But it's a red card offence 'if you deny a goal', not 'if you think you might be denying one'.
No it isn't. It's if you deny a clear goalscoring opportunity. Which that clearly was.
But it's a red card offence 'if you deny a goal', not 'if you think you might be denying one'.
I can't think of a more absolute clear cut red card that I've ever seen.
No it isn't. It's if you deny a clear goalscoring opportunity. Which that clearly was.
It may have bent into the goal as per Yaya Toure, who knows for certain the outcome had he not deliberatly handled it.
It may have bent into the goal as per Yaya Toure, who knows for certain the outcome had he not deliberatly handled it.
The biggest mistake the referee made in my opinion was refusing to accept Oxlade-Chamberlain's admission that he was the one who handled the ball.
Did he really think the player was lying!
The biggest mistake the referee made in my opinion was refusing to accept Oxlade-Chamberlain's admission that he was the one who handled the ball.
Did he really think the player was lying!
Gibbs should have stayed on the pitch rather then strutting off in disgust though tbh, I would have stood my ground if I was him for sure, then the matter could have been resolved.
Mariner deserves a few weeks off and a slap on the wrist for that though, no premier league (and bloody FIFA listed!!!) referee should be making comical mistakes like that.
The refereeing system needs a thorough looking at, too many horrendous decisions this season, which wouldn't have happened if there was a "3rd umpire" type bloke behind a computer screen which the ref can refer to at any time if there is a decision he's unsure about. Quite simple, if cricket and rugby can do it why not football?
From the laws of the game (page119 (121 of the PDF))
A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from
the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable
and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored.
Doesn't matter what he thought he was doing (i.e. deliberately handling is not the sending off part) but whether his handling denies a goal or goal scoring opportunity. It does neither. Shouldn't have been a red.
IMO .. I don't think he was actually listening. I guess referees might have got to the point where having made a decision they follow it through, primarily because they've become so used to being verbally bombarded whenever they make critical decisions. Surely if he had been listening he would, you might think, have wondered why another player was owning up, wouldn't he ?
Why? Apart from the fact that TV showed it MAY have gone wide and past the post so not a goal but it was a deliberate handball and cheating so an obvious red card.
The biggest mistake the referee made in my opinion was refusing to accept Oxlade-Chamberlain's admission that he was the one who handled the ball.
Did he really think the player was lying!
From the laws of the game (page119 (121 of the PDF))
A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from
the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable
and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored.
Doesn't matter what he thought he was doing (i.e. deliberately handling is not the sending off part) but whether his handling denies a goal or goal scoring opportunity. It does neither. Shouldn't have been a red.
Never mind critical decisions, it's every decision. Barely a throw in goes by without two players both claiming it. On the other hand I refereed a girls game once and when the ball went for a throw both teams shouted "Theirs!"