|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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..
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jbob
Date: Mon 11 Jan 14:07
Main should have been off as well. Horrendous challenge
Bobs of the world unite
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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!😗😗😗
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 4 Feb 08:59
There was another example of this crazy ruling in the Man U - Southampton game this week, when Bednarek was dismissed and Martial won a penalty for what was - at best - minimal contact.
Now, let`s give Martial the benefit of the doubt and say that there was contact which made him go down. Bednarek was red carded because he didn`t make an attempt to tackle the Man U striker and the rules say that it`s a sending off offence - but is it?
Is it not just the referee`s interpretation of the rule that`s wrong? Bednarek didn`t attempt a tackle - true, but he didn`t attempt anything. OK, give the pen for the coming together, but don`t send the player off. Surely the rule is there to catch deliberate, non tackling offences, like pulling the attacker`s shirt or pushing him in the back?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Thu 4 Feb 09:07
The Bednarek "red card" was indeed farcical, but David Luiz was sent off for something even more innocuous. I say "something" but i really mean "nothing". He literally did "nothing". Wolves player cut across him in the box, wolves player actually seemed to clip Luiz and went down. Penalty and red card! it wasn`t even a foul!Sent off cos he " made no attempt to play the ball" - He made no attempt to do anything but run in a straight line"
The rule, like a lot of them, is beyond farcical.
Post Edited (Thu 04 Feb 09:08)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Thu 4 Feb 10:13
David Luiz isn`t daft. I would contend that he knew exactly what he was doing. Maybe he only meant to nobble the player and put him off his balance so as to fluff his shot but contacted him enough to send him sprawling. However the double whammy of a penalty and a red card is too much and is also a game spoiler. Change the rule I say and give only a yellow card when a penalty has been given.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Thu 4 Feb 10:30
Have you seen the incident?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Raymie the Legend
Date: Thu 4 Feb 12:28
Martial left his leg in. Bednarek tried to avoid him. Mike Dean loves a red card. Crazy decision to send him off. What was the score at the time? Hassenhutl alluded to the fact that Dean could have shown some sympathy.
I watched City v Burnley and a clear kick on Jesus in the box. Granted he made a meal of it but VAR did not get involved to award the penalty or even ask Atkinson to review it
What`s the point of it all? The rule makers have made a right mess of it all
and let`s not get into the handball debate...
It's bloody tough being a legend
Ron Atkinson - 1983
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: allparone
Date: Thu 4 Feb 12:38
It was 6-0 Raymie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 4 Feb 13:16
The more I think of it, the more I believe the rule is actually OK - it's the referees interpretation of it which is all wrong. Perhaps they need to clarify it to remove the obvious misunderstanding.
A red card and a penalty should be awarded when the defender makes no attempt to win the ball fairly but deliberately fouls his opponent by e.g. pulling his shirt or pushing him over. Accidental collisions in which the attacking player is denied a goalscoring opportunity should be punished with a penalty only. The referee should use his discretion as to whether a challenge additionally warrants a yellow card.
That would do it.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 4 Feb 18:23
Bednarek`s red card has been rescinded but David Luiz`s stands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARSpars
Date: Thu 4 Feb 19:24
Quote:
GG Riva, Thu 4 Feb 13:16
The more I think of it, the more I believe the rule is actually OK - it's the referees interpretation of it which is all wrong. Perhaps they need to clarify it to remove the obvious misunderstanding.
A red card and a penalty should be awarded when the defender makes no attempt to win the ball fairly but deliberately fouls his opponent by e.g. pulling his shirt or pushing him over. Accidental collisions in which the attacking player is denied a goalscoring opportunity should be punished with a penalty only. The referee should use his discretion as to whether a challenge additionally warrants a yellow card.
That would do it.
say u go to that and defender screams I didn't mean to, I couldn't help bringing him down, he kicked me etc what does the ref do then.... can't have different outcomes for deliberate or non deliberate, the law as it stands is fine, the examples given in the law just don't cover every single example possible otherwise the laws would be thousands of pages long!!
deliberate act to play the ball is plain and simple
as for the 2 incidents downsouth, the wolves one is a definite penalty and red card, thes man utd one looks a penalty live but is clearly simulation imho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 4 Feb 20:07
Quote:
PARS207, Thu 4 Feb 19:24
say u go to that and defender screams I didn't mean to, I couldn't help bringing him down, he kicked me etc what does the ref do then.... can't have different outcomes for deliberate or non deliberate, the law as it stands is fine, the examples given in the law just don't cover every single example possible otherwise the laws would be thousands of pages long!!
deliberate act to play the ball is plain and simple
as for the 2 incidents downsouth, the wolves one is a definite penalty and red card, thes man utd one looks a penalty live but is clearly simulation imho.
