I guess the way I look at it is this (and I know this is controversial): That it is a penalty is without doubt. It was completely blatant. However, I think there was enough doubt about how much control DZeko would have of a bouncing ball with a goalkeeper racing out for one to say it wasnt a 'clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity.' To paraphrase from what I was saying earlier, I think, in an ideal world, red cards should only be given along with penalties for suarez-esque handball on the line incidents which have literally stopped a goal. ( I am aware that this isnt what the rules say at the moment). I think the footballing world generally agrees that, letter of the law aside, a penalty and a yellow card would have sufficed in the incident yesterday. And I think you could just about make an argument using the letter of the law for saying it wasnt a 'clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity' - he didnt, afterall, have control of the ball when the foul happened. I hope you are right about it being looked into.
Exactly how I felt. In Dean's defence I think from his angle it looked like the ball was closer to Dzeko than it was, inwhich case Tevez only got to the ball before him because he was fouled. I thought the last man rule pretty much worked. I remember when Cahill fouled Lennon about 40 yards out last season and got the red he received riscinded because it wasn't actually a goalscoring opportunity at the time but surely when the fastest player on the pitch goes past their last man it's fair to assume he's going to be one on one with the 'keeper so if you take him out you're denying what is almost certainly going to turn into a goalscoring opportunity? The reason the last man rule failed is because refs stopped enforcing it and it eventually became acceptable to bottle it.
mm - The only problem with 'last man' is you could be going in the direction of the corner flag and still be the 'last man' but not necessarily should that be a sending off. I think 'denying a clear goalscoring opportunity' is a reasonable wording of the rule. I think the accepted interpretation of it should change though. If you foul somebody, they have a penalty. The penalty is the re-dsitribution of the 'clear goalscoring opportunity.' To me, there is no need for the sending off. In the incident you described, that should still have been a sending off (surely) if the rule was interprated properly specifically for the reasons you described (distance is irrelevant, if he wasnt fouled he would have had a clear goalscoring opportunity, and the free kick that is due to him is not awarding him the clear goalscoring opportunity back). I am aware of the problems with what I have said, and I would say a foul to stop a goal itself (handball on line) should be a sending off. But sending players off AND awarding penalties can ruin games in a second. Youve fouled and prevented a clear opportunity, so the opponents get another clear scoring opportunity (penalty)| and you get booked. Job done. Game on.
The only reason i think Mike Dean Sent off Kompany was becauuse from hisd angle, he thought The City player went in 2 footed on Wilshere and didn't get the ball.
As with all rules "last man" would need to be applied with a modicum of commonsense. The "clear, goalscoring opportunity" allows too much wiggle room for the refs to use it as they please, it's like how now you only have to fall "unnaturally" to be booked now which allows Bale to be booked whenever he's fouled, whilst others are free to go down softly and win the freekick.
