Yeah but you have a goal. In the other instance, keeper is sent off, and you have a (good) chance of scoring via a pen.
Really interesting one this ... the main disadvantage to Chelsea would have been going down to ten men and getting their reserve 'keeper on. If the penalty had been scored, it would have been 2-1 and 11 v 10 with 35 minutes to go .. the outcome could have been very different.
But I defy anyone in Bale's position to run all of that through their mind in the split-second before he pushed the ball into the net.
Would be a massive backfire if he didn't slot it home, and the penalty was missed.
Would be a massive backfire if he didn't slot it home, and the penalty was missed.
Yeah - think back to Luis Suarez incident in the World Cup quarter-final.
Think anyone with a football brain would take a goal over anything else in a game.
So if Bale had of stopped playing, and say Terry or Luiz ran in and thumped in an oggie, it would save Cech getting sent off?
Seems wrong to me.[/QUOTE]
Tegal2012-04-16 15:42:28Seems wrong to me.[/QUOTE]
From how I read it - no. Purely because of the word 'directly' in the law that 2B posted.
That is very open to interpretation though,so I could be wrong.
[QUOTE=2ndBest]No.
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.
Allegedly
Cech wasn't even carded though. That counts as a professional foul so it should be a yellow card shouldn't it? If you bring down a player going past you anywhere else on the pitch to slow down a counter attack you get a yellow card, so surely if the keeper does it in the box and a goal is scored anyway he should still get a card for the intent? Especially considering he would have been sent off if Bale had strayed offside or just stopped running when Adebayor went down. It seems non-sensical to me that you get a red card if there is no advantage but nothing at all if there is an advantage.
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
By the rules he should have been given a yellow.
From the July CF newsletter:
Awwww Ref!
Ever wanted to ask a question on the Laws of the Game, or seen something occur on the field and wondered why the referee made a particular decision? Now is your opportunity to ask those questions you have always wanted an answer to! Send your questions to helen@capitalfootball.org.nz and watch for the answers in the next Capital Football newsletter.
1) A commonly heard comment is ‘from behind ref’. ‘From behind’ was removed from the Laws of the Game many years ago. You can tackle from behind, so long as it is fair, and there is no foul committed in the process.
2) ‘But ref, I got the ball’. Yes, there will be times you ‘get the ball’ but you also fouled the opponent. There is no issue if the ball is obtained cleanly, however, if you commit a foul against your opponent in the process, expect the whistle to be blown.
3) What happens if the ball touches the referee in normal play? Nothing! The referee is part of the field of play and play must go on – even if the touch means the ball enters the net... it’s a goal.
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Had a guy almost break my leg this season, he said "I got the ball". Which he did, after going through my leg.
Thats probably the one that I hear the most every season.
Allegedly
We're debating this at work. Some think Red, some think Yellow. I reckon it's clearly a dive from the lad in Blue.
We're debating this at work. Some think Red, some think Yellow. I reckon it's clearly a dive from the lad in Blue.
1) A commonly heard comment is ‘from behind ref’. ‘From behind’ was removed from the Laws of the Game many years ago.
And also probably is considered a bit nasty by most people (but I suppose if they are both consenting adults then we shouldn't really judge too harshly).
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Technically IDFK and redcard is the right decision. A sub can't commit a PK or DFK offence.
Whether that's what the law should be is debatable, but unfortunately that's what it is.
Technically IDFK and redcard is the right decision. A sub can't commit a PK or DFK offence.
Whether that's what the law should be is debatable, but unfortunately that's what it is.
wow, how can a sub get a red card if he's not officially playing - should be sanctions bans and a goal anyway.
Queenslander 3x a year.
playing? nah he's officially in the team, but he's not playing until he is actually subbed on....in which case he can't receive an onfield red/penalty - he can receive other sanctions though.
Queenslander 3x a year.
playing? nah he's officially in the team, but he's not playing until he is actually subbed on....in which case he can't receive an onfield red/penalty - he can receive other sanctions though.
No, you're wrong. Like otagofan said, substitutes can still be red carded.
Yellow Fever - Misery loves company
Coaches and official team management can also be red carded.
Kotahitanga. We are one.
They can't, only players, substitutes, and substituted players can be carded. Managers and team officials can be told to leave their designated area, but cannot be carded as such.
I learnt a new law last night. Player 1 pulls player 2s arm as player 2 is shielding the ball. Whistle goes. Player 1 walks away thinking he has given away a free kick. Player 2 is shown a straight red card.
Im learning new rules every week, so glad Ive retired from playing as Id have no money left from paying fines to buy beer.
