[moondog]

OK - In the everton-villa fa cup game, there was suspicion of a hand ball penalty claim after an everton goal attempt was cleared off the line by a villa player who obviously used his hand. Everton scored immediately off the rebound, so the ref didn't have to make the call.

My question is, why not?

If it was a hand ball, it should have been a red card.

Regardless of whether the ref plays the advantage or not, shouldn't the card be issued anyway? You see refs issuing cards after advantages are played all the time. For some reason, if a goal is scored this doesn't happen.

 

[Check the Milkman]

I dont think the ref saw it TBH. Its a cracking game isnt it.

 

[moondog]

I dont think the ref saw it TBH. Its a cracking game isnt it.

Yeah, it's a beauty...

 

[Jay007]

Yeah, it is a great game.

As for the call, usually if a player takes someone down on the halfway line and the ref plays advantage, he goes back and books the ball at the next available opportunity. So he should do it in this case as well if he saw it.

But, in this I don't actually think he saw it so it doesn't really come into consideration

 

[PeeJay]

If the referee plays the advantage the game continues.
If he deems the foul card-worthy he can give the card as soon
as the ball is out of play. So if I'm playing against United and I
punch Nani in the head but the ball falls to Ronaldo who scores
then it's a goal and then he gives me a red card.

Imagine it's a corner with the whole opposing team in our box,
we regain the ball and counterattack and one of their players goes
to ours, who stayed in the box, and kicks him in the eye, the ref
won't stop the match because one of our players has the ball
and is playing (unless the guy who god kicked in the eye needs
medical treatment) so he'd wait for the ball to go out of play and
then pull out the red card.

 

[moondog]

If the referee plays the advantage the game continues.
If he deems the foul card-worthy he can give the card as soon
as the ball is out of play. So if I'm playing against United and I
punch Nani in the head but the ball falls to Ronaldo who scores
then it's a goal and then he gives me a red card.

Imagine it's a corner with the whole opposing team in our box,
we regain the ball and counterattack and one of their players goes
to ours, who stayed in the box, and kicks him in the eye, the ref
won't stop the match because one of our players has the ball
and is playing (unless the guy who god kicked in the eye needs
medical treatment) so he'd wait for the ball to go out of play and
then pull out the red card.

Right. So if the ref saw it - and the commentators on Setanta were pretty sure he did - it should have been a red card.

 

[Cappy]

Right. So if the ref saw it - and the commentators on Setanta were pretty sure he did - it should have been a red card.

No, it would be a yellow for intentionally handling the ball.

You can't give a red card for "denying an obivous goal scoring situation" when the advantage is played and the goal materialized.

Granted, I didn't see it, so I am only going by your re-cap, but to me it sounds like it should have just been a yellow on the player who prevented the goal.

To give the red card would have interfered with the spirit of the game, a la the Champions league final with Lehman. Had the referee waited the extra half-second and seen the ball played to another attacker to put the ball in, it is just a yellow with the goal being awarded.

 

[-zuco-]

OK - In the everton-villa fa cup game, there was suspicion of a hand ball penalty claim after an everton goal attempt was cleared off the line by a villa player who obviously used his hand. Everton scored immediately off the rebound, so the ref didn't have to make the call.

My question is, why not?

If it was a hand ball, it should have been a red card.

Regardless of whether the ref plays the advantage or not, shouldn't the card be issued anyway? You see refs issuing cards after advantages are played all the time. For some reason, if a goal is scored this doesn't happen.

I think this happened in one of the Barcelona group games in 98/99. Phil Neville handled the ball on the line and Barca scored, but the referee pulled it back, gave a penalty and sent Phil off. That's the correct decision in my opinion and should have happened today.

 

[Cappy]

I think this happened in one of the Barcelona group games in 98/99. Phil Neville handled the ball on the line and Barca scored, but the referee pulled it back, gave a penalty and sent Phil off. That's the correct decision in my opinion and should have happened today.

Wrong. You don't take a goal off the scoreboard. Suppose they take the goal out, they miss the penalty and then lose/draw the game when they could have had a better result with with a draw/win.

The reason the goal wasn't allowed with Neville if I remember correctly, is that the whistle blew before the ball was put in the net.

Does a team have potentially better odds at winning the match being a man up with a penalty? Yes. Does it mean it is the correct call? No.

 

[-zuco-]

Wrong. You don't take a goal off the scoreboard. Suppose they take the goal out, they miss the penalty and then lose/draw the game when they could have had a better result with with a draw/win.

