Newport Vs Argyle

[LeonTheGreen]

Going. Could be a banana skin. Think we will win 0-1. First half goal. Jervis.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

Going. Could be a banana skin. Think we will win 0-1. First half goal. Jervis.

Hope you did not back that prediction up at the bookies? Jervis on the bench, Tanner on.

I think the fact it has not rained heavily should suit us, think we'd struggle on a quagmire.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

FT: 1-3

Another win. Lost count of how many games unbeaten

 

[Boletus Edulis]

We got the same number of penalties today as we did the whole of last year!

 

[Vanni]

Slew! Always said the boy was class

 

[Roger Stone]

Even game today, thought we matched Argyle. Shocking decision for second pen, don't know where these refs come from. V similar to the cheating fuckers at Luton.

 

[Beast]

Looked a guarantee penalty for me in the highlights and the fact none of your players complain usually means that they no it was correct aswell.

 

[Roger Stone]

Can assure you our players complained. Attacker ran into Jones and fell over him. Summed up an incompetent display by the ref, also by the letter of the law Day should not have been sent off. Anyway game is gone and time to move onto the next. Time we started getting some breaks.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

Summed up an incompetent display by the ref, also by the letter of the law Day should not have been sent off.

IFAB Laws of the Game 2016/17, Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct. Under the subsection 'Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity' the letter of the law is:
"Where a player commits an offense against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal- scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick the offending player is cautioned unless:
- The offense is holding, pulling or pushing or
- The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball

The following must be considered:
- Distance between the offence and the goal
- General direction of the play
- Likelihood of keeping or gaining contact with the ball
- Location and number of defenders."

There was a line about serious foul play (i.e. violent conduct) which is not germane here and I have not included. Based on the above I am struggling to see how the referee did the wrong thing in sending the goalie off? I would be interested in the views of those of who have seen the incident, as it looks to me that the ref got it right.

 

[ProfessorGreen]

I was directly behind the goal so had a good view of the foul, and also sought clarity from a refereeing mate of mine (to quite a high standard too) as I thought the law change wasn't implemented by the ref.

Essentially as explained in the post above if the foul denying the goal scoring opportunity results in a penalty kick, but the foul is a genuine attempt to play the ball, then a yellow card should be given as otherwise the red is a double penalisation.

Where the confusion can occur is if the referee feels the fouler has made no genuine attempt to play the ball and also denies the goal scoring opportunity, in which case it is appropriate to red card the player in addition to awarding the penalty.

Applying this to Saturday, clearly the ref thought the keeper made no attempt on the ball and the red card was justified. (I would say the referee was correct here and the Newport keeper thought he was playing for the Newport Gwent Dragons on his rugby grapple haul down of Slew after he had rounded him and had a 2 yard out open goal).

So essentially everything is left down to the referee's discretion on whether he feels an attempt is made for the ball, which could lead to a lot of inconsistency and grey area.