Marriner - city v tot

[Tealeaf]

^^^^^
A cohesive argument. Well done sir.

I agree with some of the points made and can understand why you make the case. Equally I epitomise others, unashamedly.

 

[Trip]

@McTavish spot on.

 

[richard ramjane]

had Sterling not dived earlier in the game? i was listening to it on the radio and the commentators certainly seemed to think that was the case ( i never saw the incident for myself )
If that was the case would that have been a factor in his not going down in the genuine incident?

 

[Peter Grove]

In this instance Sterling hadn't regained his balance, his shot was arguably weaker and less well directed than if he hadn't been pushed.

That's my viewpoint also. From what I saw, the shot that Sterling was able to manage was irretrievably compromised and was almost bound to fail, due to the push. His attempt was awkward, poorly-struck and misdirected - all because he had been pushed immediately beforehand and had had no chance to recover his balance before shooting. If a player is pushed, regains his balance, regains his composure, has time and room and then places a shot wide or puts it weakly into the keeper's arms that's a different scenario and is not what happened here (IMHO). For me, It's not "two bites at the cherry" to award a penalty if the player never really had a bite at the cherry in the first place because of the foul.

As far as I'm aware, the whole idea of advantage is to wait and see if the advantage accrues and if it doesn't (which to my eyes, it didn't here) you can call it back for the original foul.

(but not give a red because although it was a push rather than an attempt to play the ball it did not deny a GSO).

Not sure about this part though - if you call the foul and it's for pushing, then I think you have to give the red card. I can see the argument you're making but I don't see that the law allows you not to give it. If the player was fouled and the DOGSO criteria are met, I don't see anything in the law to say that getting an unsuccessful shot away afterwards negates the DOGSO nature of the offence. The question for me is whether an OGSO existed at the time of the foul, not what transpires afterwards (unless of course, a goal is actually scored which in this case, it wasn't).

 

[McTavish]

(but not give a red because although it was a push rather than an attempt to play the ball it did not deny a GSO).

Not sure about this part though - if you call the foul and it's for pushing, then I think you have to give the red card. I can see the argument you're making but I don't see that the law allows you not to give it. If the player was fouled and the DOGSO criteria are met, I don't see anything in the law to say that getting an unsuccessful shot away afterwards negates the DOGSO nature of the offence. The question for me is whether an OGSO existed at the time of the foul, not what transpires afterwards (unless of course, a goal is actually scored which in this case, it wasn't).

I'm not sure either but the more I think about it the more I think that the fundamental part of DOGSO is that a goal-scoring opportunity must be denied and in this instance Sterling had a shot on target and so the OGSO was not denied, just made less O.

However, I also think (arguing against myself) that in this instance the spirit of the law demands a red, particularly as if we want to encourage players to stay on their feet where possible then not giving the red puts the fouled player in a worse position than if he had gone down easily.

Who'd be a ref?

 

[Paul March]

Our lives would be so much easier if we had a rugby style advantage system. It would prevent this discussion entirely- we would be free to allow the outcome to develop fully before bringing it back, the advantage would be for the team and not the offended player and the time given to advantage would be much greater. Win wins all round

 

[GraemeS]

Our lives would be so much easier if we had a rugby style advantage system. It would prevent this discussion entirely- we would be free to allow the outcome to develop fully before bringing it back, the advantage would be for the team and not the offended player and the time given to advantage would be much greater. Win wins all round

I do on occasion play long advantages (by football standards at least) and I've been complimented on it by assessors. I've always got the impression that "long" advantages and then going back are encouraged if the referee can explain what's happening clearly and if the context of the match allows it.

I think the difference comes that in football, 10 yards further up the pitch and then losing possession is considered to have been an advantage won, wheras in rugby, that result would have the referee blowing up and going back to the original foul. And that does tend to lead to more "accepted advantages" than in rugby, even when the advantage only gives a fairly minor gain.

 

[Paul March]

In rugby it is the team that gains the advantage not just the individual. It can roll for several phases. Such a change in our game would provide us with more opportunities to wait and see, leading to more advantages in defensive areas. It would also satisfy players criticism of advantage as its written- once the attacking potential is improved technically the advantage is over, so technically if the opportunity is not taken-tough.

Example being, attacker is fouled 40 yards out but the ball breaks to a team mate running through on goal unchallenged, he rounds the keeper then picks out a fan in row Z. Advantage is therefore given, accepted and not taken. In rugby the referee gets the chance to bring it back to the foul, we don't.