Red card correct
H
Horse
Re: Red card correct
Its still an interesting point that Newell raises. Should keepers be regarded as the last man and be sent off as per the incident on Saturday?
Theres also the case of Stack versus Pugh during the Leeds match. Was that incident any different?
Its still an interesting point that Newell raises. Should keepers be regarded as the last man and be sent off as per the incident on Saturday?
Theres also the case of Stack versus Pugh during the Leeds match. Was that incident any different?
Re: Red card correct
Exactly what everyone knew already really. Did it have anything to say on Sedge's none-penalty?
Exactly what everyone knew already really. Did it have anything to say on Sedge's none-penalty?
Re: Red card correct
Very correct too! A blatant penalty and it could have cost us. Thankfully, it didn't and we got another anyway.
Very correct too! A blatant penalty and it could have cost us. Thankfully, it didn't and we got another anyway.
Re: Red card correct
Exactly....2 bites at the cherry for Wigwam.
matto763 said:
Exactly....2 bites at the cherry for Wigwam.
I
Its Jonty!
Re: Red card correct
Looked like an air shot.... Goals will come Sedge.Aqueous said:
How the fook do you know that....!!!!!grimbal said:
Re: Red card correct
I recorded Granada's Championship, and I've watched Sedgwick's "non pen." over and over and as someone said, it just looks like an air shot, no obvious contact though it was only from one angle.
I recorded Granada's Championship, and I've watched Sedgwick's "non pen." over and over and as someone said, it just looks like an air shot, no obvious contact though it was only from one angle.
grandad t
The Gentry (RIP)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,990
Re: Red card correct
But it is still a stupid rule,as are cards for goal celebrations, ex. taking your shirt off,going to your home supporters,players have been dioing that for yonks,what harm is there in it.
A ref i was talking to,said he hated the card system,just get on whith the game,a little word here and there and everyone was happy.
By the present day riling,you are correct.grimbal said:
But it is still a stupid rule,as are cards for goal celebrations, ex. taking your shirt off,going to your home supporters,players have been dioing that for yonks,what harm is there in it.
A ref i was talking to,said he hated the card system,just get on whith the game,a little word here and there and everyone was happy.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2004
- Messages
- 563
Re: Red card correct
In some ways I think Newell is right. Fair enough if the player is brought down by the last defender then a red card should be shown. However, it is the goal keepers job to dive at the feet and try to get the ball. Contact is going to be inevetable. I think that maybe a yellow and e penalty is enough. Having said that he did grab hold of Nuges leg.
There are some stupid rules and the worst being when a player is injured he has to go off. You get fouled and then penalised until they are allowed back on. STUPID.
In some ways I think Newell is right. Fair enough if the player is brought down by the last defender then a red card should be shown. However, it is the goal keepers job to dive at the feet and try to get the ball. Contact is going to be inevetable. I think that maybe a yellow and e penalty is enough. Having said that he did grab hold of Nuges leg.
There are some stupid rules and the worst being when a player is injured he has to go off. You get fouled and then penalised until they are allowed back on. STUPID.
W
White in Exile
Re: Red card correct
I disagree with all that!
There is a difference between attacking the ball at the strikers feet (Bob Wilson used to be expert at that) and tripping a striker as he takes the ball round the keeper for a certain goal, which was the case on Saturday, there was no honest attempt to get the ball. Honset challenges for the ball are still allowed and still happen, but if the goalie goes for the man not the ball that IS a foul and he is the last man, currently it has to be a red card as otherwise the goalie gets a direct benefit (chance of saving the penalty) from stopping a certin goal.
I'd favour a "Penalty Goal" akin the "Penalty Try" in rugby. Also for deliberate handball on the line.
WRT the injured player having to go off, I'm afraid players brough that on themselves a number of years ago when "simulated injuries" to gain time with no down side were a real curse. There was one major tournamanent (a world cup i think) when the practice got so frequent and so obvious it was laughable
duncan said:
I disagree with all that!
