DAFC.net
Home 25 January 2021 
 Post Message  |  Top of Board  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Twitter Updates  |  Log In   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 
[ please login to use the Like feature ]
 Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 12:55

It's hard to keep up with the continual tinkering with the Laws of the Game. One example is the so-called double whammy. i.e. when the award of a penalty is accompanied by a red card for the offending player.

I watched the Sportscene highlights of the Aberdeen - Rangers game last night, in which this scenario panned out. Morelos was very clever in cutting across Hedges path, which resulted in what looked to me like an accidental collision and the Rangers striker hit the deck. (Hedges also touched the Colombian's flank with his hand, but that didn't look significant.)

When I trained as a ref some 50 years ago, the rules were quite clear and simple. Intent was paramount. If the referee deemed a collision to be accidental, play continued, unless a player sustained a serious injury. Yesterday's referee, John Beaton, explained to the Aberdeen manager that he had no option but send Hedges off since he'd made no effort to play the ball. It could be argued that he made no effort to play the man either, unless he considered the touch on the flank as the one which sent Morelos down.

Michael Stewart argued strongly and compellingly that the rule needs to be revisited so that only a deliberate foul in the box without attempting to play the ball should incur a red card. That would remove any ambiguity from the rule in its current form and it's hard to argue with its logic.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 13:08

Ahhh

but would it have been the same decision if it were at the other end of the pitch?



And yes, the current rules are a nonsense, if this is what the rules say, rather than this ref`s interpretation of them..

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: Jeffery  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 13:12

Quote:

Luxembourg Par, Mon 11 Jan 13:08



but would it have been the same decision if it were at the other end of the pitch?



This is a reason I'd Iove to see VAR in Scotland
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: Westies squint kicks  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 13:14

“Michael Stewart argued strongly and compellingly that the rule needs to be revisited so that only a deliberate foul in the box without attempting to play the ball should incur a red card. That would remove any ambiguity from the rule in its current form and it`s hard to argue with its logic”

Doesn’t remove the factor that we all have issues with, that being the referees interpretation of it being deliberate or not.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: Parahandy  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 13:27

The referee presumably thought it was a deliberate foul - end of debate. Morelos did nothing wrong in this instance. I thought it was a deliberate trip when I saw it live.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 13:36

The rule was changed (or clarified at least) in the summer I think to confirm that genuine attempts to win the ball could be a yellow rather than a red?

I haven't seen it but I assume the ref must have thought it was deliberate if he issued a red?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 13:37

I did not see him cut across G.G. I saw him in front ready to pull the trigger and his legs taken from behind

Now then the highlights don`t replay it in slow mo so I not sure if it was a deliberate trip by Hedges or Morelos foot accidentally caught Hedges leg

It looks a stone waller in real time

It would be interesting to see it slowed down



Post Edited (Mon 11 Jan 14:48)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 13:51

I haven`t seen the one you`re talking about here, but a few points on this.

1 - it doesn`t have to be deliberate to be a foul. If there was ever a time when intent was necessary for it to be a foul, then whatever rules back then were a nonsense. If it really was the case that a free kick wouldn`t be given for a mistimed tackle that tried to take the ball but missed and took the opponent`s leg instead, that`s a total joke. I suspect it wasn`t as clear cut as that - the penalty in the 1968 final, where Hearts keeper Jim Cruickshank hopelessly mistimes his attempt to take the ball and instead takes out Bert Paton, wouldn`t even be a foul if what is stated above is correct. Now, intent is taken into account in deciding if it`s just a foul, a booking or a sending-off, but it doesn`t make any difference in the decision of whether or not a free kick is given.