A dog with a bone :)
I think you have that wrong. A red card for shielding the ball?
Grumpy old bastard alert
depends on the interpretation of shielding the ball, I read it as the same scene we'd see in every league as the defender blocking the opposition from getting the ball by holding his line.
Queenslander 3x a year.
-
Page 118
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.
Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.
Page 114
Holding an opponent includes the act of preventing him from moving past or around using the hands, the arms or the body.
Referees are reminded to make an early intervention and to deal firmly with holding offences especially inside the penalty area at corner kicks and free kicks.
To deal with these situations:
-
the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in
play
-
caution the player if the holding continues before the ball is in play
-
Disciplinary sanctions
-
A caution for unsporting behaviour must be issued when a player holds an opponent to prevent him gaining possession of the ball or taking up an advantageous position
Page 119
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player:
-
holds an opponent for the tactical purpose of pulling the opponent away
from the ball or preventing the opponent from getting to the ball
I can't see where you get red card reading this...
-
-
Grumpy old bastard alert
I think you have that wrong. A red card for shielding the ball?
I think nightz was being sarcastic...
Yellow Fever - Misery loves company
Ah.... Sorry my sarcasm radar needs recalibration
Grumpy old bastard alert
ditto, the one line which is crucial in the rule "when the ball is not within playing distance of either player."
Queenslander 3x a year.
Ok here is one for you guys from a Northern League game on the weekend:
Context - referee has awarded a foul to the red team, clear foul, but
unfortunately was right after a clear foul on blue which he has failed to blow
for. Blue player is asking referee why prior foul was not awarded, referee
ignoring blue player and not looking at him, blue player touched referee with
back of his hand to get his attention (as in photo) and is shown red card for
pushing the referee. Player was not abusing the referee, you can see in the pic
he is even smiling. This was about 30mins into the game, so surely some common
sense here would be to warn the player not to touch him, poor english probably
did not help here though.
Bit more context - referee did not have a good
grasp of english and later sent another blue player off for 2nd yellow in more
bewildering circumstances.
Probably technically a red card for touching the referee but certainly was not a push or violent action as you can see in the pic. You would see much worse happen every week on tv in the EPL or A-League with no card of any colour being shown.
Any thoughts?
All Whites | Phoenix | Baggies
I think the ref has to use common sense in that situation, if I was in charge and that happened I'd be fine with it - unless they've been pestering him for the whole game (seems not like the case) then it seems a big overreaction,
Thats is worse than the call in NCR v Western Subs at the week http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV9IpOp5gl4 about 3min in vid
touching the ref is touching the ref, shouldn't be doing it, but I agree common sense needs to be applied,
Queenslander 3x a year.
Thats is worse than the call in NCR v Western Subs at the week http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV9IpOp5gl4 about 3min in vid
Wow that's a shocker
Thats is worse than the call in NCR v Western Subs at the week http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV9IpOp5gl4 about 3min in vid
couldn't tell if the guy getting sent off committed the foul, otherwise it had to be for verbal abuse
Queenslander 3x a year.
Thats is worse than the call in NCR v Western Subs at the week http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV9IpOp5gl4 about 3min in vid
couldn't tell if the guy getting sent off committed the foul, otherwise it had to be for verbal abuse
Following the camera it was him, and plus there was a penalty afterwards so had to be
Yeah looked to be the same guy, he took off upfield after the "foul" then ref called him back. Disgraceful decision.
Some more lols in that vid - keeper juggling the ball by himself at 5.45 while melee is going on upfield, love it.
Shocker of a challenge at 5.25 too, looked like a good call from the ref that one at least.
Nice finish for NCR second goal, they did well to score 2 with 9 men.
All Whites | Phoenix | Baggies
Hmmmm.
Its hard to place any context on a snapshot. What happened prior to this and for the whole game? Looking at the picture, its easy to assume English is not his first language because he looks Asian. He could well be NZ born so I think the whole 'language barrier' thing based on a picture is a bit of a red herring. That being said, if you take it as such that he is 'Asian', they are quite proper about being touched and their own personal space and that's just away from sport.
This is not England/Italy/Spain. Its NZ where contact with a referee (in any sport) is not common place at all. Look at the stuff that happened with Steve Walsh in Super 15 and that made 3 days of headlines! Regardless of the intentions, the intimation of what is happening, if you touch a referee, you face issues. What did Vukovic get for literally what amounted to a hi-5?
Zero sympathy.
Grumpy old bastard alert
Good lord Harry Edge scored??? Ahnendra's writing cracks me up sometimes.