The reason the goal wasn't allowed with Neville if I remember correctly, is that the whistle blew before the ball was put in the net.

Does a team have potentially better odds at winning the match being a man up with a penalty? Yes. Does it mean it is the correct call? No.

There wouldn't be a goal on the scoreboard if the referee blew the whistle for the handball. I disagree with you on this.

 

[Cappy]

There wouldn't be a goal on the scoreboard if the referee blew the whistle for the handball. I disagree with you on this.

So a whistle should be blown as soon as the foul/infraction/misconduct occurs? Then you have no advantage calls which takes away from the game.

 

[-zuco-]

So a whistle should be blown as soon as the foul/infraction/misconduct occurs? Then you have no advantage calls which takes away from the game.

The player should be sent off for unlawfully trying to prevent a goal. Whether the ref lets play run and comes back to issue the red card, or he gives a penalty and a red card I don't mind, as long as the red card is given.

 

[Cappy]

The player should be sent off for unlawfully trying to prevent a goal. Whether he lets play run and comes back to issue the red card, or he gives a penalty and a red card I don't mind, as long as the red card is given.

Shit, thank goodness you aren't a judge. Every foul is a red card as it is trying to prevent a goal.

The point of the denying an obvious goal scoring situation is if it in fact denies a goal. When you let play continue and advantage materializes and a goal is created, they didn't prevent a goal, so there is no offense that was goal denying.

 

[-zuco-]

Shit, thank goodness you aren't a judge. Every foul is a red card as it is trying to prevent a goal.

The point of the denying an obvious goal scoring situation is if it in fact denies a goal. When you let play continue and advantage materializes and a goal is created, they didn't prevent a goal, so there is no offense that was goal denying.

No need to talk down to me, I'm not five

Where do you draw the line with regards to advantage played? Five seconds? Ten seconds? It's too ambiguous. if the referee gives nothing and then a goal is scored ten minutes later, is that a good advantage played?

 

[Cappy]

Where do you draw the line with regards to advantage played? Five seconds? Ten seconds? It's too ambiguous. if the referee gives nothing and then a goal is scored ten minutes later, is that a good advantage played?

When gauging advantage the amount of time increases as the attack moves down the field, since restarts can sometimes be more threatening than having an advantage called. I have seen some referees wait up to 2-3 seconds around midfield, which personally I think is too long. Once inside the box, the decision must be made quicker, because you obviously aren't going to wait 10 minutes to see if a team scores. This is a theory question, so it is one that will always be hard to argue without video or when not in person.

I will try to track down some material on this as well if I get the chance the next couple days.

(Also as you go up your defensive half, you rarely want advantage and would rather have the kick and move everyone out of your half.)

BTW, I am just telling you what the Laws of the Game and the advice given to referees say. Not what I would prefer as a coach or a supporter of a team. If it were me, I would want the red card and the penalty for United, but that isn't the way it should be called according to the rules and interpretations of them.

 

[united forever]

Where do you draw the line with regards to advantage played? Five seconds? Ten seconds? It's too ambiguous. if the referee gives nothing and then a goal is scored ten minutes later, is that a good advantage played?

i'm not an expert in this but as far as i know the refree waits and sees if the fouked team has the ball and is in a good postion than the refree makes the sign for advanyage. if during th time when he's making the sign the ball is scooped away he pulls it back for a foul. as for the red card issue , i think the guy should be sent off but the goal should be given. if you make a foul in the box and the goal is scored 2 seconds later there giving a penalty will harm the fouled teamed more as for the red card true gis attempt to unlawfully stop the goal didn't work but its like an atempted murder case the culprit doesn't actually kill anybody but he's stillgets locked up same should happen here

 

[Cappy]

.if you make a foul in the box and the goal is scored 2 seconds later there giving a penalty will harm the fouled teamed more as for the red card true gis attempt to unlawfully stop the goal didn't work but its like an atempted murder case the culprit doesn't actually kill anybody but he's stillgets locked up same should happen here

First off, are you seriously going to compare fouls on a soccer pitch to murder and attempted murder?

Secondly, that kinda defeats your argument in doing so, because the punishment isn't the same, kinda like a yellow card for 10-25 years for attempted murder and execution for murder.

So yeah, your logic fails like your spelling.

 

[-zuco-]

Soccer? What's that?

 

[Cappy]

Nice rebuttal.