The free kick was awarded for handball, that's clear cut, not for a foul. Secondly, the phrasing "last man" is some incorrect phrasing that has been passed on through the media and fans take on board. It's incorrect. The correct term is denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity. There is a checklist of things that must apply for a goalscoring opportunity to be deemed 'obvious'. In this case, and this is the reason the red card was overturned, was the fast that there is at least 1, potentially 2 covering defenders. To dismiss the GK for DOGSO was incorrect of the referee. The most it could have been was a FK and a caution.
I don't care how rarely you post for sticking it to Mrs doubt fire........ Can someone tell Maltese mick he is going to have to pay for more bandwidth given the length jocks response is going to be. Get the popcorn ready and pull up a chair Lads.
By the decision that has been made (not like I really care) it obviously shouldn't have been a red card. But I stand by the fact that if he had acted like a true professional he wouldn't have rushed out like a maniac doing a star fish jump. His stupid actions have cost his team one way or another. If it hit his chest / shoulder he shouldn't of leaped with his arms out to cause the incorrect decision.
As a referee and a former goalkeeper at a pretty decent level, I can fully understand what you're saying but at the same time, from the GK point of view, understand the counter-argument. Everyday in training that GK is trained to, when dealing with a player one on one, make himself big. That's not a decision he makes consciously everytime, it all becomes such a reflex. It would have been much simpler if he just kept his arms down, but I suspect it was much more of a reflex action.
Yeah, I'm also a goalkeepr and I completely get that. Infact, I would do the exact same as what he did as well. I'm just speaking from a model professional status he should of known better (easier said then done, don't get me wrong).
It's quite common when GK's advance out of their area. I've been involved in matches where GK's have been dismissed, and then the opposite, quite recently I was involved in a FA competition where the player was cautioned after he'd handled the ball but with clear covering players.
Hands are not that unnatural because he's a goalkeeper, it's his positioning that's unnatural cos he's not a centre back
Potentially so equally potentially not. Two defenders that can't use their hands, still an obvious goal scoring opportunity to me. If it wasn't the keeper wouldn't have come out so far to stop it.
That is not what makes it an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity'. There are certain criteria that must be met. 'Potentially' covering means that they could potentially intercept the shot, you can not tell. This alone removes the obvious aspect. It is now the denying of a goalscoring opportunity, which is not a red card. The following factors are taken into account: The distance between the offence and the goal. The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball. The direction of play. The location and number of any defenders. The offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or indirect free kick. In this situation as a referee, I would be thinking to myself. Yes it's close enough. The 2nd point and 3rd point is not applicable as it is post-shot. Location and number of defenders? Two nearby defenders, I cannot rule out the defender on the right covering for the goalkeeper and therefore deem it not obvious. In order for it to be obvious it must be within a reasonable distance to the goal, the attacker must be in control of the ball if he hasn't already shot, play must be moving towards goal (i.e if the attacker is central running towards the wing, then it is not obvious) and there clearly be no covering defenders. If there is any doubt as to whether a defender is covering then the player cannot be dismissed, it is deemed not obvious. As Eire says, it's happened now, but I will always correct those who seem to assume any decision for them is correct and against them is incorrect.
Good points but I always think any contentious decision that goes for us is correct and against us wrong, can't help it, I'm a fan
