[Albion] You're Lewis Dunk...

[Bodian]

DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.

Where a player commits an offence 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 if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence

The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders

The bit you've quoted isn't the relevant section. The first paragraph is about handball, the second is about penalty area offences, the third is about players entering the field of play. Dunk's was none of these.

The bit you want is just above:

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

So - it's a red card if Dunk denies the opponent an 'obvious goal-scoring opportunity'. We all agree he did. But, if the attacker had stayed on his feet, and still had that goal scoring opportunity (whether he scored or not), it wouldn't have been denied him. Therefore, would not have been a sending off offence.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Both were fouls that stopped a striker having an opportunity to shoot, makes the fouls just the same to me

If that was Dunk on Rashford you could bet your mortgage on a penalty being given imo having watched the big team bias for four seasons now. Just to be clear I agree Dunk’s pull back was a red card.

That is not necessarily an obvious goal scoring opportunity (thank you [MENTION=3462]Springal[/MENTION]). It may be but it may not be.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The bit you've quoted isn't the relevant section. The first paragraph is about handball, the second is about penalty area offences, the third is about players entering the field of play. Dunk's was none of these.

The bit you want is just above:

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

So - it's a red card if Dunk denies the opponent an 'obvious goal-scoring opportunity'. We all agree he did. But, if the attacker had stayed on his feet, and still had that goal scoring opportunity (whether he scored or not), it wouldn't have been denied him. Therefore, would not have been a sending off offence.

That's why it's best to go down when fouled.

Dunk was rightly sent off but the Wolves man should have been booked for diving.

Had the Wolves man simply stopped his run and turned round, affronted (as many players have done this season) it would have been a red card for Dunk and no punishment for the attacker.

Perhaps if Dunk had thrown himself to the ground he'd have been given only a yellow.

I don't really see an end to the 'he should of gone down', 'if he hadn't gone down the ref wouldn't of whistled', 'It wasn't a foul but the ref had to give it' and 'he dived just to get the player sent of' debate.

I love footbal rules, me. Love them.

 

[Machiavelli]

Both were fouls that stopped a striker having an opportunity to shoot, makes the fouls just the same to me

If that was Dunk on Rashford you could bet your mortgage on a penalty being given imo having watched the big team bias for four seasons now. Just to be clear I agree Dunk’s pull back was a red card.

Read the rules. It's pretty clear.

 

[*Gullsworth*]

He knew he had made the wrong decision as soon as it happened.