Jump to content

Long injury


Saint Garrett
 Share

Recommended Posts

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! :mcinnes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...