There is a difference between attacking the ball at the strikers feet (Bob Wilson used to be expert at that) and tripping a striker as he takes the ball round the keeper for a certain goal, which was the case on Saturday, there was no honest attempt to get the ball. Honset challenges for the ball are still allowed and still happen, but if the goalie goes for the man not the ball that IS a foul and he is the last man, currently it has to be a red card as otherwise the goalie gets a direct benefit (chance of saving the penalty) from stopping a certin goal.
I'd favour a "Penalty Goal" akin the "Penalty Try" in rugby. Also for deliberate handball on the line.
WRT the injured player having to go off, I'm afraid players brough that on themselves a number of years ago when "simulated injuries" to gain time with no down side were a real curse. There was one major tournamanent (a world cup i think) when the practice got so frequent and so obvious it was laughable
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2004
- Messages
- 563
Re: Red card correct
I see your point. I agree that if it is a blatent foul to stop a goal scoring situation then YES they should be sent off, as seen on Saturday. I am just saying that keepers are being sent off for genuine attempts to stop the ball at the feet. I suppose though that is down to how the ref interprets it.
WRT the insured player. Good point well made. no arguments there.
White in Exile said:
I see your point. I agree that if it is a blatent foul to stop a goal scoring situation then YES they should be sent off, as seen on Saturday. I am just saying that keepers are being sent off for genuine attempts to stop the ball at the feet. I suppose though that is down to how the ref interprets it.
WRT the insured player. Good point well made. no arguments there.
M
matt_pnetownen_
Re: Red card correct
To those who think the keeper shoulnd't be sent off, imagine this scenario. Beresford brings nuge down. Yellow card. We score the penalty.
Later on, a Luton player is through with only Alexander to beat. Alexander brings him down, and is sent off for being the last man. Luton score their penalty. Therefore, we have a man less despite two incidents where the only difference is the position played by the fouling player. I'm afraid it's just unfortunate for the keeper that he is the last man. And then, what happens if the keeper goes up for a corner, the defending team launch a counter attack, and the keeper is slow to get back. The attacking player with the ball is fouled by a defender who is the last man on his team. Should this defender be spared a red card just because he was the actual last man?
The rule is fine as it is.
To those who think the keeper shoulnd't be sent off, imagine this scenario. Beresford brings nuge down. Yellow card. We score the penalty.
Later on, a Luton player is through with only Alexander to beat. Alexander brings him down, and is sent off for being the last man. Luton score their penalty. Therefore, we have a man less despite two incidents where the only difference is the position played by the fouling player. I'm afraid it's just unfortunate for the keeper that he is the last man. And then, what happens if the keeper goes up for a corner, the defending team launch a counter attack, and the keeper is slow to get back. The attacking player with the ball is fouled by a defender who is the last man on his team. Should this defender be spared a red card just because he was the actual last man?
The rule is fine as it is.
P
PNE_ROYC
Re: Red card correct
The Ref should be allowed to give " a penalty goal" and get on with the game. With 11 a-side. The sending off offense is the one against Barnsley were contact is made outside the box.
The Ref should be allowed to give " a penalty goal" and get on with the game. With 11 a-side. The sending off offense is the one against Barnsley were contact is made outside the box.
C
CAMRPNE
Re: Red card correct
I feel that there is an issue regarding the intent of the player.
Where there is a discernable second motion to trip the attacker, as it appears there was on saturday then I think there can be no argument with the red card.
Should the trip be accidental, there be no second motion different to that of going down at the attackers feet, then I think a yellow card is sufficient.
I would also like to see the cynical foul that stops counter attacking sides in the middle of the park being made a red card offence. This one really annoys me because the player makes the challenge knowing that it means his defence have time to get back and regroup, where perhaps before there were only one or two defenders against two or three other attackers. The offender knows precisely what they are doing and acts against the best interests of a game of football.
I would just like to see the balance tipped such that red cards were for cynical or violent play, while cautions were used for cases where less deliberate actions have consequences in stopping attacks of promise. Unsporting Behaviour sits seperate from these, as that can be done by attacker or defender.
