Oxford goalkeeper sent off

[Crabbycanary3 994]

He was sent off yesterday for exactly the same action that the Wednesday keeper wasn't.

Which Referee was correct?

[JF 694]

Tough one. The only thing I would say is that there was a Wednesday player between our player and the ball which probably saved him the red

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Both keepers could have just booted the ball away, but didn't.  The Oxford keeper didn't complain when he was sent off.

I don't know the rules, but we have 2 refs who sit near us and they both said it should have been a red. Mind you we are up the other end so could not see any replays at the time.

[JF 694]

It would be a red for stopping a clear goal scoring opportunity. Because the Wednesday player was between ours and the ball it’s not a clear opportunity. In my opinion that makes it a yellow card, not a red. 

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Then it certainly looks like the Oxford keeper should have got a yellow, but didn't complain when he got a red

[JF 694]

Oh yeah it could easily have gone either way. But had Krul been sent off for that I’d have been livid. Think back to his yellow at Leeds, that was more of a goal scoring opportunity than last night. If he doesn’t catch it, the Wednesday player is likely first to the ball

[ncfcstar 287]

My opinion on this is that if this was the 94th minute of a final/crucial game and the keepers know that catching the ball in the same kind of scenario as last night = yellow it will encourage keepers to catch the ball outside the area.  It should be a red.

[JF 694]

3 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

My opinion on this is that if this was the 94th minute of a final/crucial game and the keepers know that catching the ball in the same kind of scenario as last night = yellow it will encourage keepers to catch the ball outside the area.  It should be a red.

But that’s not the rule though. Deliberately handling the ball is a yellow card. Denying a clear goal scoring opportunity is a red. With my Yellow tinted specs off I think they got this one right. Doesn’t excuse the officials overall performance though. I personally would like to see some retrospective action taken against players like Fletcher who have plainly cheated and shown no regrets over deliberately doing so

[ncfcstar 287]

I understand it isn't the rule, but it seems like a flaw in the current laws of the game which can be easily gamed to the advantage of the defending team.

[splutcho 173]

I think this was one of the few things he did get right. Like others have said, I think the presence of the defender means it's not a red.

[Aggy 752]

50 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I understand it isn't the rule, but it seems like a flaw in the current laws of the game which can be easily gamed to the advantage of the defending team.

You could extend that to any foul play. What if a player tugs a shirt of an opponent on the halfway line in the 91st minute to stop them breaking? Should that be a red? No, clear yellow for a professional foul but not a red.

Once the keeper is out of the box the handball rule applies to him as it would any outfield player. Deliberate handball is a freekick. If it is deliberately to stop the opposition from getting possession then it’s a yellow. If it stops a goal scoring opportunity then it’s a red. Most of the time, if a keeper handles outside the box it’s likely to be stopping a goalscoring opportunity, but if there are four defenders around him and it’s unlikely the forward would have got there or scored from it in any event, why should it be a red

[kingsway 94]

2 hours ago, JF said:

Oh yeah it could easily have gone either way. But had Krul been sent off for that I’d have been livid. Think back to his yellow at Leeds, that was more of a goal scoring opportunity than last night. If he doesn’t catch it, the Wednesday player is likely first to the ball

I saw the Oxford keeper get sent off on TV and it looked little different from the Wednesday keeper at Carrow Road last night!

 

Kruls yellow card at Leeds was cause he fouled the Leeds attacker after the Leeds man had lost the ball which is why it wasn't a red cause Krul didn't prevent a goal scoring opportunity! 

[JF 694]

Just now, kingsway said:

I saw the Oxford keeper get sent off on TV and it looked little different from the Wednesday keeper at Carrow Road last night!

 

Kruls yellow card at Leeds was cause he fouled the Leeds attacker after the Leeds man had lost the ball which is why it wasn't a red cause Krul didn't prevent a goal scoring opportunity! 

I didn’t say he did and the yellow for Krul was also the correct decision. Just pointing it out in relation to last nights incident which was also not preventing a goal scoring opportunity and not red 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

Yellow card the correct decision for me. I said so when I saw it live and watching it back later confirms that. As others have said the handball rule is the same for the goalie as for the outfield players. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Still a matter of opinion and unfortunately for us the ref, who had a poor game, judged it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity. But if the presence of a defender is all that is the difference then I suppose he got it right. Still irks though that with our paranoia at themoment, it does seem we are getting the rough end of decisions.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Rough end of decisions by accident, or something more sinister?

[Indy_Bones 441]

The ref was poor last night, yet I'd agree this is one of the few decisions he did get right.

Saying that we've all seen keepers sent off for basically the same thing before, which goes to show that even the refs sometimes have a different interpretation of the law and how it applies in each situation.

[Indy 3,283]

Now what constitutes a goal scoring opportunity? Is it down the ref to decide? Just for instance, had he tried to kick the ball with a defender and striker closing down who can say it wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity! 

But I tend to agree a yellow was about all it warranted.

[canarydan23 4,060]

He was the last man back and he handled a goal bound ball. Take him out of the equation and I'm not sure what that Wednesday player was going to do, with Hernandez and Pukki right on him, to prevent a goalscoring opportunity. Red card all day. One defender, two attackers, goalkeeper stricken with a ball bouncing in the direction of goal. If that isn't a goalscoring opportunity then you're saving the definition for a very, very small number of instances. 

Ref bottled it. 

[Daz Sparks 1,150]

2 hours ago, norfolkbroadslim said:

Rough end of decisions by accident, or something more sinister?

Ha, very easy to believe we are being conspired against Norfolk, but last time I looked we are still in East Anglia, not West Yorkshire.

[CanaryChris 146]

So defenders can catch the ball and only get a yellow card providing there is one of their colleagues around? Sorry not convinced. Was a red card all day long for me.

[JF 694]

4 hours ago, CanaryChris said:

So defenders can catch the ball and only get a yellow card providing there is one of their colleagues around? Sorry not convinced. Was a red card all day long for me.

Yes as that’s the rule. Deliberate hand ball, yellow card. Stopping a clear goal scoring opportunity, red card. Anyone saying it’s a red card all day long are basing that on their opinions, not the rules of the game

[Daz Sparks 1,150]

Absolute full of himself, look at me, dog sh1t ref, but he got that decision right. 

[Well b back 3,190]

So likewise if a yellow so should the Forest one be, there was more than 1 covering defender for that one. Forest never looked like losing before that moment.

[JF 694]

I can’t remember the forest one properly but I think there were no covering defenders between the shef player and the goal, I believe they were all behind the ball

[Aggy 752]

8 hours ago, Well b back said:

So likewise if a yellow so should the Forest one be, there was more than 1 covering defender for that one. Forest never looked like losing before that moment.

If you mean the Forest one on Friday, I thought it was very harsh. I thought at first it had been given for dangerous play as the ssn photo showed two feet with studs up, but when I watched the replay I struggled to see it as a red.

Edited April 21, 2019 by Aggy