Yes, I am of course referring to Matt Ingram's costly red card on Saturday. FIFA Laws of the Game 2015-16 Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct See the incident The term "denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity" is usually interpreted as a foul committed by the last line of defence. Having watched the video it could be argued that Ingram was not the last line of defence as there was a defender in a position to clear off the goal line. That being the case, surely it should have been a yellow card. Gareth is appealing the red card on the basis that Ingram got the ball, in which case (if correct) was not a foul at all. I think he'll be very lucky to get the red rescinded on that basis. It might have made more sense to try to get it reduced to a yellow on a technicality. Hopefully his appeal will be 2 fold (ie try the first and, if it fails, try to get it reduce to a yellow based on the position of the defender). Any views? There are plenty of views on FB but, being FB, they aren't grouped logically under one topic. I find FB a bit of a nightmare due to its lack of structure
I just watched your clip Ron and have to say that if that was against my team I would be expecting a Red not a yellow. If the Ref has seen that as a foul, and he obviously has, then the only line of defence was behind the player brought down. 2 of them admittedly but both behind him just. Couldn't see if the ball was played or not so not commenting on that bit. Thing is players know that if they touch another in that sort of situation then they are going to be in trouble and the opposition player is going to hit the deck. Personally I hate that aspect of the game but virtually all players will do it now. I think what gets people is that a player can almost hack another in half and get a yellow yet touch them with a feather as the last man and get a red. Just never seems right to me. As a nuetral though can see where the Ref got his decision from.
The rule as it stands is ridiculous. I've always felt that a penalty is sufficient. The red should only be given if the foul was worthy of a red in the outfield. If this would have been in the outfield there is no way that would have been red. The rule wording "denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity" is interpreted by the ref. I'm not sure it was that obvious as a goal could have been prevented by one of the defenders chasing back. Many a goal has been saved by a defender chasing back with the goalie beaten. For me, whether it was a foul or not is irrelevant. A yellow and a penalty would have sufficed in by book in this case because there is doubt as to whether he would have scored. I suspect it won't get rescinded.
He went looking for the penalty. I've seen the incident in slow motion and Matt gets his foot to the ball first,appeals are rarely upheld in the lower leagues so i am resigned to him missing the game against Villa.
Course he went looking for a penalty mowgli. Your players would do the same these days which I know doesn't make it any more palatable or right. I don't like this "last man" thing either and think a penalty is enough but there is another argument to consider. If it didn't mean a red then defenders would make sure the player never made the box if they could. They would deny a goal scoring opportunity and only get a yellow for deliberately bringing the attacker down. I think the rule should say "if no genuine attempt is made to clear the ball fairly". If there is a genuine attempt and not just a cynical foul then perhaps it could be viewed differently. Mind you players would soon learn to make it look like an attempt even if it wasn't to get around that one so it's hard to call something that is fair all around.
Agreed. Re your comment "They would deny a goal scoring opportunity and only get a yellow for deliberately bringing the attacker down.". they could only do it once. If it is in the penalty area then it's a penalty. Maybe, if it is committed outside the penalty area by the "last" defender, it's a yellow and the ball should be placed down where the offence occurred and play restarted by allowing the fouled player to go past the offender untackled. In the case of the Saturday incident, if it had been outside the box, the defender may have got back to defend the goal or they may not have been successful and the striker scored, As it was, it was in the penalty box so (assuming it was a foul) then a yellow card and a penalty. As you say if it is a deliberate violent/wreckless tackle then a red wherever it occurs
If the referee deems it a foul it has to be a red card, not a question. however if you slow it down there are 2 things that may mean wycombe get the appeal - one is that matt gets the ball first (if just slightly) and secondly that, as i thought at the time, its a dive by the striker who is going to ground before matt gets anywhere near him However i dont think that it will be recinded somehow - it often has to be far more obvious than that for the FA to recind it
Because in my view ingram has denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity , it has nothing to do with the last man logic that is often applied. In the image below you can clearly see that if the striker was on his feet at this point (which he would have been had he not of dived/been fouled), you would reasonably expect him to score, which is the logic the referee is taught to apply. Looking at this, stewart or onien would have had to do something heroic or the striker would have had to mess up really badly not to have scored from that position
Sorry Ron, but for me it's a pen and red all day long, why he lunged in at that late stage of the game is the question.
