Eastwood handball v Dawson handball

[Northstandboy]

Hey

So in the Norwich V Sheff Weds game, the Wednesday goalie did something similar to Eastwood but only got a yellow. Not seen the incident at Norwich, but what are the actual rules for this?

 

[Gary Baldi]

For context:

I thought the rule was clear as day, but obviously not. Thank you PGMOL for your ongoing incompetence.

 

[Northstandboy]

For context:

I thought the rule was clear as day, but obviously not. Thank you PGMOL for your ongoing incompetence.

A case for Eastwood to get his red removed?

 

[Gary Baldi]

No chance... The FA protect their own at all costs. At best the Ref in that game will be "reminded" about the rules and it will be left there.

 

[Northstandboy]

No chance... The FA protect their own at all costs. At best the Ref in that game will be "reminded" about the rules and it will be left there.

Let Jack have a run in now then

 

[uptheus]

Let Jack have a run in now then

Eastwood only has a one match ban and Robinson was going to play Stevens on Monday anyway, so no change.

 

[Northstandboy]

Eastwood only has a one match ban and Robinson was going to play Stevens on Monday anyway, so no change.

One of the youth keepers on the bench then.

 

[Paul Cannell]

OK by me

 

[Whingit]

Eastwood denied a goalscoring opportunity but the other keeper didn't because of the defenders.

 

[BigCrompy]

The laws are surprisingly sparse, and all I could find on this appreciably cursory glance is that the “goalkeeper is subject to the same restrictions as outfield players when outside of his box“ which is of course pretty intuitive.

There is absolutely no mandatory send off law, as some in here have imagined. Whingit is right to say that Drysdale must have ruled denial of a goal-scoring opportunity, but a) Eastwood was mistaken, not cynical, the ball was moving towards him and away from Taylor, and Taylor was hardly most likely of the two to win the contest. b) if Drysdale is so keen to punish denial of a goal-scoring opportunity with a red card, then he tripped himself up 15 minutes later by failing to do so.

To me it all smacks of a decision that Drysdale could justify, but really didn’t NEED to make; and no-one likes a pedant with a whistle.

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

 

[Northstandboy]

The laws are surprisingly sparse, and all I could find on this appreciably cursory glance is that the “goalkeeper is subject to the same restrictions as outfield players when outside of his box“ which is of course pretty intuitive.

There is absolutely no mandatory send off law, as some in here have imagined. Whingit is right to say that Drysdale must have ruled denial of a goal-scoring opportunity, but a) Eastwood was mistaken, not cynical, the ball was moving towards him and away from Taylor, and Taylor was hardly most likely of the two to win the contest. b) if Drysdale is so keen to punish denial of a goal-scoring opportunity with a red card, then he tripped himself up 15 minutes later by failing to do so.

To me it all smacks of a decision that Drysdale could justify, but really didn’t NEED to make; and no-one likes a pedant with a whistle.

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

So was their defender with Sinclair though, but he was only shown a yellow.

 

[BigCrompy]

So was their defender with Sinclair though, but he was only shown a yellow.

(I think) we completely agree with each other...don’t we..?

 

[OUFCwaffle]

Maybe because he waved play on for the sinclair challenge? Thought if advantage is given only a yellow is allowed.

 

[Deleted member 462]

One of the youth keepers on the bench then.

Or scott shearer, the guy we actually pay a wage to be reserve keeper [emoji23]

 

[Northstandboy]

Or scott shearer, the guy we actually pay a wage to be reserve keeper [emoji23]

He's the squad morale booster! ?

 

[Northstandboy]

Maybe because he waved play on for the sinclair challenge? Thought if advantage is given only a yellow is allowed.

I'd rather have had the red.

 

[Matty Greens Left Boot]

Eastwood denied a goalscoring opportunity but the other keeper didn't because of the defenders.

Exactly as a former referee eastwood was sent off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity. there was no defenders between him and the onrushing attacker. in the other instance defenders are between the attacker and the ball.

Seriously the hate towards referees on here is bad, and assuming incompetance when often their interpretation could be right. it is clear many forum users couldn't have never read "the laws of the game" or have the foogiest ideas of the laws of the sport they are supposed to watch. especially in this absolute stonewall issue.

 

[Deleted member 462]

I'd rather have had the red.

This is where that law gets silly for me, as if garbutt stops, then we have a free kick, their player is sent off, and we can run down the clock in their area. By allowing an advantage, it didn’t advantage us in the slightest

 

[MiddleBartonYellow]

I actually thought the Ref had a good game. I suppose I will get shot down for that.

 

[Manorlounger]

Exactly as a former referee eastwood was sent off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity. there was no defenders between him and the onrushing attacker. in the other instance defenders are between the attacker and the ball.

Seriously the hate towards referees on here is bad, and assuming incompetance when often their interpretation could be right. it is clear many forum users couldn't have never read "the laws of the game" or have the foogiest ideas of the laws of the sport they are supposed to watch. especially in this absolute stonewall issue.

I didn't know Easty was a former referee? (Sorry, couldn't resist. Punctuation is so important, you know?)

