Oxlade-Chamberlain and Gibbs cleared

[Karl]

The the old farts in the game should bring in technology, all of this wouldn't be necessary.

Agree FULL 100.

Not certain bout the did not deserve a red card. Is it because they figured the ball was going out? Well, the player didn't
know that and the ref would have no way of knowing that.

Player and ref erred.
If player errs here then he is not afoul of the Law. Remember 'The Law' that demands a sending off mandates that the offending player must infringe by preventing a goal-scoring opportunity.

A ball flying wide of goal on its way out of play can never be deemed to have been on a goal-scoring path. Hence 'The Ox' was not guilty of preventing a goal/denying a goal-scoring opportunity.

The ref on the other hand wrongly assumed it was a goal-scoring opportunity taken away/prevented a goal-scoring opportunity and sent off a player who should not be sent-off. In any case, the ref compounded his error and sent off a player who was not even involved in the incident.

I would guess, while his transgression on misidentification could get him a warming, his misinterpretation and incorrect enforcement of 'The Law' shall get him serious punishment.

[Karl]

I agree with you TOTALLY! If I bring down an attacker as the last defender, who knows whether he (attacker) would in fact have scored, yet the defender would get a red and the ensuing ban. The ban should have been upheld and transferred to Ox.

That hand ball IS ABSOLUTELY no DIFFERENT than Suarez's as I said on Karl's thread, except it was more acrobatic.

Intent was no different.
Therefore those who 'kill' Suarez have selective 'feelings'. Wonder if his playing for Uruguay and not the favored TEAM Ghana was the difference maker? (wry smile!)

[Paul Marin]

Therefore the fact that the ball is off target is incidental to the call; and given that the last defender who brings a man down (who has gotten no shot off) gets the same red, then, except for Mosiah who should know better , we're all in agreement? whatever consequence of the red card should have stood against Ox.

Actually, the ball being off target is NOT incidental to the call, but rather very material. Because it was off target, he could have gotten a YELLOW for an intentional handball (unsporting behaviour).

The law regarding preventing an obvious goal scoring opportunity with a man being brought down is speculative giving the ref discretion. The law as it applies to denying a goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball is definitive and black and white. Both require the ref to issue a red card. They read:

• denying 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)
• denying 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

As far as the yellow for handball is concerned, the law reads:

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

• unsporting behaviour (etc.)

There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required
when a player deliberately handles the ball, e.g. when a player:

• deliberately handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession
• attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball

A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from
the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable
and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored

[Peter R]

Thanks for that clarification... so Ox most likely deserved a yellow. He's lucky he escaped any sanction...

[Paul Marin]

Thanks for that clarification... so Ox most likely deserved a yellow. He's lucky he escaped any sanction...

Whether he "most likely deserved a yellow" is hard to figure out, because the issuance of the yellow card in the instance of a hand ball can only be for "unsporting behaviour". So it comes down to whether the ref believes handling the ball was unsporting. For me, Ox's clear attempt at deception was unsporting, but any given ref may think differently. The handball that was a CLEAR yellow (but not given) was Rafael's against Liverpool - had he gotten a yellow for that infraction, it would have been his second and Manu** would have been down to 10 men...and could have picked up 6-0.

[Tilla]

I was thinking that the red card should have been taken from Gibbs and handed to Ox. On second thought, I think Arsenal suffered enough punishment when they were hammered 6-0 for the FA to pile on more punishment on them.

I say let it go.

[Paul Marin]

Agree FULL 100.



Player and ref erred.
If player errs here then he is not afoul of the Law. Remember 'The Law' that demands a sending off mandates that the offending player must infringe by preventing a goal-scoring opportunity.

A ball flying wide of goal on its way out of play can never be deemed to have been on a goal-scoring path. Hence 'The Ox' was not guilty of preventing a goal/denying a goal-scoring opportunity.

The ref on the other hand wrongly assumed it was a goal-scoring opportunity taken away/prevented a goal-scoring opportunity and sent off a player who should not be sent-off. In any case, the ref compounded his error and sent off a player who was not even involved in the incident.

I would guess, while his transgression on misidentification could get him a warming, his misinterpretation and incorrect enforcement of 'The Law' shall get him serious punishment.

Don't wait on technology. Remember, if they introduce it, how then can they tief? As someone said before "Blatter is a kartel" on to himself. Russia and Qatar will eventually be exposed for what they were, blatant robbery. In the same vein, technology will remain absent from everyday refereeing decisions for a long, long time.

[Mosiah]

What did Russia and Qatar rob? How?

[Paul Marin]

What did Russia and Qatar rob? How?

By bribing FIFA officials, they robbed their legitimate competitors.

[Gamma]

~devil's advocate~ and this is different from any of the previous awarding process because...?!!

[Paul Marin]

~devil's advocate~ and this is different from any of the previous awarding process because...?!!

...because this time they went too far letting their corruption get way ahead of them. It's that simple. It's like the mafia man dem - shooting and killing another gangster is one thing, but while its death same way, killing a priest is a very different story.

[Karl]

Actually, the ball being off target is NOT incidental to the call, but rather very material. Because it was off target, he could have gotten a YELLOW for an intentional handball (unsporting behaviour).

The law regarding preventing an obvious goal scoring opportunity with a man being brought down is speculative giving the ref discretion. The law as it applies to denying a goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball is definitive and black and white. Both require the ref to issue a red card. They read:

• denying 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)
• denying 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

As far as the yellow for handball is concerned, the law reads:

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

• unsporting behaviour (etc.)

There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required
when a player deliberately handles the ball, e.g. when a player:

• deliberately handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession
• attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball

A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from
the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable
and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored

...but why yellow (caution)?
You clearly state/quote that a yellow (caution) should be given...and I repeat what you posted above...under the following circumstances

- A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:
[/SIZE]

• unsporting behaviour (etc.)

There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required
when a player deliberately handles the ball, e.g. when a player:

• deliberately handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession
• attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball

A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from
the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable
and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored[/QUOTE].

Did The Ox handle the ball attempting to score a goal?

Did he prevent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity?

Did he prevent a goal being scored?

From your quote I would like you to point out the section under which a yellow (caution) should be given?

...or are you saying those are mere examples and there are other occasions under which a caution should have been issued because of his handling of the ball? ...such as?

[Karl]

Which rule states technology should not be used for reviews during 'trials'?

...and I know, you know technology is par for the course when reviewing incidents that had occurred during match days - On-the-field and off-the-field. .

[Mosiah]

Hmmm...there is a parallel here with Suarez' behaviour.

Help me locate it, Paul Marin. Please and thanks!

[Paul Marin]

I am saying that he COULD have gotten a yellow if the ref thought he was guilty of unsporting behavior. The two examples given, were just that examples, not the only situations that warrant a yellow - straight out of the rule book.