made a genuine attempt for the ball or a cleverly disguised foul. The puishment isn't perfect, there probably isn't any that do suit the crime, but red card and free kick/penalty is the best that can be done. Anything that deters cheating is always a good thing.

I don't have a problem if it is a deliberate trip or a dirty tackle. But when it's a mistimed tackle with genuine attempt to win the ball I think a yellow card and penaly or free kick is enough.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:24 am

Fouls happen it's a part of the game defending is a skill the same as scoring goals or making passes. Players who do this well also make mistakes it happens seems unfair a player should be sent off for making an honest mistake along with a penalty being given.

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:50 am

prettyboy1304 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:
Derbyblue wrote:
liverbnz wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:All players know the rules. You deny a clear goal scoring opportunity your game is over. It's pretty simple, just don't commit the foul. Now I know there are some genuine attempts to get the ball, but it is too much to ask refs to differentiate between genuine attempts and cleverly disguised fouls. Defenders know the risks nd they get away with enough as it is anyway.

Not asking the refs to differenciate the rule is awful.

What do you mean?
He thinks that the rule saying it has to be a red card is an awful rule, as it ruins games.

I gathered that from his OP. What I wanted him to do was explain why should the responsibility by left with referees when it's the players that commit the fouls. The ref's job is hard enough without having to decide whether a player had made a genuine attempt for the ball or a cleverly disguised foul. The puishment isn't perfect, there probably isn't any that do suit the crime, but red card and free kick/penalty is the best that can be done. Anything that deters cheating is always a good thing.

I don't have a problem if it is a deliberate trip or a dirty tackle. But when it's a mistimed tackle with genuine attempt to win the ball I think a yellow card and penaly or free kick is enough.

That's were the difficulty comes. It's not always clear cut whether someone has just mistimed a tackle or is trying to con the ref. If footballers could be trusted not to cheat, then maybe I could agree with you. But, due to many factors, they can't so a red card is the correct punishment IMO.

Also, how many times does this become an issue?

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:07 am

Referees are asked to decide whether a tackle is malicious or made with genuine intent on winning the ball anyway, so why should this be any different? It's an issue everytime it happens. It happened at the weekend in a domestic cup semi final this is why I brought it up.

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:40 am

prettyboy1304 wrote:Referees are asked to decide whether a tackle is malicious or made with genuine intent on winning the ball anyway, so why should this be any different? It's an issue everytime it happens. It happened at the weekend in a domestic cup semi final this is why I brought it up.

Could you show me in the rulebook where it states anything about intent? I am 95% confident it isn't mentioned, afterall you can still be sent off despite intending to get the ball anywhere on the pitch, professional foul or not.

Edit: Intent is not mentioned anywhere in the rules of the game. That is another Sky invented phrase that'll slot in beside 'raising your hands to an opponent' and 'moving your hand towards the ball'.

The only part of the rules that mention intent would be the handball rule, I think.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:58 am

I'm not sad enough to read rulebooks I've played and watched enough football to know the rules of the game. Try watching a game before you read a rule book then we can have a debate.

My arguement is the rule is wrong I've never blamed a ref for this my gripe is with the rules.

BTW intent can be punished for a bad tackle that doesn't connect. The intent is their so can still result in a sending off.

Go back and find you're rulebook think you need to read over it again. Very Happy

by **Derbyblue** Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:19 am

Also what is the exact definition of a goal scoring opportunity? Some players can score from the half way line, if they're fouled around the half line is that worth a red card? What about those with a proven record of scoring from anywhere within 30 yards of the goal? A lot of players can score headers from corners when they're pushed over is that normally given a red card and penalty?

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:57 am

prettyboy1304 wrote:I'm not sad enough to read rulebooks I've played and watched enough football to know the rules of the game. Try watching a game before you read a rule book then we can have a debate.

My arguement is the rule is wrong I've never blamed a ref for this my gripe is with the rules.

BTW intent can be punished for a bad tackle that doesn't connect. The intent is their so can still result in a sending off.

