Gassin's finest
C'est diabolique
- May 12, 2010
- 37,667
- 88,678
Really? How would that have been a red card? Same way that the lad who got sent off for that non-penalty against Man U? Now there was a bad decision.
Goons get ref help shocker
- Thread starter spud
- Start date
Really? How would that have been a red card? Same way that the lad who got sent off for that non-penalty against Man U? Now there was a bad decision.
CosmicHotspur
Better a wag than a WAG
- Aug 14, 2006
- 51,069
- 22,383
It's time for yellow and red cards for refs and sub refs waiting on the bench to replace them when they're this stupid and incompetent.
(tongue in cheek btw but hey, it's not an all bad idea!!).
(tongue in cheek btw but hey, it's not an all bad idea!!).
BehindEnemyLines
Twisting a Melon with the Rev. Black Grape
- Apr 13, 2006
- 4,654
- 13,473
How can they argue that he didn't prevent a goal scoring opportunity when both sides didn't hear the whistle and he went on and scored? Straight red - simples!
SpursManChris
Well-Known Member
- May 15, 2007
- 5,347
- 2,458
The rules are inconsistent with red card offenses which have not resulted in a negative event.
Players get sent off for the clear intent of a reckless challenge even if there is no broken leg but players can stay on after the clear intent of denying a clear goal scoring opportunity even if the goal was scored. It sends the message that there are no serious consequences and that you can get away with it just because there was no negative outcome and the player could go on to re-offend, denying another goal scoring opportunity, when they might have otherwise learnt their lesson from being sent off in a prior incident and choose not to do it again. Why do players get sent off even in the event that the challenged player comes through unharmed? Because it sends the message that it's unacceptable, regardless of the outcome and could have easily resulted in a very different outcome. Preventing a goal scoring opportunity is also unacceptable. I realise that broken leg risk is more serious (in the moment) than goal prevention risk, but long term, one unscored goal can send a team down. It can be serious stuff.
Players get sent off for the clear intent of a reckless challenge even if there is no broken leg but players can stay on after the clear intent of denying a clear goal scoring opportunity even if the goal was scored. It sends the message that there are no serious consequences and that you can get away with it just because there was no negative outcome and the player could go on to re-offend, denying another goal scoring opportunity, when they might have otherwise learnt their lesson from being sent off in a prior incident and choose not to do it again. Why do players get sent off even in the event that the challenged player comes through unharmed? Because it sends the message that it's unacceptable, regardless of the outcome and could have easily resulted in a very different outcome. Preventing a goal scoring opportunity is also unacceptable. I realise that broken leg risk is more serious (in the moment) than goal prevention risk, but long term, one unscored goal can send a team down. It can be serious stuff.
Kinda agree, seeing as he blew the whistle and gave the foul, it should have been a red card, especially as the fella went on to score.
No player stopped playing and he scored - simply really.
I understand why he blew the whistle in the first place, but he would have been straight through on goal, denied a clear goalscoring opportunity, red card.
Arsenal do get the rub of the green, quite a bit - or so it seems anyway.
No player stopped playing and he scored - simply really.
I understand why he blew the whistle in the first place, but he would have been straight through on goal, denied a clear goalscoring opportunity, red card.
Arsenal do get the rub of the green, quite a bit - or so it seems anyway.
TheChosenOne
A dislike or neg rep = fat fingers
- Dec 13, 2005
- 48,166
- 50,210
Remember - the goal line technology showed the ball was over the line.
Similar threads
