The Ref Stop

Newport County vs Blackburn Rovers

The Ref Stop
Looks to me like the referee thought the Blackburn player caught the Newport player on the shin, but from the slomo, he doesn't.
Understand why he was sent off, but probably a yellow at most, but I had the benefit of action replay.
 
Actually I was thinking the opposite - originally in real time I thought the Newport player had dived, but watching the slow-mo replay from the other angle you can see that he clearly makes contact with the top of the Newport player's shin before raking his studs down his leg.
 
The thing that confuses me is that there is absolutely no indication of anything particularly serious in the way the referee initially gives the foul. No loud or long blast of the whistle, no moving quickly to the scene of the foul etc . For me, you could debate yellow or red as the sanction but I'd be interested to know how (and with who's help) the ref comes to his eventual conclusion
 
Good spot by the ref (or more likely one of the rest of the team). I don't see how raking your studs down an opponents shin can be anything other than excessive force. In real time I thought the player had made a meal of it having just been clipped but the slo-mo showed otherwise.
 
Good decision - but only after watching the replay. It looked fairly innocuous in real time to me.
Quite the opposite of the Naughton sending off for Swansea last week which looked pretty bad first time but the replay slo mo showed it to be careless at best. These guys at the top have a difficult job. :)
 
Can't really see how that can be anything but a red?

Good spot from the officials......in the replay you can clearly see the players sock move as the studs rake down the shin.
 
Tealeaf said:
Pedantry alert ;) Endangering the safety of an opponent?
Click to expand...
Or even both:
"Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

Although I'm not sure what force is considered less than excessive when shin-raking...;)
 
I think the ref got both red cards right. The first one was a disgusting challenge and the goalkeeper was out of control IMO
 
Jack M said:
I think the ref got both red cards right. The first one was a disgusting challenge and the goalkeeper was out of control IMO
Click to expand...

2nd red card on the video below - starts at 02:50 - I'm leaning on the yellow side of orange - albeit helped by the slo-mo ... it's obviously not a DOGSO and the GK gets his leg down (in height) and slows his momentum just before engagement for it not to be too 'bad' a challenge ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/35343268
 
Goalkeeper challenge was nothing more than a cynical trip.
His right leg is way in front of the player so there is no danger of a studs first challenge.
Certainly not SFP for me
 
The GK's feet were bothboff the floor during the challenge. I have always been told that that is dangerous
 
Although I'm def not going as far as to say the referee was wrong, he lands ever so slightly before contact is made.
He is asking the ref to make a decision with a challenge that stupid though
 
Alex71 said:
2nd red card on the video below - starts at 02:50 - I'm leaning on the yellow side of orange - albeit helped by the slo-mo ... it's obviously not a DOGSO and the GK gets his leg down (in height) and slows his momentum just before engagement for it not to be too 'bad' a challenge ...
Click to expand...

I like this post, even though I disagree with it because of the learning points here.

1. This is one of those cases where slo-mo actually muddies the water. It needed to be judged at normal speed for reasons I'll come onto next. At slo mo it seems that there is potential cover however;

2: One of the considerations for DOGSO is the relative skill of the player - how likely is he/she to score. Given the gulf in class between the two sides it is much more likely the Blackburn player will score than if it were the other way around. Newport were out on their feet by this point, and the superior fitness levels make it unlikely that the defender could have got a block in.

3: The fundamental question: If he's not fouled does he still have a chance to score? No goalkeeper so yes I suggest is the correct answer. Of course he could make a dog's breakfast of it, but any covering defender cannot use his hands, and its the about the opportunity, not the certainty of scoring. .
 
Tealeaf said:
I like this post, even though I disagree with it because of the learning points here.

1. This is one of those cases where slo-mo actually muddies the water. It needed to be judged at normal speed for reasons I'll come onto next. At slo mo it seems that there is potential cover however;

2: One of the considerations for DOGSO is the relative skill of the player - how likely is he/she to score. Given the gulf in class between the two sides it is much more likely the Blackburn player will score than if it were the other way around. Newport were out on their feet by this point, and the superior fitness levels make it unlikely that the defender could have got a block in.

3: The fundamental question: If he's not fouled does he still have a chance to score? No goalkeeper so yes I suggest is the correct answer. Of course he could make a dog's breakfast of it, but any covering defender cannot use his hands, and its the about the opportunity, not the certainty of scoring. .
Click to expand...

Touche @Tealeaf - I'm always learning on here too :)

For this one - I can't see a DOGSO in this - from LOTG:

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 ball has gone so far wide - the attacker might not even keep it in before it goes off the pitch ...

Whether his touch is heavier because he anticipates the foul (and a softer touch would keep the ball nearer to him and the goal) is another discussion
 
Yup, I'm with Alex on this one. Is there a goal scoring opportunity yes, absolutely. However there's a second 'O' in DOGSO and that's obvious. The pace and direction of the ball means that even if the defenders can't get back (which is debatable) the acuteness of the angle will make it an extremely tricky shot for the striker. And for me, not SFP either so I'd be going yellow
 
Russell Jones said:
Yup, I'm with Alex on this one. Is there a goal scoring opportunity yes, absolutely. However there's a second 'O' in DOGSO and that's obvious. The pace and direction of the ball means that even if the defenders can't get back (which is debatable) the acuteness of the angle will make it an extremely tricky shot for the striker. And for me, not SFP either so I'd be going yellow
Click to expand...

I'm loving this! :D Largely because although contrary both viewpoints are perfectly acceptable and strongly arguable (and nobody's fallen out yet!!) I can imagine my RDO bringing something like this up at one of our RA Meetings.

For me the key line in your argument is "the acuteness of the angle will make it an extremely tricky shot for the striker."

Tricky?

Perhaps. But that just means it's not an obvious goal. The opportunity still exists, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top