Go back and find you're rulebook think you need to read over it again.

Ah the old 'I've played and watched the game enough so I should know'. Usually the last resort of someone losing a debate.

There is nothing in laws of game about intent regards physical fouls. Understand?

I'd suggest the next time you wanna start a debate try and understand what you are saying. You claim the
rule is stupid but at the same time claim 'you are not sad enough to read the rulebook'. What sort of stupid logic is that?

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:06 am

Derbyblue wrote:Also what is the exact definition of a goal scoring opportunity? Some players can score from the half way line, if they're fouled around the half line is that worth a red card? What about those with a proven record of scoring from anywhere within 30 yards of the goal? A lot of players can score headers from corners when they're pushed over is that normally given a red card and penalty?

Clear goalscoring opportunity.

by Davie Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:12 am

prettyboy1304 wrote:I'm not sad enough to read rulebooks I've played and watched enough football to know the rules of the game. Try watching a game before you read a rule book then we can have a debate.

If you want an intelligent debate on the rules/laws of a game, perhaps you SHOULD read the rule book.

I've watch Star Trek on TV but wouldn't claim to be able to build a spaceship for NASA

If you're not "sad enough" to read a rulebook, maybe you are just "sad enough" to try to debate rules when you really have no idea of what you are talking about

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:18 am

Davie wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:I'm not sad enough to read rulebooks I've played and watched enough football to know the rules of the game. Try watching a game before you read a rule book then we can have a debate.

If you want an intelligent debate on the rules/laws of a game, perhaps you SHOULD read the rule book.

I've watch Star Trek on TV but wouldn't claim to be able to build a spaceship for NASA

If you're not "sad enough" to read a rulebook, maybe you are just "sad enough" to try to debate rules when you really have no idea of what you are talking about

How is saying their is a flaw in the rules having no clue what I'm talking about?

by Davie Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:22 am

You were the one who said you weren't "sad enough" to have read the rules

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:25 am

liverbnz wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:I'm not sad enough to read rulebooks I've played and watched enough football to know the rules of the game. Try watching a game before you read a rule book then we can have a debate.

My arguement is the rule is wrong I've never blamed a ref for this my gripe is with the rules.

BTW intent can be punished for a bad tackle that doesn't connect. The intent is their so can still result in a sending off.

Go back and find you're rulebook think you need to read over it again.

Ah the old 'I've played and watched the game enough so I should know'. Usually the last resort of someone losing a debate.

There is nothing in laws of game about intent regards physical fouls. Understand?

I'd suggest the next time you wanna start a debate try and understand what you are saying. You claim the
rule is stupid but at the same time claim 'you are not sad enough to read the rulebook'. What sort of stupid logic is that?

I know the rule I don't need a rulebook. How is saying I have played enough football to know the rules the last resort for a losing arguement? Most footballers won't have read the rulebook. Personally I don't know anyone that has but wouldn't discount their opinion.
The rule is simple to understand denying a goal scoring oppurtunity is punished with a red card and a free kick/penalty. But as someone else pointed out certain players being 30 yards away from goal would be considered a goal scoring oppurtunity but you would never see a red card for it unless it was a shocking tackle. Theirs a flaw in the rule.
My point has always been the law is harsh for a mistimed tackle to be punished this way. A professional foul is different as is a potentially harmful tackle.
As for intent their is a law which might not use the word intent but even if a bad tackle doesn't connect the player can still be punished for intent or however it's worded. Their was a ref on sky sports news talking about it.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:27 am

Davie wrote:You were the one who said you weren't "sad enough" to have read the rules

I've not read the rules but have seen many players sent off because of the rule. It's a simple but flawed rule not very hard to understand. So unless you have read the rules you can't have an opinion on a sport you have played to a semi decent level and watched for 20 years?

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:37 am

You don't understand the rule though. First of, it is a CLEAR goalscoring opportunity. Interpretations are included with the rule for the ref to consider such as distance from goal, whether the player has the ball under control, number of defenders covering, etc. Headers from corners and being 30 yards out are not usually considered clear opportunities, although each situation is judged on it's own merit. The rule is not perfect but the best it can be. It's up to the players to avoid getting sent off, they know the risks of tackling someone through on goal.