You're forgetting one thing, PARS207. The ref is the sole arbiter of a game. He is allowed to use his discretion and his decision is final. I agree you can't legislate for every eventuality - there's no need. Just clarify any misunderstandings and let the refs get on with it.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARSpars
Date: Thu 4 Feb 20:14
yeh but he can't pick and choose what laws to apply , so this discretion aspect is somewhat taken out there
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Raymie the Legend
Date: Thu 4 Feb 21:21
So with Bednarek’s red card being rescinded, what does that say for Dean, who decided to send him off after reviewing the incident on the pitch side monitor ?
It's bloody tough being a legend
Ron Atkinson - 1983
Post Edited (Thu 04 Feb 21:22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARSpars
Date: Thu 4 Feb 21:56
Quote:
Raymie the Legend, Thu 4 Feb 21:21
So with Bednarek’s red card being rescinded, what does that say for Dean, who decided to send him off after reviewing the incident on the pitch side monitor ?
same question about Clancy up here missing the stamp last week and then giving penalty for celtic and the lad now up infront of the sfa for diving.
what will happen to the referee..... prob hee haw
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Thu 4 Feb 22:36
1985 Par
"Have you seen the incident?"
Yes 1985Par I saw it and I know the scenario from experience. Just get as near as you can to your opponent to make the slightest contact and you`ll put him off his stride. It`s a fine art and players like Luiz are very good at it. Of course they`ll throw their hands up in protest but they know how to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bucuresti Par
Date: Fri 5 Feb 08:15
David Luiz`s foul was a clear red card. He deliberately ran across the path of Jose to do exactly what he did, a slight clip to trip him up, yes there wasn`t much contact but there doesn`t need to be to trip someone up running at full pace, especially as Jose wouldn`t have seen him because he was directly behind him. It was a clear goalscoring chance, you could tell from Luiz`s reaction (and his teammates) that he knew it was also a red card. Arteta`s whining about it and appeal was a nonsense.
Bednarek won his appeal, because clearly there was no intent there. Intent is important, it`s a tactical decision to deliberately foul someone, but then you also need to assume the consequences of that - which should be a yellow card anywhere on the pitch and a red card if you prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity.
One of my pet hates these days is the number of tactical fouls (shirt pulling, deliberate trips) that don`t receive an automatic booking, for me, a deliberate foul is a tactical foul and should always be a yellow. Another pet hate is players these days can kick the ball away, again previously this was an automatic booking but nowadays at all levels, players are often allowed to do this.
A lot of fouls are subjective in football, there will never be a way of avoiding this, so intent will always be important. The qualities that distinguish top players from average ones are things like first touch, awareness and positioning. Similarly for top referees, I`d say that this understanding of the game is the crucial factor. Dean may well know the laws extremely well, but that doesn`t mean that he is ideally suited to implementing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Fri 5 Feb 09:18
Paralex/ Bucuresti Par
Please observe the still in the article below which shows the only point of contact in the Luiz incident and tell me how that should be either a penalty or a red card.
Even the commentator watching the slo-mo says " it looks like he`s tripped over himself" " his heal has caught the knee of luiz" and " there`s nothing Luiz can do about that"
https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/02/john-terry-speaks-out-after-david-luizs-red-card-in-arsenals-defeat-to-wolves-14011202/
Post Edited (Fri 05 Feb 09:32)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bucuresti Par
Date: Fri 5 Feb 12:03
All that still picture proves is that there was contact!
I`ve had another look at the video and I still have the same opinion I did when I watched it live, Luiz deliberately runs across the back off Jose, hoping to give him a little touch and put him off, there is no way he can play the ball from that position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km50KziNjxs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Fri 5 Feb 15:50
Totally agree with Bucuresti, one of the oldest tricks in the book (and David Luiz wasn`t born yesterday) run across the back of your opponent, clip his heal with your knee and claim accidental contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARSpars
Date: Fri 5 Feb 15:54
on the luiz incident, if there was no contact as the manager was claiming, why did luiz then stumble and fall when the lad went past and down......
only reason he would have done that is if there had been contact. doesnt matter if its accidental or not.
remember craw got send off on a 2nd yellow when he slipped infront of the north west stand into someone totally accidently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
