Arsenal sending off- referee says no?

[Acker79]

How can anyone say that was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity? It clearly was. It doesn't say anywhere that the ball has to be on it's way in.

Of course it does. It says "if he prevents a goal or a goal scoring opportunity". Take that in two parts

"prevent a goal"
To prevent a goal, the ball has to be going in. Or else there is no goal being prevented.

It's the same rule as for a red card for a professional foul. Who's to say whether the player would definitely have scored if he hadn't been brought down by the last man when clean through, but it's an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

"Preventing a goal scoring opportunity"
This means stopping someone taking shot - using your hand to poke the ball away as they're about to head it, or using your hand to stop the ball going through to someone in a good shooting position. Since a shot was taken, that goal scoring opportunity wasn't denied by the handball (he got a shot away, and it went wide, the same as if a player is fouled but the ref waves play on because there's a shot to be had, in such circumstances refs aren't supposed to give reds because the team got a shot away, regardless of how on target it is). So in this instance denying a goal scoring opportunity is about whether there was a chance for someone else to follow up with a shot.

With a professional foul, when determining if the a goal scoring opportunity has been denied referees have to consider where on the pitch the incident occurred, the severity of the foul, whether there were covering defenders, and - importantly in this case - how likely the player is to have gained or retained possession of the ball without the foul.

In this instance, the ball was going wide, no player could get on the end of it, it would have gone out of play without the handball, ergo, no clear goal scoring opportunity was denied.

The fact that the player put the shot wide is irrelevant. What if the shot was going to hit the post, is that then not a red because it wasn't going in? How is the ref supposed to judge whether it will bounce straight back out to the striker or go wide in that situation.

Given my explanation above, that. The ball was going wide is entirely relevant. It wasn't going to hit the post so that's an irrelevance, the rules apply to what actually occurred, not what could have occurred in some hypothetical situation.


What occurred was a shot was taken, was going wide, got helped on its way by a player's hand, no goal was denied, no goal scoring opportunity was denied. According to the laws of the game, that is not a red card offence.

Is it an understandable mistake? Absolutely. By all accounts it was the side facing assistant who alerted the ref to the incident, and named the player, the ref was taking his advice, and from that view, the Lino wouldn't be able to see it was going wide. The ref has to trust his assistants,and can't just take the word of a player.

Will the FA overturn it? They should, but they don't always do what they should, especially when they want to protect officials. Having got the wrong player is embarrassing enough, they might argue there isn't enough evidence to overturn the red. To me, and so many others, it is clear the ball was going wide, swerving away from goal before it was touched by AOC, so should be overturned.

 

[Seagulltonian]

The Ox needs to go to goalkeeping school, to know that the ball coming at that angle was going to go wide, so there was no need to make the "save"

 

[Goldstone1976]

[MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION] You make a compelling argument. One can forgive the ref for going "OK, my lino is telling me that there's a deliberate handball that's stopped a goal, ergo red card". It would be surprising that a Lino is better placed than the ref to make that call, but whatever.

My question is, if your assessment is correct, and from reading the rule you cite, I think it is, should it even have been a pen?

 

[Commander]

Of course it does. It says "if he prevents a goal or a goal scoring opportunity". Take that in two parts

"prevent a goal"
To prevent a goal, the ball has to be going in. Or else there is no goal being prevented.



"Preventing a goal scoring opportunity"
This means stopping someone taking shot - using your hand to poke the ball away as they're about to head it, or using your hand to stop the ball going through to someone in a good shooting position. Since a shot was taken, that goal scoring opportunity wasn't denied by the handball (he got a shot away, and it went wide, the same as if a player is fouled but the ref waves play on because there's a shot to be had, in such circumstances refs aren't supposed to give reds because the team got a shot away, regardless of how on target it is). So in this instance denying a goal scoring opportunity is about whether there was a chance for someone else to follow up with a shot.

With a professional foul, when determining if the a goal scoring opportunity has been denied referees have to consider where on the pitch the incident occurred, the severity of the foul, whether there were covering defenders, and - importantly in this case - how likely the player is to have gained or retained possession of the ball without the foul.

In this instance, the ball was going wide, no player could get on the end of it, it would have gone out of play without the handball, ergo, no clear goal scoring opportunity was denied.



