| got to be a sending off? (n/t) 15:46 - Jan 2 with 1406 views | GlasgowBlue |
|  |
| |  |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:47 - Jan 2 with 1389 views | Sharkey |
BBC Suffolk thought it should have been yellow |  | | |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:48 - Jan 2 with 1364 views | GlasgowBlue |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:47 - Jan 2 by Sharkey |
BBC Suffolk thought it should have been yellow |
Def red. Jackson was through. | |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:49 - Jan 2 with 1326 views | Sharkey |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:48 - Jan 2 by GlasgowBlue |
Def red. Jackson was through. |
I didn't see it. But both commentators thought he wasn't the last man. | | | |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:49 - Jan 2 with 1301 views | Scuzzer |
Hmmm....unlucky on the guy had cover coming in. |  |
| |
| It was a yellow… but we deserve a break after just TOTAL domination (n/t) on 15:50 - Jan 2 with 1265 views | unstableblue |
|  |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:50 - Jan 2 with 1255 views | Oldsmoker |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:49 - Jan 2 by Scuzzer |
Hmmm....unlucky on the guy had cover coming in. |
Will VAR reverse that decision?
Oh. |  |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:50 - Jan 2 with 1246 views | DublinBlue84 |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:49 - Jan 2 by Sharkey |
I didn't see it. But both commentators thought he wasn't the last man. |
He wasn't the last man back, but none of the other two players would have been able to have got to Jackson before he shot,
=
Denying a clear goalscoring opportunity
=
Red Card by the laws of the game. |  |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:50 - Jan 2 with 1246 views | Ftnfwest |
Similar to the Barnsley sending off earlier on v Bolton. The Barnsley one was even softer but both ended up being reds. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:50 - Jan 2 with 1241 views | NeedhamChris |
I think that's one of those that could go either way. I'd be feeling hard done by if that was us | |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:51 - Jan 2 with 1232 views | homer_123 |
Goal scoring opportunity...so yep...def a red. |  |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:52 - Jan 2 with 1195 views | ibbleobble |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:48 - Jan 2 by GlasgowBlue |
Def red. Jackson was through. |
What game are you watching? There was another defender 10 yards square of him. It was a yellow. We’ll take it but a shame as it’s been a good game. | | | |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:54 - Jan 2 with 1119 views | DublinBlue84 |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:52 - Jan 2 by ibbleobble |
What game are you watching? There was another defender 10 yards square of him. It was a yellow. We’ll take it but a shame as it’s been a good game. |
Even if the defenders were Usain Bolt, they wouldn't have got to Jackson before he shot.
It's not about how many defenders are behind the player who makes the tackle like in offside, it's whether those defenders would be able to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.
If the defenders further back had no chance to prevent a goalscoring opportunity, then the player making the tackle is deemed to have denied a clear goalscoring opportunity.
Therefore he must be sent off for doing so.
It's simple. [Post edited 2 Jan 2023 15:55]
| |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:55 - Jan 2 with 1089 views | Steve_M |
Yes, definitely. Jackson had taken the ball from him and was going to get a shot in. |  |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:57 - Jan 2 with 1003 views | GlasgowBlue |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:52 - Jan 2 by ibbleobble |
What game are you watching? There was another defender 10 yards square of him. It was a yellow. We’ll take it but a shame as it’s been a good game. |
10 yards square of him. H had no chance of getting to Jackson before he got his shot away. | |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:57 - Jan 2 with 1001 views | ReusersTown |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:49 - Jan 2 by Scuzzer |
Hmmm....unlucky on the guy had cover coming in. |
The cynical nature of the tackle is what's done for him I think. | | | |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:00 - Jan 2 with 897 views | DanTheMan |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:57 - Jan 2 by GlasgowBlue |
10 yards square of him. H had no chance of getting to Jackson before he got his shot away. |
Agreed, sending off all day for me. |  |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:02 - Jan 2 with 854 views | ibbleobble |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:54 - Jan 2 by DublinBlue84 |
Even if the defenders were Usain Bolt, they wouldn't have got to Jackson before he shot.
