| DOGSO - Liverpool v Fulham 23:00 - Dec 14 with 1064 views | Zx1988 |
Interesting discussion on the Robertson red card on MOTD. Interested to know what the referees on here make of it.
Robertson fouls Wilson where, otherwise, he'd have been in on goal. Referee plays advantage, and the ball falls to Pereira(?) who gets a shot away. He misses, and play is called back for the foul and the red card issued.
Do the rules take into account of the post-foul context, so to speak? Wilson's goal-scoring opportunity was denied, but the fall of the ball during the advantage creates another GSO for Pereira/Fulham.
Does the resulting second GSO serve to, essentially, cancel the red card? |  |
| |  |
| DOGSO - Liverpool v Fulham on 23:10 - Dec 14 with 1018 views | Basuco |
Like a foul today, when advantage was played but the pass seconds after it went to an offside Omari, we did not get the free kick for the foul, Wolves got a free kick for the off side. Seems like the same thing but a different outcome. |  | | |
| DOGSO - Liverpool v Fulham on 03:40 - Dec 15 with 811 views | Kievthegreat |
If a foul occurs which should receive a card, then that punishment does not get wiped out because advantage is played. We often see Refs go back after the fact to book a player for a foul in build-up where advantage was played. Bookings aren't cancelled out by playing advantage and neither are reds.
Let's say a defender handballs deliberately on the line to block a shot, but it drops to a striker who manages to still tuck it home. Would it make sense if the Defender wasn't punished for deliberate handball just because the ref played advantage and they still conceded? I don't think anyone would think that punishment should be cancelled just because the goal was scored anyway. |  | | |
| DOGSO - Liverpool v Fulham on 08:12 - Dec 15 with 635 views | Zx1988 |
| DOGSO - Liverpool v Fulham on 03:40 - Dec 15 by Kievthegreat |
If a foul occurs which should receive a card, then that punishment does not get wiped out because advantage is played. We often see Refs go back after the fact to book a player for a foul in build-up where advantage was played. Bookings aren't cancelled out by playing advantage and neither are reds.
Let's say a defender handballs deliberately on the line to block a shot, but it drops to a striker who manages to still tuck it home. Would it make sense if the Defender wasn't punished for deliberate handball just because the ref played advantage and they still conceded? I don't think anyone would think that punishment should be cancelled just because the goal was scored anyway. |
Cheers Kiev.
So Lineker was spouting weapons-grade b0ll0cks. Again. | |
| |
| DOGSO - Liverpool v Fulham on 09:41 - Dec 15 with 529 views | SimonBatfordITFC |
From IFAB Laws of the Game:
—-
Advantage
If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.
Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play, but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence.
If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.
—-
The referee was correct in law to issue a red card having pulled play back. The more poignant question is whether he should have pulled it back, if Fulham had their shot then surely they’d had their advantage? The fact that they missed isn’t Liverpools fault. | | | |
| DOGSO - Liverpool v Fulham on 09:59 - Dec 15 with 491 views | monty_radio |
| DOGSO - Liverpool v Fulham on 09:41 - Dec 15 by SimonBatfordITFC |
From IFAB Laws of the Game:
—-
Advantage
If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.
Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play, but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence.
If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.
—-
The referee was correct in law to issue a red card having pulled play back. The more poignant question is whether he should have pulled it back, if Fulham had their shot then surely they’d had their advantage? The fact that they missed isn’t Liverpools fault. |
Yes - I don't know whether ther's been a change in that law, but certainly, not so many years ago, in football. if a commentator used the word "advantage", it was solely to indicate the referee had decided that it benefited the attacking team to play on. Unlike Rugby, where outcomes have long been considered, football always took a stricter line than now seems to be the case. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
