comment by Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 41 seconds ago
According to the rules of the game it wasn't even a sending off. You can't get sent off for preventing a goal kick!!
--------------------------------------

That's a desperate argument for me. Stopping a shot towards goal with an outstretched hand as the last man is a red. It's not for the ref to judge whether it was going in or out. Impossible to tell in real time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And it's not like Chamberlain knew where the ball was going.

Only the scousers could turn something completely unrelated to them into an article about how hard done by they would have been

letter of the law is that it has to prevent a goalscoring opportunity to be a red so on replay it should be a yellow

but as said above it looked goal bound so you really can't fault the ref 'in real time' making that judgement

comment by The Kaisers Trainers (U5676)
posted 52 seconds ago
letter of the law is that it has to prevent a goalscoring opportunity to be a red so on replay it should be a yellow

but as said above it looked goal bound so you really can't fault the ref 'in real time' making that judgement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It did stop a goalscoring opportunity. A shot is a goalscoring opportunity.

Regardless I don't think that even comes into play. It was handball in the area, he brought his arm up to meet the ball, which is classed as intentional and therefore a sending off.`

It's irrelevant what chamberlain knew, the rules are the rules. You can only be sent off in this scenario for denying a goal or goal scoring opportunity, as neither of those happened it wasn't a sending off. Penalty and yellow no doubt.

Also the idea that the ref can't tell whether it was going in or not means that he shouldn't send him off!! If he didn't see it, and neither did his officials, which was quite clearly the case, he shouldn't be simply having a guess at it!

It was poor officiating from every possible way you look at it, not a single part of the decision was correct.

a shot clearly on replay going out for a goal kick

I'm off topic though, the ref should never listen to the player, he should use his own eyes or listen to another official who saw it better

Fair enough, Righteous.

How on earth is this an article about how it could have effect us WW? Suarez and Aspas are just a great example of players who have a significantly different level of importance to a tean

comment by The Kaisers Trainers (U5676)
posted 2 minutes ago
a shot clearly on replay going out for a goal kick

I'm off topic though, the ref should never listen to the player, he should use his own eyes or listen to another official who saw it better
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter, that isn't in the rules, the officials have to go by the rules. The rules state denying a goalscoring opportunity. A shot is a goalscoring opportunity.

The rules don't say if it stops a shot which is on target.

a shot off target has a 0% chance of being a goal

would have been yellow 100% of the time if we had video replay

Good point OP, it's gone right over some peoples heads though.

IMO the referee made his decision and he has to stand by it... otherwise, as you point out, there is the potential for this kind of thing to be abused.

comment by The Kaisers Trainers (U5676)
posted 2 hours, 13 minutes ago
a shot off target has a 0% chance of being a goal

would have been yellow 100% of the time if we had video replay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wouldn't because that isn't the rule, which I've stated over and over again. The rule is denying a goal scoring opportunity. Denying a shot is denying a goal scoring opportunity.

They couldn't expect a referee to see whether a shot is on target or not, that's ridiculous and therefore that's not the rule.

Now if there was video evidence used, perhaps they'd change that rule but it would definitely slow the game down in a lot of instances as you'd need different angles and time to make the decision.

"The rule is denying a goal scoring opportunity"

exactly

a shot off target can not, under any circumstances, ever be a goal scoring opportunity. Ever. Ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever.

because it can't go in the net. It is impossible.

A shot is a goal scoring opportunity. The rule isn't split between a shot on target and a shot off target, considering it would be impossible for the referee to judge that in many instances. It's very simple, it's not denying a shot that was on target, it's denying a goal scoring opportunity, which a shot is. It's a simple rule because sometimes making rules complicated means judging it very difficult.

Ox wasn't diving across goal to prevent a corner.

He thought it was going in, and was cheating to stop it = red card.

The fact it was going wide is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

If I was a ref I would give a red

If replay was available, and the letter of the law was followed it would be a yellow.

I'm really not sure what point you're making TOOR

Yes I agree with that, if the rules were changed due to having video technology.

My problem is people saying it shouldn't have been a sending off because the shot wasn't on target. That's not the rule.