Mistaken identity
- Thread starter Ross
- Start date
DanCohen17
Simply The Best
No! Ox AOC did not know it was going wide. Made a conscious effort to DOGSOH and should therefore be punished for it! Why is he going unpunished just because the ball was (possibly) hitting the post? Pathetic from The FA.
But the argument against that is that you do not know why he did it. Did he deny and obvious goal scoring opportunity, when he did dive to handball it? Well no, he didn't, because it was going wide, therefore it is not a obvious goal scoring opportunity. Whether he consciously attempted to deny and obvious goal scoring opportunity or not, that does not matter, because the FA can't prove if he consciously tried to do it or not - all he did was handle the ball.
If a player is running through and a defender tries to grab him, but misses him, fails and just ends up on the floor no where near the attacker, the attacker then runs through and misses the one on one, are you going to send him off for consciously trying to deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity?
If a player is running through and a defender tries to grab him, but misses him, fails and just ends up on the floor no where near the attacker, the attacker then runs through and misses the one on one, are you going to send him off for consciously trying to deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity?
My apparent impartiality is more to do with the fact I'm an Arsenal fan
Although I do agree with Jojo, whether or not he intended to is irrelevant in terms of law - but whether he should be punished accordingly due to intent is another matter, of course
DanCohen17
Simply The Best
No, because he's committed no offence. AOC did handle the ball with the intention of stopping a goal.
But he didn't stop the goal, because it wasn't going in.
Both had intentions of stopping a goal (and you can't prove Chamberlain intended to stop a goal), yet neither did.
In terms of law, though, I do not believe that there is any reference to intent in this situation (correct me if I'm wrong) and all AOC did was deliberately handle a ball that was going out for a goal kick. The only thing he can be punished for is for USB for 'preventing an opponent from developing an attack' and even that is dubious in this case since the attack would not have developed really at all.
DanCohen17
Simply The Best
He wasn't to know it wasn't going in. He handled and it was DOGSOH. I guarantee you, 100%, that if that exact incident happens in my game Saturday, I'm going red!
But surely if the ball is definitely not going to go in, then there is no goal scoring opportunity at all?
EDIT - I do, however, see your point and at the time of watching the incident I did not complain at all. Not only that, but the shot was still quite close and it would have been impossible to tell as a referee with no replays
EDIT - I do, however, see your point and at the time of watching the incident I did not complain at all. Not only that, but the shot was still quite close and it would have been impossible to tell as a referee with no replays
But he didn't deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity is my point, because it wasn't an obvious goal scoring opportunity! I just made up that example to show the intent point you made.
And I probably wouldn't blame you! I wouldn't say I can see a perfect replay that shows it wasn't going, so I wouldn't argue with you!
We've found our second goal keeper for Brazil though!
And I probably wouldn't blame you! I wouldn't say I can see a perfect replay that shows it wasn't going, so I wouldn't argue with you!
We've found our second goal keeper for Brazil though!
frank_ref
Well-Known Member
Intent's got nothing to do with it. Law 12:
Furthermore, from the interpretation of Law 12:
Did AOC deny a goal? Obviously not. Therefore, impossible to give him a retrospective red card.
On the other hand, would Arsenal have appealed had Marriner sent off the right player? Difficult to say. Anyone know any precedent for something like that?
Let's say it's going ten yards wide but the defender has lost his bearings and thinks he's saving a certain goal. That's his intent. Maybe he even shouts, "don't worry lads, I'll stop it going in, I don't mind the card." You're still going to give him a red for DOGSOH?
Personally, I think he was right to go red on Saturday because it probably did look to him as though it was going in. But then again, if he'd had a better view and given a yellow and said, "look boys, from where I was I could tell it was going wide, no red" - man, how awesome he woulda looked on MOTD.
It all depends on whether the ref thinks it's going in or not.
Last edited:
rainertheref
Member
I'm all for using common sense when applying the laws of the game, but to give a red card without justification from the laws would be taking it a bit far in my opinion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26711403
Both players cleared. I think that's the correct decision - not that I hold anything against Andre Marriner, he's a fantastic referee and he made fewer mistakes than any of the Arsenal players. Arsenal cannot blame him, being done to 10 men is not an excuse for a 6-0 defeat!
Both players cleared. I think that's the correct decision - not that I hold anything against Andre Marriner, he's a fantastic referee and he made fewer mistakes than any of the Arsenal players. Arsenal cannot blame him, being done to 10 men is not an excuse for a 6-0 defeat!
I wondered about this?
If it was a stone wall red card, would it get rescinded and reallocated automatically by the fa, or would arsenal have to appeal for it by procedure.
If so, arsenal wouldn't appeal it because they have injuries in midfield but a good leftback, monreal in reserve?
I'm surprised the FA did what they did. Surely the process would have to be Arsenal appealing against the Gibbs red cards on grounds of mistaken identity, which would then be transferred to AOC and then they'd have to lodge a separate appeal against the offence being classed as DOGSO-H?
Am I right in saying that a red card at any level will only be overturned if it is a case of mistaken identity and guilty player comes forward or there is video evidence?
No, I'm pretty sure it's or. What I'm wondering is if a player can even lodge an appeal against a decision (where there is no mistaken identity) if there is no video evidence.