I feel that there is an issue regarding the intent of the player.
Where there is a discernable second motion to trip the attacker, as it appears there was on saturday then I think there can be no argument with the red card.
Should the trip be accidental, there be no second motion different to that of going down at the attackers feet, then I think a yellow card is sufficient.
I would also like to see the cynical foul that stops counter attacking sides in the middle of the park being made a red card offence. This one really annoys me because the player makes the challenge knowing that it means his defence have time to get back and regroup, where perhaps before there were only one or two defenders against two or three other attackers. The offender knows precisely what they are doing and acts against the best interests of a game of football.
I would just like to see the balance tipped such that red cards were for cynical or violent play, while cautions were used for cases where less deliberate actions have consequences in stopping attacks of promise. Unsporting Behaviour sits seperate from these, as that can be done by attacker or defender.
Re: Red card correct
There's article bty Mike Newell here who's team got beat by somebody on Saturday. Says that the ref shouldnt send off a player who was going for the ball.
Saw it on Sky (after obligatory Colchester/Cardiff (nay prob) Leeds / Barnsley (why) interviews), and Beresford at the very least got it wrong and by bringing Nugent down stopped a 90% certain goal.
If Beresford had got it right he wouldn't have been sent off, and would have been a hero. Goalkeepers usually get an inordinate amount of protection from referees (and I know about Cech / Cudicinini , ) but the got this right and Newell is looking for excuses. The next thing he'll be wanting away teams to be given a goal start.
Cheating and foul play must be punished and thats what happened on Saturday. Beresfod didnt cheat, he got it wrong , and was suitabley punished. If he had stayed on and saved the penalty then keepers would have no hesitation in bringing attacking players down.
There's article bty Mike Newell here who's team got beat by somebody on Saturday. Says that the ref shouldnt send off a player who was going for the ball.
Saw it on Sky (after obligatory Colchester/Cardiff (nay prob) Leeds / Barnsley (why) interviews), and Beresford at the very least got it wrong and by bringing Nugent down stopped a 90% certain goal.
If Beresford had got it right he wouldn't have been sent off, and would have been a hero. Goalkeepers usually get an inordinate amount of protection from referees (and I know about Cech / Cudicinini , ) but the got this right and Newell is looking for excuses. The next thing he'll be wanting away teams to be given a goal start.
Cheating and foul play must be punished and thats what happened on Saturday. Beresfod didnt cheat, he got it wrong , and was suitabley punished. If he had stayed on and saved the penalty then keepers would have no hesitation in bringing attacking players down.
W
White in Exile
Re: Red card correct
It is not just a "second motion" issue - if the keeper gets the ball first it is a fair tackle unless reckless or dangerous. If the keeper gets the man first or by a second motion it is a red card.
strpne said:
It is not just a "second motion" issue - if the keeper gets the ball first it is a fair tackle unless reckless or dangerous. If the keeper gets the man first or by a second motion it is a red card.
C
CAMRPNE
Re: Red card correct
I appreciate the current state of the law, this post was meant as a discussion of the "Mike Newell" position on keepers diving at players feet.
From a PNE perspective, the incident with Gould at WBA when we lost 1-0 springs to mind, a genuine attempt at the ball and far from the goal, still recieved equal punishment to Beresford who it seems having missed the ball then decided to make a second movement to bring down the striker.
It is all a matter of opinion I guess, I simply contend that players who deliberately commit challenges should be treated in a more harsh way than those who have genuinely had their minds only on the ball.
White in Exile said:
I appreciate the current state of the law, this post was meant as a discussion of the "Mike Newell" position on keepers diving at players feet.
From a PNE perspective, the incident with Gould at WBA when we lost 1-0 springs to mind, a genuine attempt at the ball and far from the goal, still recieved equal punishment to Beresford who it seems having missed the ball then decided to make a second movement to bring down the striker.
It is all a matter of opinion I guess, I simply contend that players who deliberately commit challenges should be treated in a more harsh way than those who have genuinely had their minds only on the ball.