Burnsey did make one really good point about the match. We faced the team which has the pundits vote in the promotion race. In form with a very good home record and we matched them. It shows that we are a team as capable as any. Good test at the right time.
Does that matter as the rule states that IF A GOAL SCORING OPPORTUNITY IS DENIED BY FOULING which it was. Even some Birmingham fans i spoke to after the game thought that Caldwell had got lucky on that one. 0-0 a fair result, imo.
may i suggest that its far too early for must win games ? but i think that we shall. hope Liverpool give them the run a round on sunday afternoon whilst City enjoy 8 days off.
I thought it was "IF A CLEAR goal scoring...". If there's other defenders able to cover then it's not a clear opportunity as there's still that man and the keeper to beat, rather than it being a 1-on-1. Given we can't even score 1-on-1s we'd be pushing it asking for a red.
Can you imagine being a Birmingham fan if he did go to Wolves? After McLeish going to Villa you'd get really nervous in the summer if Hodgson stepped down at WBA wouldn't you.
IF Fryatt had got clear he was in on goal, so i would suggest thats a clear goal scoring opportunity. As to IF the ball would have entered the net is another thing altogether. just saying like.
Fryatt was clear, no way in a month of Sundays would any defender have got in front in time to stop him being one on one with the keeper, no way at all.
As i am learning to be a referee, here goes. It does not matter whether there are other main sideways or around that can cover a man, the law does not state if he is the last man. The law states if it is a clear goal scoring oppurtunity, this can be interpreted in many ways. However i have being told to interpret it as that if he has a chance of getting a shot away within a certain distance from goal it is a sending off. Whether you feel a man can get back level or not as that doesn't stop him getting a shot away. Thats what i am being taught, despite it contradicting itself in many ways.
Well if that's what you are being taught, all I have to say is no wonder referees are inconsistent. At least the "Last Man" concept provides a degree of objectivity.
Since you're doing it now. How do they tell you to determine a certain distance when you're looking at goal scoring opportunities? It seems like an advisement that penalises teams with players like Koren and Scholes.
I don't see much difference to be honest. The only time it really looks different is if the "last man" makes a challenge that's far enough away from goal that a faster defender would have got back to challenge before the striker was in a reasonable position. Otherwise in both cases you're saying it hasn't denied that opportunity because the striker would have still had to take on another player in order to get the shot away, or the striker would have easily got the shot away so it is a red.
The art of refereeing is in the ability to apply the rules in a fair and balanced way. So the fact that a player has a clear scoring chance, when viewed from the stands or from the dugout has nothing to do with the referees decision. He has to give it as he see's it. In many ways this is an automatic response, if he has to think about an offence then he will fail to get it right. The whistle and thought process are instinctive. The assistants are part of this. He will when he see's a tackle look at the assistant and he will gauge the player reaction only if there is an element of doubt. The most exciting and demanding role in sport is to officiate. Being involved fully for the duration of the game means that you get more from it. The ideal is to be an invisible influence, guiding the game, without being the catalyst for any debate. So the point is if Fryatt was in a clear goal scoring position, the referee did not see it that way and therefore, it does not matter.
The simple difference is that, as city1904 describes as "this can be interpreted in many ways", "clear goalscoring opportunity" is a matter of opinion, whereas "Last Man" is much more a visual fact with perhaps a small possibility of inconsistency depending on differing angles of view. Certainly the latter leaves much less room for differing opinions. If I had been refereeing the game against Brum, I certainly wouldn't have given a red card, Fryatt was too far away from goal and there was too many other defenders in close proximity for it to be consiodered a clear goalscoring opportunity.
