Long injury

How bad? What did he do?

Punched in the head by krul

Think it was concussion from when krul cleaned him out

How did the ref not give a penalty for that.

How did the ref not give a penalty for that.

By not blowing his whistle and pointing to the spot?

Let's hope that the Long injury is Short

After the game Foy had, I'm surprised he didn't send long off for headbutting Krul's clenched fist.

Nice to see one of our own fans tweet Long after the game having a pop at him for diving....

....then 'after he had watched the highlights' apologise.

How did the ref not give a penalty for that.

My thoughts exactly. I could only theorise that it would have been a bigger decision than a penalty as he'd have had to send krul off as well. So he either didn't see it, or more likely bottled it.

My thoughts exactly. I could only theorise that it would have been a bigger decision than a penalty as he'd have had to send krul off as well. So he either didn't see it, or more likely bottled it.

The ref seemed to have a problem with Long all day. There was a challenge on half-way where he was taken out from behind and the ref gave a freekick to Newcastle!

After the game Foy had, I'm surprised he didn't send long off for headbutting Krul's clenched fist.

Heard him say in the car park it was just a bit of a knock & he's fine. He drove off so he can't have been too concussed...

My thoughts exactly. I could only theorise that it would have been a bigger decision than a penalty as he'd have had to send krul off as well. So he either didn't see it, or more likely bottled it.

Just a yellow, Long was definitely not running towards goal. At least we got a throw-in.

Has the fact that he had a concussion been officially announced?

My thoughts exactly. I could only theorise that it would have been a bigger decision than a penalty as he'd have had to send krul off as well. So he either didn't see it, or more likely bottled it.

A foul can be 'careless' or 'reckless'. According to the FA rules, a foul caused by carelessness needs no other sanction than a free kick, or in the penalty area, a penalty kick. If 'reckless' the player is to be cautioned. Only if a player uses 'excessive force' are they to be sent off. Therefore the ref could have given a penalty and not shown Krul a card at all. But if the ref decided that the contact was caused by both players going for the ball and not due to carelessness, then it could not be a foul.

Needs a goal then he'll be fine. Looks frustrated.

A foul can be 'careless' or 'reckless'. According to the FA rules, a foul caused by carelessness needs no other sanction than a free kick, or in the penalty area, a penalty kick. If 'reckless' the player is to be cautioned. Only if a player uses 'excessive force' are they to be sent off. Therefore the ref could have given a penalty and not shown Krul a card at all. But if the ref decided that the contact was caused by both players going for the ball and not due to carelessness, then it could not be a foul.

Except that it was clearly denying a goalscoring opportunity, which is a red card - unless the ball is going away from goal - which it was; but it's unclear (without re-reading the current interpretation of the laws right now) whether a "going away from goal" DOGSO is always a yellow, or whether it then becomes "not a DOGSO at all" and is judged on the merits of the foul alone.

I suspect it's the latter, but good luck trying to argue that punching someone in the head when going for the ball isn't at LEAST reckless, and excessive force could also have come into the equation (as could "striking or attempting to strike an opponent", a de facto red in its own right).

Ok, so I DID re-read the interpretations... kinda knew I would.

Careless, reckless, using excessive force

 

“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or

consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.

• No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the

danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.

• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary

use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.

• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off

 

Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity

 

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

It's the "Direction of Play" bit which refers to where the ball, or indeed player, is going.

Ok, so I DID re-read the interpretations... kinda knew I would.

 

 

 

It's the "Direction of Play" bit which refers to where the ball, or indeed player, is going.

Even more explicit than that:

'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'

Even more explicit than that:

 

'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'

Well, I guess the offence wasn't punishable by a free kick or penalty kick so it doesn't matter. Would be good to ask the FA for clarification of the incident since it appears there must now be a way that a keeper can punch and flatten an oncoming forward without it being a foul.

Even more explicit than that:

 

'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'

Got a link? It wasn't in the version I looked at, but it wasn't the format I was used to seeing either (and for some reason I didn't link to it).