Why it wasn't a red

[rigsby]

After chatting to one of our backroom boys on Saturday (not PB) he told me the ref at Pompey said the reason he did not show a red card last Saturday......Although it was deliberate, there was players behind the guy who handled it :stunned::stunned::stunned:

Utter tosh as it was going clean in. I had a good straight view from behind our goal.

 

[LBBlue]

Utter tosh as it was going clean in. I had a good straight view from behind our goal.

You must have amazing eyesight to see that from 100 yards away in a split second. I think you see what you want to see.

 

[rigsby]

You must have amazing eyesight to see that from 100 yards away in a split second. I think you see what you want to see.

Why don't you look for yourself on YouTube. If it was a mistake by a Southend player you wouldn't miss it.

 

[LBBlue]

Why don't you look for yourself on YouTube. If it was a mistake by a Southend player you wouldn't miss it.

I looked again - as I did several times - it's inconclusive whether it's a hand ball -the camera is on the wrong side.
And number 4 Rose - he headed Cox's shot away and the keeper were behind the guy who blocked the second shot. Whether they would have stopped it if he hadn't is another matter but not clear cut. The ref has one chance in a split second to decide.

 

[AndyT]

It was handball, as it was given as a penalty.

The question is was it denying a clear goalscoring opportunity and was it deliberate?

It's irrelevant if the keeper would have stopped it, IMHO or even if Rose had.

 

[rigsby]

I looked again - as I did several times - it's inconclusive whether it's a hand ball -the camera is on the wrong side.
And number 4 Rose - he headed Cox's shot away and the keeper were behind the guy who blocked the second shot. Whether they would have stopped it if he hadn't is another matter but not clear cut. The ref has one chance in a split second to decide.

The assistant had seen it and the ref was happy to award a penalty so certainly not inconclusive. Their player thought it was going in, which is why he stuck his arm well outside the line of his body and made a good save.

 

[londonblue]

It was handball, as it was given as a penalty.

The question is was it denying a clear goalscoring opportunity and was it deliberate?

It's irrelevant if the keeper would have stopped it, IMHO or even if Rose had.

If it wasn't deliberate it wouldn't have been given as handball:

From the Laws of the Game:

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)

 

[AndyT]

The deliberate/not deliberate is a grey area, these days, for me.

Years ago it was clear cut. Hand to ball. No debate.

Now a person can slide to block a shot and it hits their hand. It's awarded as a penalty, but they didn't set out to stop it specifically with their hand. I think this is where refs sometimes give the benefit of the doubt on yellow, red or no card at all.

Take old matey boy of Northern Ireland the other night. He got a yellow for his trouble. He was hardly deliberately handling the ball.

 

[Mick]

It was handball, as it was given as a penalty.

The question is was it denying a clear goalscoring opportunity and was it deliberate?

It's irrelevant if the keeper would have stopped it, IMHO or even if Rose had.

Surely if the goalkeeper would most probably have stopped it, it is not denying either a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Hardly irrelevant.

 

[AndyT]

Ah, I thought you might pick me up on that.

So why, then, is an outfield player sent-off for bringing another outfield player down outside the box, when the goalkeeper is still there to be beaten, as well?

 

[LBBlue]

The assistant had seen it and the ref was happy to award a penalty so certainly not inconclusive. Their player thought it was going in, which is why he stuck his arm well outside the line of his body and made a good save.

In your opinion - I said it is inconclusive on youtube - yes the linesman said it was hand ball - in the ref's opinion there were two players behind the offender who may or may not have stopped the shot -you tube confirms that. Fact is we missed the penalty.

Just a question if it had been given against us in the same circumstances would you have been so adamant it should have been a penalty and a red card. Just requires a yes or no answer.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

After chatting to one of our backroom boys on Saturday (not PB) he told me the ref at Pompey said the reason he did not show a red card last Saturday......Although it was deliberate, there was players behind the guy who handled it :stunned::stunned::stunned:

Utter tosh as it was going clean in. I had a good straight view from behind our goal.

Was it given for the first or second shot that was blocked?

I didn't understand how it wasn't a red card, but I doubt we'd have had the guile to break them down even if they'd gone down to 10 men.

 

[Danshrimper]

In your opinion - I said it is inconclusive on youtube - yes the linesman said it was hand ball - in the ref's opinion there were two players behind the offender who may or may not have stopped the shot -you tube confirms that. Fact is we missed the penalty.

Just a question if it had been given against us in the same circumstances would you have been so adamant it should have been a penalty and a red card. Just requires a yes or no answer.

You seem to be missing the point, it’s completely irrelevant whether it was a penalty or not (it was) as the officials decided it was a penalty because of a deliberate handball and therefore the appropriate punishment should have been handed out. The reason that the appropriate punishment wasn’t given is a load of rubbish because nothing other than the hand of that defender was stopping that shot going in.

 

[rigsby]

You seem to be missing the point, it’s completely irrelevant whether it was a penalty or not (it was) as the officials decided it was a penalty because of a deliberate handball and therefore the appropriate punishment should have been handed out. The reason that the appropriate punishment wasn’t given is a load of rubbish because nothing other than the hand of that defender was stopping that shot going in.

Exactly, that's why or bench found the explanation bizarre. Its a red for stopping a goal scoring opportunity, let alone a goal

 

[Angell Delight]

Has anyone considered that the only reason it wasn't given as a red card was because neither the referee or assistant were sure who the handball was committed by? That's the only possible explanation I can see for a penalty being awarded but no red - to give one without the other smacks of "I haven't got a clue who the culprit was" because it was about as clear a red card as you'll see....

 

[rigsby]

Has anyone considered that the only reason it wasn't given as a red card was because neither the referee or assistant were sure who the handball was committed by? That's the only possible explanation I can see for a penalty being awarded but no red - to give one without the other smacks of "I haven't got a clue who the culprit was" because it was about as clear a red card as you'll see....

That's where my money would be. Plus the 15,000 fans screaming abuse meant more pressure not to get the wrong man. They did mention players names to our staff, making out they had seen it all. Had plenty of time after to look at the game on the monitor etc before speaking to our management.

 

[CyrilSneer]

Was it given for the first or second shot that was blocked?

I didn't understand how it wasn't a red card, but I doubt we'd have had the guile to break them down even if they'd gone down to 10 men.

The first shot by Cox hit the post I think.

 

[manor15]

Assuming this is correct, surely even if there is someone behind a player who saves the ball with his hand to deny a goal it is a yellow card offence? I couldn't understand how it wasn't a red but not showing a card at all is simply baffling.

 

[Mick]

Ah, I thought you might pick me up on that.

So why, then, is an outfield player sent-off for bringing another outfield player down outside the box, when the goalkeeper is still there to be beaten, as well?

Two completely different scenarios there.

In the case of the handball the shot has already been taken and if the referee thinks the goalkeeper would most probably have saved it the defender has actually benefited the attacking team rather than denied them anything so no need for a card.

With the outfield player being brought down outside the box, he has been denied an opportunity i.e a chance to beat the goalkeeper in possibly a one on one situation, which is viewed as "an obvious goalscoring opportunity". Red card.

 

[AndyT]

Fair point 'Mick'. Makes a bit more sense now.

FWIW, I wouldn't have wanted to see the Pompey player sent-off, though if he'd made a full length goalkeeper style dive to punch it away, then I might have a different view, regardless of whether the keeper had a chance of saving it.