Given my explanation above, that. The ball was going wide is entirely relevant. It wasn't going to hit the post so that's an irrelevance, the rules apply to what actually occurred, not what could have occurred in some hypothetical situation.


What occurred was a shot was taken, was going wide, got helped on its way by a player's hand, no goal was denied, no goal scoring opportunity was denied. According to the laws of the game, that is not a red card offence.

Is it an understandable mistake? Absolutely. By all accounts it was the side facing assistant who alerted the ref to the incident, and named the player, the ref was taking his advice, and from that view, the Lino wouldn't be able to see it was going wide. The ref has to trust his assistants,and can't just take the word of a player.

Will the FA overturn it? They should, but they don't always do what they should, especially when they want to protect officials. Having got the wrong player is embarrassing enough, they might argue there isn't enough evidence to overturn the red. To me, and so many others, it is clear the ball was going wide, swerving away from goal before it was touched by AOC, so should be overturned.

I'm still not convinced. I don't see where it says in the law that the ball has to be going in for it to be an obvious goalscoring opportunity. As far as the ref is concerned, a shot has beaten the keeper and the defender has used his hand to stop the ball going in the net. Whether or not it would definitely have gone in is immaterial, it is an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Red card.

I'm more than willing to be told otherwise by a qualified referee though.

 

[Acker79]

I'm still not convinced. I don't see where it says in the law that the ball has to be going in for it to be an obvious goalscoring opportunity. As far as the ref is concerned, a shot has beaten the keeper and the defender has used his hand to stop the ball going in the net. Whether or not it would definitely have gone in is immaterial, it is an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Red card.

I'm more than willing to be told otherwise by a qualified referee though.

(I hope this doesn't sound patronising, I'm trying to be clear, but I've found that I sound a bit condescending when I do that. I don't mean to, if it does come across that way, I apologise.)

You seem to think the player who took the shot and missed had his goal scoring opportunity denied, that seems to be the confusion. He did not, because he took a shot on goal before the infringement.

The goal, and the goal scoring opportunity are two different reasons why a handball can be a red card: either it denies a goal or it denies a goal scoring opportunity.

A goal is a goal. The ball going between the posts and under the cross bar, and the whole of the ball passing over the whole of the line. To deny a goal, you have to stop the ball entering the goal and entirely crossing the goal line.

That the shot is going wide means it was not going to be a goal direct from that shot. You agree with that, I think, so we're in agreement AOC didn't deny a goal. So no red card on the count of denying a goal.


So, you then ask, did he deny a goal scoring opportunity?

An obvious or clear goalscoring opportunity simply means a player in a good position to shoot. Once you've taken a shot you can't have a goal scoring opportunity denied. The opportunity is the chance to shoot, nothing more.

The shot that he handled was a shot that was taken, so the opportunity for that player wasn't denied, the player was allowed to shoot before the infringement. So for this instance, it means: did his handling of the ball stop the ball going to a player who would have been in a good position to take a shot on goal?

As covered in my previous posts, there was no Chelsea player in a position to receive the ball in such a position. Because the ball was going wide, and the handling of the ball took place no more than a foot or two from the goal line, there was no chance that a Chelsea player could run onto the errant shot before it went out of play even without AOC handling the ball.

If no Chelsea player had a chance of getting on the end of the errant shot, they had no chance of getting in a good goalscoring opportunity with the ball, so no goalscoring opportunity was denied. Thus, not a red card for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity - no one was prevented from shooting as a result of the hand ball.


I would post this link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-Oxlade-Chamberlain-sent-Stamford-Bridge.html but any time Graham Poll says anything he is dismissed because he gave a player three yellow cards.

 

[shaolinpunk]

My question is, if your assessment is correct, and from reading the rule you cite, I think it is, should it even have been a pen?

It's still a foul for deliberate handball, and therefore a penalty. Just not a red card.

 

[Acker79]

[MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION] You make a compelling argument. One can forgive the ref for going "OK, my lino is telling me that there's a deliberate handball that's stopped a goal, ergo red card". It would be surprising that a Lino is better placed than the ref to make that call, but whatever.

