Heaton

[Sheebo]

West stand north end people really had a better view of whether Buckley would've got there first and I assure u he would've. He was also quicker than the defender. Anyone saying otherwise is doing the nsc deliberately going against the grain stupid thing...

 

[Sweeney Todd]

I liked the way that Heaton followed through, lunging at a ball that was long gone - and long after Buckley went down - in an effort to kid the referee that he had gone for the ball, rather like batsmen who inch their legs out of line with the stumps, when plumb LBW, in an attempt to fool the umpire.

 

[shaolinpunk]

Maybe this animated gif helps more;

Definitely a clear goalscoring opportunity - his next touch would have been his left foot rolling the ball into the empty net while the defender tries in vain to get there first

 

[mona]

It was an obvious red card and I was in line with the incident. The keeper had no intention of winning the ball - that alone was reason enough to send him off. The goon on the extended seagull player commentary who thought otherwise should be out of a job.

 

[Philzo-93]

Am I the only that think the ref made the right call ??

 

[The Stout Yeoman]

Four out of five games now, we have had awful decisions against us.

V for Vendetta ....

 

[Basil Fawlty]

He was denying Buckley a goal-scoring opportunity, but the arguing point is there was a covering defender coming back at the point of contact between Heaton and Buckers. It could of gone either way and this case it was a Yellow, but it should of been a straight Red IMO.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

He was denying Buckley a goal-scoring opportunity, but the arguing point is there was a covering defender coming back at the point of contact between Heaton and Buckers. It could of gone either way and this case it was a Yellow, but it should of been a straight Red IMO.

Even if there was a covering defender, it is immaterial. With none of the defending team inside their own penalty area, it is still a clear goal scoring opportunity.

 

[clapham_gull]

I suggest to whoever that is doing the club commentary they need to get a copy of the rule book. Lost count of the times they mentioned "last man". Isn't in the rules.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

It was an obvious red card and I was in line with the incident. The keeper had no intention of winning the ball - that alone was reason enough to send him off. The goon on the extended seagull player commentary who thought otherwise should be out of a job.

Intention is not part of the rule about denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. The goalkeeper may try to get the ball. Or he may try to foul the keeper. It doesn't matter what his aim was. What matters is the result of denying a clear goal scoring opportunity by foul means, for which the player should be sent off.

 

[rdigs24]

So are you saying now is the linesman couldn't tell if there was contact? Anyway that is not the point, the linesman would have been able to see clearly if there was a player between Buckley and the goal.

I maintain that the linesman is there to assist the referee and not just there for offside decisions.

From the position of the referee on the pitch it was his decision. He would have briefed his assistants before the game that is the third of the pitch infront of them is theirs for giving decisions such as fouls. If there had been a incident by the opposite corner flag with the refcloseby who plays on and then the assistant 50 yards away flags to give a foul, he will lose all credibility. This is why he didn't assist on Saturday.

 

[TheJasperCo]

Am I the only that think the ref made the right call ??

Nope

 

[kalinski]

The reckless tackle should have been a straight red...I I think the last man stuff is irrelevant

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Am I the only that think the ref made the right call ??

You're not, but you're wrong.

Even most Burnley fans on the link below have the sense to see it was an offence that deserved a red card
http://boards.footymad.net/forum.php?tno=104&fid=297&sty=2&act=1&mid=2112295516

What is striking on their thread and on here is that the posters who refer most closely to the wording of the rules of the game are saying Heaton should have been sent off in the first half. The ones who are blathering on about 'last man', 'moving towards the corner flag' and 'intending to play the ball' (none of which are explicitly mentioned in the rules of the game that relate to the incident) really need to consider how much of their judgement is given by the TV pundits that they've been listening to over the years and how much is a considered response to the actual wording of the rules.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

The reckless tackle should have been a straight red...I I think the last man stuff is irrelevant

Agree. From what I've seen, which isn't a lot to be fair, that tackle anywhere on the pitch should have been a red - any talk of last men etc. seems irrelevent to me. Doesn't matter, it's 3 points in the bag.

 

[desprateseagull]

any footage from the 2nd offence..?

 

[The Legend that IS Lawro]

Not the whole of it but..... http://www1.skysports.com/football/live/match/287705/video

 

[One Love]

I'm not sure why people are getting bogged down with goal-scoring opportunity stuff. The challenge, if done by an outfield player even with the rest of the team behind him, was so bad it would have been a straight red.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I'm not sure why people are getting bogged down with goal-scoring opportunity stuff. The challenge, if done by an outfield player even with the rest of the team behind him, was so bad it would have been a straight red.

Exactly what I said 3 posts ago !

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

I'm not sure why people are getting bogged down with goal-scoring opportunity stuff. The challenge, if done by an outfield player even with the rest of the team behind him, was so bad it would have been a straight red.

I think the focus on the denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity has been because a reckless tackle is punishable by a caution. It is doubtful whether Heaton used excessive force.