I'm not really 100 per cent sold it was a genuine attempt to go for ball from that clip particularly as he clearly was confident would only be a yellow and chance of saving it if seen as a genuine goSounds like a good job getting it right. Hugely embarrassing though.
Fair enough if it's a yellow or red (red for me) he can't be changing his mind like that regardless. The fumble for card in first place wasn't ideal either btwThis is all about opinions! My first thought was genuine attempt to play the ball. Maybe at that level it isn't but at the level I ref at most players still think that would be a red even if a genuine attempt was made. On second viewing I was a bit less convinced but we only get one chance to see it in real time.
If it is clear cut maybe yes but that isn't. Can't be helpful for match control. Next time he gives a pen for same thing I am guessing keeper will be in his ear within secondsSurely if a decision is wrong and play hasn't restarted it is better to come to the right decision eventually. As for fumbling it happens .
I don't see how you have reached that conclusion? He had the best view by far and awayThere is no way the players have made him change his decision. On of his colleagues has dropped him in it over the comms and somehow persuaded him to change a perfectly correct decision into a totally wrong one.
I don't see how you have reached that conclusion? He had the best view by far and away
Nothing wrong with agreeing with Padders although the NHS do offer a freephone number for help.......RC all day long. No attempt whatsoever to play any ball!! Its well gone!!!Finding myself agreeing with Padders, keeper is nowhere near the ball, not even close.
Think the ref was right with the original red card.
Not according to the sequence of events and the conversation as related by the keeper in the linked article. If accurate, it would lead to the conclusion that the referee changed his mind after being reminded of the recent changes in the DOGSO law by the player.Because no referee at that level would give a red card and then change his mind based on player reaction. He may well take his time to gauge player reaction before deciding what to do, but there is no way he would rescind that red card without someone telling him he had goofed.
May I suggest the chances are the keeper didn't make it up, he just said what he 'thought' was the case but the journalist twisted the facts a little to make the story more interesting by presenting speculations as facts (as journalists do). You know... "the player knows the law better than the ref" story line...Not according to the sequence of events and the conversation as related by the keeper in the linked article. If accurate, it would lead to the conclusion that the referee changed his mind after being reminded of the recent changes in the DOGSO law by the player.
Now, I know it can be risky to trust players' views of things or their accounts of events but assuming what the keeper says in the article is true, the referee admitted to having forgotten about the change in the law and having been reminded of it, changed his decision based on it being a genuine attempt for the ball that led to a penalty. I'm not quite sure why the keeper would have made the whole thing up, especially in that level of detail - he has nothing further to gain by it at that point.
May I suggest the chances are the keeper didn't make it up, he just said what he 'thought' was the case but the journalist twisted the facts a little to make the story more interesting by presenting speculations as facts (as journalists do). You know... "the player knows the law better than the ref" story line...
I remember an article along the same lines on A-League (Aus) from a little while back but I had it on good source that Rusty's logic was pretty spot on in that case.
They probably are - added togetherRed for me, the only way that was a genuine attempt to play the is if the keepers arms are 6 foot long.