My question is, if your assessment is correct, and from reading the rule you cite, I think it is, should it even have been a pen?

Firstly, having seen the Graham Poll article, apparently I was misinformed by the 5live commentary team, and it was all Andre Mariner's mistake. He has supposedly taken full responsibility for the error. So, unless he is just taking the blame as head of his officiating team, he personally got it wrong.

And, yes, it should have been a penalty. He deliberately handled the ball in the area - an infringement that is punished with a direct free kick. Any offence that is punished with a direct free kick that occurs in the penalty area is a penalty kick.

A card only has to be issued if:
-It was an attempt to score a goal using his hand (yellow)
-prevents an opponent receiving the ball, in a non-goalscoring opportunity position (yellow)
-denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity (red)
-denies a goal (red)

Other than that a card isn't an automatic punishment for deliberate handling. (I've been at the amex and heard people say "surely that's a yellow, it was deliberate")

 

[Commander]

(I hope this doesn't sound patronising, I'm trying to be clear, but I've found that I sound a bit condescending when I do that. I don't mean to, if it does come across that way, I apologise.)

You seem to think the player who took the shot and missed had his goal scoring opportunity denied, that seems to be the confusion. He did not, because he took a shot on goal before the infringement.

The goal, and the goal scoring opportunity are two different reasons why a handball can be a red card: either it denies a goal or it denies a goal scoring opportunity.

A goal is a goal. The ball going between the posts and under the cross bar, and the whole of the ball passing over the whole of the line. To deny a goal, you have to stop the ball entering the goal and entirely crossing the goal line.

That the shot is going wide means it was not going to be a goal direct from that shot. You agree with that, I think, so we're in agreement AOC didn't deny a goal. So no red card on the count of denying a goal.


So, you then ask, did he deny a goal scoring opportunity?

An obvious or clear goalscoring opportunity simply means a player in a good position to shoot. Once you've taken a shot you can't have a goal scoring opportunity denied. The opportunity is the chance to shoot, nothing more.

The shot that he handled was a shot that was taken, so the opportunity for that player wasn't denied, the player was allowed to shoot before the infringement. So for this instance, it means: did his handling of the ball stop the ball going to a player who would have been in a good position to take a shot on goal?

As covered in my previous posts, there was no Chelsea player in a position to receive the ball in such a position. Because the ball was going wide, and the handling of the ball took place no more than a foot or two from the goal line, there was no chance that a Chelsea player could run onto the errant shot before it went out of play even without AOC handling the ball.

If no Chelsea player had a chance of getting on the end of the errant shot, they had no chance of getting in a good goalscoring opportunity with the ball, so no goalscoring opportunity was denied. Thus, not a red card for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity - no one was prevented from shooting as a result of the hand ball.


I would post this link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-Oxlade-Chamberlain-sent-Stamford-Bridge.html but any time Graham Poll says anything he is dismissed because he gave a player three yellow cards.

I understand what you're saying, and I suppose to the letter of the law you are correct. However, we don't know how the referees are instructed to interpret this particular law. If you attempt to kick a player but miss, it's still a red card. Yes, this is a different law altogether, and I think in that particular law it is specified that 'kicking, or attempting to kick another player' is an offence, but I'd be surprised if the referees are not supposed to interpret this kind of thing in the same way.

AOC did what he did to deny a goal. He thought he was denying a goal, or he wouldn't have done it, so his 'crime' is surely the same as if the shot was bending in. In that situation, surely the referee has to send him off? The benefit of the doubt must surely go to the attacking team there because the offence and intent were clear, that must outweigh the fact that the ref couldn't be sure if the shot was definitely going in or not. The referee would have been crucified if he'd not have sent the player off in that situation.

 

[pb21]

If it were on target, but heading towards the GK, it would still be a red card, even though the keeper will have saved.

I think giving the red card for this offence is more for the intention than the outcome.

 

[Commander]

If it were on target, but heading towards the GK, it would still be a red card, even though the keeper will have saved.

I think giving the red card for this offence is more for the intention than the outcome.

If it was heading towards the goalkeeper it would have been an extraordinary decision for the defender to dive in front of him and save it with his hand. Not exactly the vote of confidence you'd want from your defenders in your ability.