And, if that was a goal scoring opportunity, why was Taylor going in the opposite direction to the ball?
I don't "hate" all referees, I do have some strong reservations about some of the ego tripping, incompetent and ignorant few who are allowed to officiate in what is a professional sport with financial implications from the outcomes of their deficiencies.
Drysdale is well known for his idiosyncratic ways and fits my description for one due reservations.

 

[Sarge]

I didn't know Easty was a former referee? (Sorry, couldn't resist. Punctuation is so important, you know?)

And, if that was a goal scoring opportunity, why was Taylor going in the opposite direction to the ball?
I don't "hate" all referees, I do have some strong reservations about some of the ego tripping, incompetent and ignorant few who are allowed to officiate in what is a professional sport with financial implications from the outcomes of their deficiencies.
Drysdale is well known for his idiosyncratic ways and fits my description for one due reservations.

Trevor Kettle on a par with Drysdale..... consistency in how the laws of the game are applied would be helpful.... sadly the FA seem only interested in PL, if at all

 

[Manorlounger]

Trevor Kettle on a par with Drysdale..... consistency in how the laws of the game are applied would be helpful.... sadly the FA seem only interested in PL, if at all

Kettle is a nightmare. Remember his last visit to us, fourth official and yet he still managed to influence the outcome of the game. His antics on the touchline were a disgrace. The referee had him constantly in his ear and even making the call on colour of card at one point. He couldn't help himself from calling the shots. Egomaniac to the nth degree.

 

[Gary Baldi]

I have a big issue with PGMOL and Mike Riley, and their ongoing incompetence. They aren't helped by certain Refs injecting themselves into games, like yesterday. When the same offence is interpreted in 2 different ways, it rings alarm bells about how the Refs are managed and how the rules are created.

 

[gpalner1]

Don't normally post on here but enjoy reading the comments on here and was af the match and also thought the ref had a good game and kept good control of lively encounter.

He did well to allow us to play on after Sinclair was fouled and if Garbutt had scored we wouldn't even be having a conversation about was it a red or yellow.

Credit where credit is due in this case for me.

 

[BigCrompy]

He did well to allow us to play on after Sinclair was fouled and if Garbutt had scored we wouldn't even be having a conversation about was it a red or yellow.

Credit where credit is due in this case for me.

...but then he did poorly to inadequately punish the original offence.

That Garbutt failed to score is an irrelevance.

If cynical scything fouls that could break Sinclair's leg are not punished, then they become a legitimate tactic for the defence, the art of 'taking one for the team'. Otherwise this is the equivalent of letting burglars off prison simply because they were nicked before they ran off with your telly!

Play on, goal or no goal, come back and give red card should have been the sequence of events, particularly when you've set a precedent by sending Eastwood off for effectively nothing.

 

[Berliner]

...but then he did poorly to inadequately punish the original offence.

That Garbutt failed to score is an irrelevance.

If cynical scything fouls that could break Sinclair's leg are not punished, then they become a legitimate tactic for the defence, the art of 'taking one for the team'. Otherwise this is the equivalent of letting burglars off prison simply because they were nicked before they ran off with your telly!

Play on, goal or no goal, come back and give red card should have been the sequence of events, particularly when you've set a precedent by sending Eastwood off for effectively nothing.

The referee probably interpreted it as a simple tactical foul...allowing advantage there (correctly) means any cards for such an offence are no longer shown.

However, if the referee rates it as a more serious foul (i.e. where a card would have been awarded in any case) then of course this doesn't apply.

I do agree that the tackle at the end was worthy of at least a yellow, in any case.

 

[BigCrompy]

The referee probably interpreted it as a simple tactical foul...allowing advantage there (correctly) means any cards for such an offence are no longer shown.

Don’t disagree one bit with the advantage being played, it’s just that Oxford scoring doesn’t negate that a serious foul arose and should be disciplined.

We’re also struggling with the either/or mentality for punishing fouls in the Australian rugby league that I watch weekly. Either sin-bin the defender or award the penalty try but never both; which detracts from one of the functions of punishment, which is that it should be a deterrent.

 

[Jerome'SAle]

Maybe because he waved play on for the sinclair challenge? Thought if advantage is given only a yellow is allowed.

Is that true? So if an outfield player deliberately handballs it off the line and then the referee waves play on and the attacking team miss their follow up shot, its only a yellow?

Sounds very illogical to me. You are either denying a goalscoring opportunity or you are not. The referee making a mistake in playing advantage shoiuld not excuse that. Thats two mistakes by the referee rather than one in my book.

Drysdale is a shocking referee who we have had problems with before anyway, Surely he knew that Charltons forward are divers, everyone else does?

 

[Whingit]

If it's a red card offence play can't go on.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

If it's a red card offence play can't go on.

Not true.

"Advantage

The referee may play advantage whenever an infringement or offence occurs.
The referee should consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to
apply the advantage or stop play:
• the severity of the offence: if the infringement warrants an expulsion, the
referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a subsequent
opportunity to score a goal "

So he could indeed have played advantage and then sent the bloke off. And should have.