Also, on Goals on Sunday there were 3 ex footballers, 1 of which was a current manager, 1 an ex manager and another an experienced football presenter and commentator. Not one of them could understand why Torres was given offside on Saturday. They all claimed as his feet were level with the defender's he should be onside. They were all wrong. They all have plenty of medals between them as well.

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:40 am

prettyboy1304 wrote:
Davie wrote:You were the one who said you weren't "sad enough" to have read the rules

I've not read the rules but have seen many players sent off because of the rule. It's a simple but flawed rule not very hard to understand. So unless you have read the rules you can't have an opinion on a sport you have played to a semi decent level and watched for 20 years?

If you want a debate on the rules then yeah it would be smart to read them.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:43 am

liverbnz wrote:You don't understand the rule though. First of, it is a CLEAR goalscoring opportunity. Interpretations are included with the rule for the ref to consider such as distance from goal, whether the player has the ball under control, number of defenders covering, etc. Headers from corners and being 30 yards out are not usually considered clear opportunities, although each situation is judged on it's own merit. The rule is not perfect but the best it can be. It's up to the players to avoid getting sent off, they know the risks of tackling someone through on goal.

Also, on Goals on Sunday there were 3 ex footballers, 1 of which was a current manager, 1 an ex manager and another an experienced football presenter and commentator. Not one of them could understand why Torres was given offside on Saturday. They all claimed as his feet were level with the defender's he should be onside. They were all wrong. They all have plenty of medals between them as well.

Don't start on the offside rule all this phase 1, phase 2 rubbish or not interfiering with play. If you're not interfering with play why are you in the oppositions half? Think a lot of refs and linesman struggle with it.

I do understand the rule and find it very harsh. I know what the refs consider when judging the foul. I'm talking about mistimed tackles in the box. An honest mistake punished by a red and a penalty can kill the game. That's surely to harsh?

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:45 am

liverbnz wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:
Davie wrote:You were the one who said you weren't "sad enough" to have read the rules

I've not read the rules but have seen many players sent off because of the rule. It's a simple but flawed rule not very hard to understand. So unless you have read the rules you can't have an opinion on a sport you have played to a semi decent level and watched for 20 years?

If you want a debate on the rules then yeah it would be smart to read them.

Sorry but do you think most pundits on TV have read the rules or footballers have? So these people shouldn't be allowed to comment on this subject either?

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:00 am

prettyboy1304 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:You don't understand the rule though. First of, it is a CLEAR goalscoring opportunity. Interpretations are included with the rule for the ref to consider such as distance from goal, whether the player has the ball under control, number of defenders covering, etc. Headers from corners and being 30 yards out are not usually considered clear opportunities, although each situation is judged on it's own merit. The rule is not perfect but the best it can be. It's up to the players to avoid getting sent off, they know the risks of tackling someone through on goal.

Also, on Goals on Sunday there were 3 ex footballers, 1 of which was a current manager, 1 an ex manager and another an experienced football presenter and commentator. Not one of them could understand why Torres was given offside on Saturday. They all claimed as his feet were level with the defender's he should be onside. They were all wrong. They all have plenty of medals between them as well.

Don't start on the offside rule all this phase 1, phase 2 rubbish or not interfiering with play. If you're not interfering with play why are you in the oppositions half? Think a lot of refs and linesman struggle with it.

I do understand the rule and find it very harsh. I know what the refs consider when judging the foul. I'm talking about mistimed tackles in the box. An honest mistake punished by a red and a penalty can kill the game. That's surely to harsh?

It's not an honest mistake. The defender is fully aware of the risk involved. If the tackle is missed you are likely to see red. Intent is not a factor and nor should it be. The rule is as it is to prevent cheating.

My second paragraph was to show that pundits, especially football pundits, don't often know what they are talking about. I wasn't debating the offside rule, although the Torres decision was simple and correct.