 

[Acker79]

I understand what you're saying, and I suppose to the letter of the law you are correct.

Thank you.

However,

No no! Stop with telling me I'm correct.

we don't know how the referees are instructed to interpret this particular law. If you attempt to kick a player but miss, it's still a red card. Yes, this is a different law altogether, and I think in that particular law it is specified that 'kicking, or attempting to kick another player' is an offence, but I'd be surprised if the referees are not supposed to interpret this kind of thing in the same way.

The laws of the game pdf from the FIFA website is in two parts: the laws, and the interpretation guidelines for referees. The interpretation section is where they define terms, give examples of what is or isn't offside, and is where the bit I quoted in a previous post came from. Granted, there may have been memos early this season or through out, giving further explanation, and my position may be based on outdated interpretation, but I would suspect Graham Poll would have access to such memos through his links with other current refs and the refereeing union, so he is still up on interpretation, but who knows? I can't think of an incident this season that would have resulted in the need to clarify the law with respect to such a situation as what happened yesterday, so don't see a reason for an update after the start of the season.

The attempting to kick analogy is a fair one, but I would imagine one is an attempt to hurt someone and that when it comes to player safety, intent is just as important as outcome, whereas attempting to gain an unfair advantage is not deemed as serious as actually gaining it, so the importance of the outcome is greater than the intent. But it is probably splitting hairs.

AOC did what he did to deny a goal. He thought he was denying a goal, or he wouldn't have done it, so his 'crime' is surely the same as if the shot was bending in. In that situation, surely the referee has to send him off? The benefit of the doubt must surely go to the attacking team there because the offence and intent were clear, that must outweigh the fact that the ref couldn't be sure if the shot was definitely going in or not. The referee would have been crucified if he'd not have sent the player off in that situation.

I don't mean to be criticising the referee, it's an entirely understandable mistake (the red card, not the mistaken identity) and there are a lot of situations where refs will be slaughered if they do and slaughtered if they don't. They do get a lot of unfair criticism. I'm just explaining why, according to the letter of the law, it isn't a red card or why I and others think it shouldn't be. I believe it will only be overturned (after it is transferred to AOC) if there is clear evidence that he didn't deny a goal, for me the evidence is clear, for the FA we'll have to wait and see.

I would agree that the law needs tweeking to explicitly cover intent in such situations where there is deliberate contact that doesn't technically deny a goal or goal scoring opportunity (would need such clarity to avoid a flailing arm that doesn't make contact being mistaken as an intent to cheat), but as it is, that is why people such as myself are saying it wasn't a red.

 

[Acker79]

To, perhaps, draw a line under this, it has been announced that the FA have upheld the two appeals from Arsenal, and both players will be available for the next game.


http://www.thefa.com/news/governance/2014/mar/alex-oxlade-chamberlain-kieran-gibbs-appeal

An Independent Regulatory Commission today heard two claims from Arsenal, one of mistaken identity and the other of wrongful dismissal, both in relation to Saturday’s game against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge.

The Commission ruled that the dismissal of Kieran Gibbs was a case of mistaken identity and transferred this to his team-mate Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.

Subsequent to deciding this matter, the Commission then considered Arsenal’s claim for wrongful dismissal in relation to Oxlade-Chamberlain.

This claim was upheld meaning Oxlade-Chamberlain will not serve any suspension with the standard punishment withdrawn with immediate effect.​

Now we're just left to debate whether "deliberately handling with intent to deny a clear goal or goalscoring opportunity" should be added as a red card offence (and I agree it should).

 

[desprateseagull]

for what its worth, both players since 'cleared', no bans or suspensions, according to bbc news.. I wonder how long Mr Marinade will last, though..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26711403


Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Kieran Gibbs cleared by FA
Arsenal's Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Kieran Gibbs have both been cleared after Gibbs was mistakenly sent off in Saturday's 6-0 defeat to Chelsea.

A Football Association panel decided that referee Andre Marriner not only dismissed the wrong player, but that Oxlade-Chamberlain's goal-line handball did not deserve a red card.

Neither player will serve any ban following the incident.

Marriner will referee Southampton's home game with Newcastle on Saturday.
(yeah, riiiight)