Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Graham Paddons Beard

Idah and the one on one . Good refereeing?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Chelm Canary said:

Yes of course mate.  You're right 

Indeed. Apologies Chelm.  I should have stopped there too.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Interesting Nutty. So you would have played the advantage as the ref did, let Idah take the benefit of that to get a shot on goal, miss it, and then pull it back for a foul? Many would say the advantage was played out as soon as he had his shot. 'Advantage' is, of course, subjective.

As an aside, I don't recall Idah or any of the other players kicking up a fuss over the incident. Players are never usually backwards about coming forwards with their complaints.

OTBC

I think it depends upon your version of what an advantage is.

For me, an advantage is something that increases your chances, gives you an edge, has you in more control or entire control.

I agree with NN. I think the ref bottles it, he knows if he blows straight up the keeper has to go, he doesn't as he doesn't want to. However, it's not actually that much of an advantage. And the ref bottles bringing play back.

If any player goes down in that situation it's a free kick all day long. 9 times out of 10 that would also be the keeper off. I don't think you'd find many football fans of any club saying otherwise unless it's on the day against their team. They'd want it for theirs though...

Just because a player gets a shot off, doesn't mean that there must have been an advantage. In this instance, Idah was stumbled allowing for a defender to get back goalside thanks to Idah also being forced wider. By the time he hits the ball he is unbalanced, wide of the goal with a narrowing angle and with a defender reducing the angle entirely.

Had he not have been fouled by the keeper, he would have been around him in a central position with a wide open goal to roll the ball into, no defender to beat, not off balanced.

Firstly, where is the advantage? Secondly, even if he shoots, it can still be brought back if it is felt that the play didn't lead to any beneficial advantage - which it didn't. 

Edited by chicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advantage

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence.



So from reading this the goalkeeper would have been cautioned I think. Although I'm not sure the ref did give advantage.  It does also seem that once the shot has been taken, the ref can't pull play back and give the free kick. Idah should have gone down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Taiwan Canary said:

Advantage

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence.



So from reading this the goalkeeper would have been cautioned I think. Although I'm not sure the ref did give advantage.  It does also seem that once the shot has been taken, the ref can't pull play back and give the free kick. Idah should have gone down.

Agreed. At the very least the ref does not signal for play to go on to suggest an advantage is being played. I genuinely think he bottled it.

However, the ref can pull it back any time they like up until the moment the shot is struck. Having a shot doesn't mean the advantage stops. I've seen play go on for quite some time before it is pulled back before.

But in either case, the ref should have blown up for the foul, then when it was clear Idah was off balance, then when it was clear that Idah had been forced wider than he would have been a) without contact, b) without being off balance due to the contact. The next time it could have been called back was when the defender gets level with Idah. And then again when he takes the shot by which time the defender is blocking a large portion of the goal making it harder for him to score.

All of those things were only advantages to the team who committed the original foul. Reality is that the laws of the game do not require a player to go to ground to get a free kick, therefore the only reason anyone is suggesting he should is because it'd have "bought" the free kick more convincingly.

As for the only being cautioned, I think there is another law that governs a tackle by the last player. In theory, by applying that law alone you couldn't send a player off for a late tackle and last man. Which is why we don't see that and we see defenders etc generally staying on their feet in those situations.

In either case, what we are left to accept as the conclusion is that the referee didn't even feel that the challenge on Idah was a foul. So had he gone to ground, as you suggest, he could have ended up with a yellow for diving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...