Also, if you 'understand' the rule why did you make the point about 30 yards out in your previous post?

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:08 am

prettyboy1304 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:
Davie wrote:You were the one who said you weren't "sad enough" to have read the rules

I've not read the rules but have seen many players sent off because of the rule. It's a simple but flawed rule not very hard to understand. So unless you have read the rules you can't have an opinion on a sport you have played to a semi decent level and watched for 20 years?

If you want a debate on the rules then yeah it would be smart to read them.

Sorry but do you think most pundits on TV have read the rules or footballers have? So these people shouldn't be allowed to comment on this subject either?

Not if they are trying to say a rule is flawed no.

That's like me saying I think the speed limit law on the road is flawed as it takes away the fun from driving without understanding why the law was put in place. I might accidentally creep over the speed limit going through a speed camera, but will this get me off the fixed penalty and fine? No. Why? Because I'm supposed to know the laws of the road. It's my responsibility.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:10 am

Intent is a factor the ref has to make a decision with every tackle they deem to be a foul. Is it an attempt to win the ball or was their the intention of hurting the player. Agree?

I was joking about the offside rule it's just another poor one imo. The ref was right Torres was offside. My gripe isn't with the refs it's with the rule.

A mistimed tackle isn't cheating. Diving is cheating, leg breaking tackles are cheating.

I mentioned 30 yards out to show that for some players like Ronaldo that could be considered a goal scoring oppurtunity. Their is a flaw in the rule.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:14 am

liverbnz wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:
Davie wrote:You were the one who said you weren't "sad enough" to have read the rules

I've not read the rules but have seen many players sent off because of the rule. It's a simple but flawed rule not very hard to understand. So unless you have read the rules you can't have an opinion on a sport you have played to a semi decent level and watched for 20 years?

If you want a debate on the rules then yeah it would be smart to read them.

Sorry but do you think most pundits on TV have read the rules or footballers have? So these people shouldn't be allowed to comment on this subject either?

Not if they are trying to say a rule is flawed no.

That's like me saying I think the speed limit law on the road is flawed as it takes away the fun from driving without understanding why the law was put in place. I might accidentally creep over the speed limit going through a speed camera, but will this get me off the fixed penalty and fine? No. Why? Because I'm supposed to know the laws of the road. It's my responsibility.

So they should say nothing even though that is what they are paid to do. Thank god you're not a producer on soccer saturday. They wouldn't speak just sit reading books.

by **Derbyblue** Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:37 am

liverbnz wrote:
Derbyblue wrote:Also what is the exact definition of a goal scoring opportunity? Some players can score from the half way line, if they're fouled around the half line is that worth a red card? What about those with a proven record of scoring from anywhere within 30 yards of the goal? A lot of players can score headers from corners when they're pushed over is that normally given a red card and penalty?

Clear goalscoring opportunity.

And what counts as clear? For example Vidic running onto a corner he is on about the six yard line, the keeper is out of the goal and he gets a shove in the back pushing him over, and making him miss the chance, this is realistically a clear goal scoring opportunity for Vidic, but this is something I very rarely see being awarded and a red card for the defender, some referees will give it as a penalty, but very rarely. What about if a centreback who has never scored a goal not from a header is in the box with the ball at his feet and is fouled, is this a clear goal scoring opportunity?

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:52 am

prettyboy1304 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:
liverbnz wrote:
prettyboy1304 wrote:
Davie wrote:You were the one who said you weren't "sad enough" to have read the rules

I've not read the rules but have seen many players sent off because of the rule. It's a simple but flawed rule not very hard to understand. So unless you have read the rules you can't have an opinion on a sport you have played to a semi decent level and watched for 20 years?

If you want a debate on the rules then yeah it would be smart to read them.

Sorry but do you think most pundits on TV have read the rules or footballers have? So these people shouldn't be allowed to comment on this subject either?

Not if they are trying to say a rule is flawed no.