It's not about how many defenders are behind the player who makes the tackle like in offside, it's whether those defenders would be able to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.
If the defenders further back had no chance to prevent a goalscoring opportunity, then the player making the tackle is deemed to have denied a clear goalscoring opportunity.
Therefore he must be sent off for doing so.
It's simple. [Post edited 2 Jan 2023 15:55]
|
Hahahaha! Good Lord. Being educated about the game on this forum is a new one. Thanks but I don’t think you’re qualified.
It needs to be a clear goal scoring opportunity. O’Connor is level 10 yards away. If Jackson is yards in front of O Connor it’s clear, if he’s not, then it’s not. Simple.
It’s a yellow. | | | |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:07 - Jan 2 with 782 views | andytown |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:02 - Jan 2 by ibbleobble |
Hahahaha! Good Lord. Being educated about the game on this forum is a new one. Thanks but I don’t think you’re qualified.
It needs to be a clear goal scoring opportunity. O’Connor is level 10 yards away. If Jackson is yards in front of O Connor it’s clear, if he’s not, then it’s not. Simple.
It’s a yellow. |
Interesting listening to the game as I cruise down the A1. They reckon pen was 50/50, that the red card should have been yellow as not a clear goal scoring opportunity, that the red given v Bolton last game was not a red. Then on the sh*thousing front, thought the ref should have a word with J Jackson as he went down like a sack when challenged by one of the Lincoln players. | | | |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:07 - Jan 2 with 773 views | ibbleobble |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:57 - Jan 2 by GlasgowBlue |
10 yards square of him. H had no chance of getting to Jackson before he got his shot away. |
Getting a shot away still isn’t a clear goal scoring opportunity though is it? It needs to be ‘an obvious goal scoring opportunity’ and Jackson is still 20 - 25 yards from goal with a defender 10 yards away. | | | |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:08 - Jan 2 with 764 views | homer_123 |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:02 - Jan 2 by ibbleobble |
Hahahaha! Good Lord. Being educated about the game on this forum is a new one. Thanks but I don’t think you’re qualified.
It needs to be a clear goal scoring opportunity. O’Connor is level 10 yards away. If Jackson is yards in front of O Connor it’s clear, if he’s not, then it’s not. Simple.
It’s a yellow. |
10 yards away....if he's level then the ref is right.
If he was 10 yards in front of Jackson...then a yellow. | |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:09 - Jan 2 with 749 views | ibbleobble |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:07 - Jan 2 by andytown |
Interesting listening to the game as I cruise down the A1. They reckon pen was 50/50, that the red card should have been yellow as not a clear goal scoring opportunity, that the red given v Bolton last game was not a red. Then on the sh*thousing front, thought the ref should have a word with J Jackson as he went down like a sack when challenged by one of the Lincoln players. |
I don’t think it was a pen either. Donacien held his ground well and was the stronger runner. Their striker seemed to run out of steam a bit and Donacien was as dependable as ever. | | | |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:10 - Jan 2 with 709 views | Wallingford_Boy |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:51 - Jan 2 by homer_123 |
Goal scoring opportunity...so yep...def a red. |
It’s not a goal scoring opportunity if it’s Jacko! |  |
| |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:12 - Jan 2 with 694 views | DJR |
So far as I am aware, this is the most up-to-date guidance for referees. On the basis of this, I think the referee was justified in sending the player off.
Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether
to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:
- the distance between the offence and the goal
- the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- the direction of the play
- the location and number of defenders |  | | |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 16:12 - Jan 2 with 688 views | FifeITFC |
| got to be a sending off? (n/t) on 15:54 - Jan 2 by DublinBlue84 |
Even if the defenders were Usain Bolt, they wouldn't have got to Jackson before he shot.
It's not about how many defenders are behind the player who makes the tackle like in offside, it's whether those defenders would be able to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.
If the defenders further back had no chance to prevent a goalscoring opportunity, then the player making the tackle is deemed to have denied a clear goalscoring opportunity.
Therefore he must be sent off for doing so.
It's simple. [Post edited 2 Jan 2023 15:55]
|
I think you've got too much confidence in Jackson. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