2 - if a penalty is given in a DOGSO situation, intent is now taken into account when deciding whether or not it`s a sending off, but only in terms of whether or not a genuine attempt has been made to take the ball. If it`s a brush past and an accidental clip, that`s still a sending off - the fact that it`s accidental is irrelevant, unless it`s a direct attempt to win the ball.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 14:07

Main should have been off as well. Horrendous challenge

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 15:09

Quote:

Buspasspar, Mon 11 Jan 13:37

I did not see him cut across G.G. I saw him in front ready to pull the trigger and his legs taken from behind

Now then the highlights don`t replay it in slow mo so I not sure if it was a deliberate trip by Hedges or Morelos foot accidentally caught Hedges leg

It looks a stone waller in real time

It would be interesting to see it slowed down



Maybe I didn't explain myself very well, BPP. Morelos was travelling at a different angle to Hedges. He would be well aware that a wee burst of acceleration would result in a collision from a tangle of legs. I played with a guy who could do that regularly and he'd almost invariably get a penalty and that was at Sunday League level. I don't blame the ref for awarding the spot kick but the red card on top of that was very harsh.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 15:09

Played for the penalty, but wasn't a sending off.

Mind Douglas Ross was the lino!😗😗😗
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: dafc  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 15:16

There was no attempt to play ball therefor Red under new rules and red under old rules too.
He also tried to grab shirt too. For once morrelos done nothing wrong.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 16:55

Quote:

Socks, Mon 11 Jan 13:51

I haven`t seen the one you`re talking about here, but a few points on this.

1 - it doesn`t have to be deliberate to be a foul. If there was ever a time when intent was necessary for it to be a foul, then whatever rules back then were a nonsense. If it really was the case that a free kick wouldn`t be given for a mistimed tackle that tried to take the ball but missed and took the opponent`s leg instead, that`s a total joke. I suspect it wasn`t as clear cut as that - the penalty in the 1968 final, where Hearts keeper Jim Cruickshank hopelessly mistimes his attempt to take the ball and instead takes out Bert Paton, wouldn`t even be a foul if what is stated above is correct. Now, intent is taken into account in deciding if it`s just a foul, a booking or a sending-off, but it doesn`t make any difference in the decision of whether or not a free kick is given.

2 - if a penalty is given in a DOGSO situation, intent is now taken into account when deciding whether or not it`s a sending off, but only in terms of whether or not a genuine attempt has been made to take the ball. If it`s a brush past and an accidental clip, that`s still a sending off - the fact that it`s accidental is irrelevant, unless it`s a direct attempt to win the ball.


Socks, maybe I wasn't clear enough in my OP, or perhaps you're reading too much into it - could be a bit of both. A free kick or pen could always be awarded for a mistimed tackle. By "intent" I meant that in the referee's opinion a collision was purely accidental, as a result of the momentum of the players involved and the angles of direction they were travelling in. This was also the case with handball - did the ball play the man or vice versa? The ref applied the rules as they stand - no debate there - my quibble is not with him, but the rule. Hedges was running back but he was on the wrong side of Morelos to attempt a tackle, but ironically, if he had, he might have got away with a yellow and Aberdeen would have escaped virtually Scot free, as they would still have had 11 men on the park and Tavernier missed the pen.

That can't be right, can It?



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Penalties and Red Card Ruling
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Mon 11 Jan 17:27

When the rule changed, maybe 3 years ago or so, most folk who discussed it here were strongly in favour of the change which meant that players who attempted to take the ball wouldn`t be sent off when the foul resulted in a penalty. I remember it, because I was one of the few on the other side of the argument. The reason for me being unconvinced was for situations exactly like this one - I couldn`t see why a notional attempt to win the ball where the chance of actually doing so are about zero should see a player stay on but an accidental brush means he has to go off. I don`t like rules that have inherent inconsistencies, and this seemed to fall into that category.

I have to say that it hasn`t worked out as badly as I thought it would. I`m still not convinced by it, but I suppose sometimes you just have to accept that a rule cannot be perfect. We all want rules to reflect what we think is right, but it probably just isn`t possible to write all in such a way as to give what we`d see as the correct outcome in every situation.

We can see the mess they`ve got into by trying to do this with the handball rule. In trying to clear it up, they`ve just made an absolute mess of it.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Top of Board  |  Forum List  |  Threaded View   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 


Rows: 0
 Forum List  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.
Security : type 'pars' in the box:
email:
© 2020 -- DAFC.net