why wasn't USA ...

[Gordons Cumming]

Stupid rule when it applies to goalkeepers.

They are always going to be the last man.

Ridiculous.

It was originally aimed at stopping the professional foul by defenders when strikers were clear on goal and cynically brought down.

I think it's gone too far now.

Just like a yellow card if you celebrate with the fans.

[SpaceCruiser]

What about the foul on Doyle prior to this incident?

[Man Friday]

Under the rules, Hahnemann should have been sent off. Without argument. The fact that Wiley "applied common sense" makes us very lucky. To para phrase one very witty observer: "these things have a habit of evening themselves out over a season so let's hope that all our luck is not used up when we're 3-0 down!" Refs get critisicised for not applying the rules strictly and applying so-called common sense and get criticised for applying the rules strictly and not applying common sense. They can't win really in this regard. I believe he should have sent H off. These things are wider than just the match itself. It could be crucial to Arseneal's (and ours) goal difference and may affect the Pompey match. Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining. I'm a Reading fan. I'm just stating what should have happened and why.

[Man Friday]

Under the rules, Hahnemann should have been sent off. Without argument. The fact that Wiley "applied common sense" makes us very lucky. To para phrase one very witty observer: "these things have a habit of evening themselves out over a season so let's hope that all our luck is not used up when we're 3-0 down!" Refs get critisicised for not applying the rules strictly and applying so-called common sense and get criticised for applying the rules strictly and not applying common sense. They can't win really in this regard. I believe he should have sent H off. These things are wider than just the match itself. It could be crucial to Arseneal's (and ours) goal difference and may affect the Pompey match. Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining. I'm a Reading fan. I'm just stating what should have happened and why.

[Gordons Cumming]

What about the foul on Doyle prior to this incident?

Yep

Biased refereeing.

Riley

Whiley

No more refs with ....."iley" at the end of their name.

[bcubed]

Under the rules, Hahnemann should have been sent off. Without argument. The fact that Wiley "applied common sense" makes us very lucky. To para phrase one very witty observer: "these things have a habit of evening themselves out over a season so let's hope that all our luck is not used up when we're 3-0 down!" Refs get critisicised for not applying the rules strictly and applying so-called common sense and get criticised for applying the rules strictly and not applying common sense. They can't win really in this regard. I believe he should have sent H off. These things are wider than just the match itself. It could be crucial to Arseneal's (and ours) goal difference and may affect the Pompey match. Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining. I'm a Reading fan. I'm just stating what should have happened and why.

I agree with this - he should have gone

In my view, if you have to rely on the application of "common sense" the only thing thing you can be sure of getting on a consistent basis is inconsistency.

The rules are generally not specific enough or precise enough. Look at rugby league or American Football in comparison - pages more rules. And what constitutes a particular contravention of a rule is spelt out in loads more detail. In addition they have a much better quality of referee and get things right far more often than they get it wrong.
Wish we could say the same for football refs

[bigmike]

Most intelligent referees would not send off a keeper who has commited a foul in the same situation... A penalty was punishment enough...

There was no way that Marcus intended the foul..

[bcubed]

Most intelligent referees would not send off a keeper who has commited a foul in the same situation... A penalty was punishment enough...

There was no way that Marcus intended the foul..

Kinda missing the point

If the rules were clearer you wouldn't need to argue that a penalty was enough - you would know the sanction for that particular infringement and it would be applied every time

[Royal Fleet]

Just watched the goals again on YouTube and it looks as though if Marcus had not caught the man, he could have sent him wide enough that Inga may have been able to get back to cover. I am not sure hewould have done, but it probably seeded enough doubt to preclude the ref from giving the red card. Good call from Wiley.

[Bowman's Quiver]

it was common sense and a good decision not to send hahnemann off as we would of gone on to lose about 6-0.

In my opinion hahnemann made some good saves but his distribution was absolutely woeful.

Why cant he just roll it out immediately after getting it rather than doing his pointless kicks?

This isn't Sunday morning football we're talking about here. Hahnemann should have sent off regardless of what the score was at the time or what it might have ended up at as a result of the dismissal.

If I were a Watford or Charlton supporter I'd be outraged. The suspension that USA would incur (3 games I'd have thought) would put pressure on an already small squad and might, just might, enable them gain ground on us.

Of course I'm glad he didn't get sent off but I fail to understand refereeing (and I am qualified albeit nearly 30 years ago) when Sonko gets to walk for a clumsy challenge with the keeper still to be beaten and Hahnemann stays on when an open goal would have presented itself if he hadn't brought the player down.

[Ian Royal]

it was common sense and a good decision not to send hahnemann off as we would of gone on to lose about 6-0.

In my opinion hahnemann made some good saves but his distribution was absolutely woeful.

Why cant he just roll it out immediately after getting it rather than doing his pointless kicks?

This isn't Sunday morning football we're talking about here. Hahnemann should have sent off regardless of what the score was at the time or what it might have ended up at as a result of the dismissal.

If I were a Watford or Charlton supporter I'd be outraged. The suspension that USA would incur (3 games I'd have thought) would put pressure on an already small squad and might, just might, enable them gain ground on us.

Of course I'm glad he didn't get sent off but I fail to understand refereeing (and I am qualified albeit nearly 30 years ago) when Sonko gets to walk for a clumsy challenge with the keeper still to be beaten and Hahnemann stays on when an open goal would have presented itself if he hadn't brought the player down.

Wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity. could have run the ball out, was going wide of the goal and a defender may have got back to cover. So not a sending off in the rules.

It makes not a rats ass of difference if Marcus was the last man. That isn't in the rules. The important part is clear goalscoring ooportunity. There was doubt over the opportunity therfore no red. The offence was not deliberate, therefore no yellow. the player was impeded, therefore a penalty.