That's like me saying I think the speed limit law on the road is flawed as it takes away the fun from driving
without understanding why the law was put in place. I might accidentally creep over the speed limit going
through a speed camera, but will this get me off the fixed penalty and fine? No. Why? Because I'm supposed to know the laws of the road. It's my responsibility.

To be honest there are very few good football pundits and if you are listening to opinions on SS, well I think u need to broaden ur horizons a little. All bar one or two are idiots and are there for reasons other than intelligence.

So they should say nothing even though that is what they are paid to do. Thank god you're not a producer on soccer saturday. They wouldn't speak just sit reading books.

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:01 am

Derbyblue wrote:
liverbnz wrote:
Derbyblue wrote:Also what is the exact definition of a goal scoring opportunity? Some players can score from the half way line, if they're fouled around the half line is that worth a red card? What about those with a proven record of scoring from anywhere within 30 yards of the goal? A lot of players can score headers from corners when they're pushed over is that normally given a red card and penalty?

Clear goalscoring opportunity.
And what counts as clear? For example Vidic running onto a corner he is on about the six yard line, the keeper is out of the goal and he gets a shove in the back pushing him over, and making him miss the chance, this is realistically a clear goal scoring opportunity for Vidic, but this is something I very rarely see being awarded and a red card for the defender, some referees will give it as a penalty, but very rarely. What about if a centreback who has never scored a goal not from a header is in the box with the ball at his feet and is fouled, is this a clear goal scoring opportunity?

Each situation will be treated on merit. I'm not a ref, but with the corner I would say the position of the gk and other defenders would be key - are there defenders on the line? Plus the ref has to be sure that Vidic would have reached the ball, and that would always be vey difficult to be certain off when the box is full of bodies. Essentially, Vidic would have to have been pushed whilst heading the ball otherwise unchallenged and with no defenders between him and the goal.

As for your second example, I don't think players ability in front of goal is taken into account. It's not up to the ref to know this kind of detail plus it's very subjective.

by **Derbyblue** Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:05 am

liverbnz wrote:Each situation will be treated on merit. I'm not a ref, but with the corner I would say the position of the gk and other defenders would be key - are there defenders on the line? Plus the ref has to be sure that Vidic would have reached the ball, and that would always be vey difficult to be certain off when the box is full of bodies. Essentially, Vidic would have to have been pushed whilst heading the ball otherwise unchallenged and with no defenders between him and the goal.

As for your second example, I don't think players ability in front of goal is taken into account. It's not up to the ref to know this kind of detail plus it's very subjective.

Ok cheers, that's one of my two issues with the rule what can be classed as a clear goal scoring opportunity, and the fact its a straight red when players who dive to try to get the penalty and a player sent off normally just get told to get up.

by Ramilas1 Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:12 pm

I had a couple of minutes spare - copy/pasted from http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame/index.html
Hope this helps those who haven't read the rules Smile

RULES:
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.

GUIDELINES:
There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an obvious opportunity to score a goal.

It is not necessary for the offence to occur inside the penalty area.

If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned.

Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:
• the distance between the offence and the goal
• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• the direction of the play
• the location and number of defenders
• the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick

==========================================================
As an aside, what about the yellow card for diving, and should it be different if it is in the penalty area?

Unsporting Behaviour:
• attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)

Surely, inside the penalty area this is an attempt to CREATE "an obvious goalscoring opportunity", so why isn't that a red card?
I know it's not written into the rules, but perhaps it should be!

by liverbnz Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Hello Ramilas. Nice to see you again (figuratively speaking Very Happy

)

I think you are onto something there. IMO any sort of cheating would be an automatic red. There is no excuse for it, and I thought that the governing bodies were going to put their foot down when Eduardo was retrospectively sent off against Celtic a few years ago. But true to form, they eventually bottled it.

Of course this is worsened by the fact that Howard Webb, in his pre-season refs to clubs brief, encouraged players to go down if they felt contact in order to help the referees make a decision. Pretty astounding that one of the senior refs doesn't even know the rules that he is supposed to be enforcing.

by Sponsored content