Simple.

Unless you want to apply Chelsea and The Mirror logic and say that Hahnemann had no right to even think about trying to claim the ball because Fabregas is a truely world class player and Marcus isn't fit to clean his boots. In which case fair enough he should have been sent off.

[Platypuss]

Do you really think Fabregas wouldn't have had a clear goal-scoring opportunity if he hadn't been brought down?

[Stranded]

Do you really think Fabregas wouldn't have had a clear goal-scoring opportunity if he hadn't been brought down?

At the angle he would have been at, it could be argued, yes. Though the way they were playing he would have more than likely have knocked it in.

[Ian Royal]

Do you really think Fabregas wouldn't have had a clear goal-scoring opportunity if he hadn't been brought down?

I'm saying that there isn't certainty that he would have. I haven't reviewed the clip other than when watching the game in the pub. As i mention in my previous post, there are a number of factors that leave it uncertain. It was a goal scoring opportunity, not a CLEAR goal scoring opportunity.

[comeonthebiscuitmen]

Here's the applicable law and what I think of it:

http://www.fifa.com/en/laws/Laws12_04.htm


A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

1. is guilty of serious foul play
2. is guilty of violent conduct
3. spits at an opponent or any other person
4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
5. denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
6. uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
7. receives a second caution in the same match.

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off and shown the red card must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

So on the face of it the rules say he should have gone.
However the referees interpret the law in conjunction with guidance that they receive.
My personal view is that Marcus made a genuine attempt to get the ball and therefore shouldn't have been sent off. The Law, in my opinion should reflect this. It may not do so explicitly but intent should come into it.

[Ian Royal]

Here's the applicable law and what I think of it:

http://www.fifa.com/en/laws/Laws12_04.htm


A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

1. is guilty of serious foul play
2. is guilty of violent conduct
3. spits at an opponent or any other person
4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
5. denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
6. uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
7. receives a second caution in the same match.

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off and shown the red card must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

So on the face of it the rules say he should have gone.
However the referees interpret the law in conjunction with guidance that they receive.
My personal view is that Marcus made a genuine attempt to get the ball and therefore shouldn't have been sent off. The Law, in my opinion should reflect this. It may not do so explicitly but intent should come into it.

You could easily argue that he wasn't moving towards the goal, he was going away to the side. Also the arguement that it wasn't a CLEAR goal scoring Opportunity still stands IMO

[Platypuss]

Do you really think Fabregas wouldn't have had a clear goal-scoring opportunity if he hadn't been brought down?

I'm saying that there isn't certainty that he would have. I haven't reviewed the clip other than when watching the game in the pub. As i mention in my previous post, there are a number of factors that leave it uncertain. It was a goal scoring opportunity, not a CLEAR goal scoring opportunity.

You obviously want to equate "clear goal-scoring opportunity" with "would" have scored rather than "could" have scored".

Fabregas clearly would have had an opportunity to score.

Whether he would have actually scored does not matter.

[Question Mark]

Do you really think Fabregas wouldn't have had a clear goal-scoring opportunity if he hadn't been brought down?

I'm saying that there isn't certainty that he would have. I haven't reviewed the clip other than when watching the game in the pub. As i mention in my previous post, there are a number of factors that leave it uncertain. It was a goal scoring opportunity, not a CLEAR goal scoring opportunity.

You obviously want to equate "clear goal-scoring opportunity" with "would" have scored rather than "could" have scored".

Fabregas clearly would have had an opportunity to score.

Whether he would have actually scored does not matter.

This is why these rules are all open to interpretation. For example if he was was fouled 25 yards out with 4 defenders between him and the goal you could still argue that he was denied a clear goal scoring opportunity, especially if he was about to shoot. Obviosuly this is an extreme example but there is a big grey area between this and poleaxing someone when they're standing infront of an open goal with their foot drawn back ready to shoot.

[Ian Royal]

Do you really think Fabregas wouldn't have had a clear goal-scoring opportunity if he hadn't been brought down?

I'm saying that there isn't certainty that he would have. I haven't reviewed the clip other than when watching the game in the pub. As i mention in my previous post, there are a number of factors that leave it uncertain. It was a goal scoring opportunity, not a CLEAR goal scoring opportunity.

You obviously want to equate "clear goal-scoring opportunity" with "would" have scored rather than "could" have scored".

Fabregas clearly would have had an opportunity to score.

Whether he would have actually scored does not matter.

This is why these rules are all open to interpretation. For example if he was was fouled 25 yards out with 4 defenders between him and the goal you could still argue that he was denied a clear goal scoring opportunity, especially if he was about to shoot. Obviosuly this is an extreme example but there is a big grey area between this and poleaxing someone when they're standing infront of an open goal with their foot drawn back ready to shoot.

I agree. How many times do you see strikers miss open goals when it seems it's impossible to miss.

I'm interpretting it as almost certain to score, particularly in the case of a goalkeeper offending as opposed to a chance to score. without seeing what happened had Marcus not brought him down it's difficult to tell.

Regardless of the opportunity to score, given the keeper is making a genuine effort to reach the ball and when he realises he won't tries to avoid the player I can't see how anyone who is a fan of football could argue that a red card is necessary. These are the sort of decisions we should be applauding, not criticising.

I would certainly not expect another teams keeper to be sent off had he done the same to Doyle. Assuming I had been fair minded enough to watch the incident relatively disspassionately and with an open mind.

[Platypuss]

Gerroudavit.

If that had happened to Doyle if it were 0-0 with 30 to go against Charlton then I would expect the opposition goalie to be sent off and absolutely livid if he wasn't.

Never mind the consideration that the penalty could also be missed, of course.

Would you argue that a penalty "is almost certain" to be scored?