*a clear goalscoring opportunity

I think it is an obvious goalscoring opportunity, but all means the same.

Mr. T

Surely by that thinking every time Messi is fouled anywhere near the opposition's box it should be a red card because he is good enough to take on 2 more defenders and score with ease?

=====================================

Come on fella, thats taking it a bit to the extreme. Comparing Messi having to beat 2 players to a 2 on 1 situation, is a bit different.

For the record, i'm not saying it was a stonewall red card, just that i dont think the decision was as blatantly wrong as some are suggesting.

If you're asking me whether i think Spurs would have had a clear goalscoring chance with Cahill on the floor & Knight having to defend his goal against Parker & Defoe, my answer would be yes. Would i have complained had it just been a yellow? No.

May even be clear and obvious!!

I think if there is a pass needed then it is generally accepted that it is not a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity.

D'Jeezus

I think if there is a pass needed then it is generally accepted that it is not a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity

=========================

I accept what you are saying but i'm not sure the rule book would give a "general" description.

Hello

I think it was a jolly good decision. Another easy game, 3 points and our run continues.

Thank you

Thats the problem, Chicken, it is open to interpretation.
Thus you get a player fouled on the edge of the box with only the keeper to beat and not see a red, but then see a player fouled on the half way line and the offending player sent off.


The thing with the Cahill one, it was cynical. i think there was justification for a red, but as everyone has pretty much agreed, it was harsh and we wouldn't be happy if it was our player sent off/

It wouldn't be a massive surprise to see the appeal fail, tbh.

Clear, obvious. Not much difference.

Generally the term 'last man's gets used in instances like this. Cahill was not the last man.

There is enough doubt there for it to be deemed not a clear/obvious goalscoring opportunity.

I do agree though, that we would've lost to Spurs anyway.

I just want my Gary back, ok?

D'Jeezus

It wouldn't be a massive surprise to see the appeal fail, tbh.

===========================

Uhhmmm i would be happy to see him win an appeal but this would mean the FA admitting one of their refs got a decision badly wrong - something they'd be very reluctant to do.

Fingers crossed for Bolton fans though.

we just want are gary back { for a few weeks } i think thats what R.R. meant

To be honest I have seen the challenge 4 times and I think it's a terrible decision.

I thought the rule was last man and goal scoring opportunity....look at the challenge from the side and it clearly shows knight infront of cahill.

Oh and parker being practically on the half way line makes it even worse. If parker was just outside the box then fair enough but as gartside says, if he can score from there then the guys a genius.

If king had brought mark davies down in the same area do you think he would have gone? ...no me either.

We just want OUR Gary back for a few weeks...

I think that's what goldenwyn meant!

I thought the rule was last man
============
"Last man" is a bit of a myth. The ref just has to decide if the foul denies a player a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity.

If anything it only served to show how bad the Luiz decision was.

Mike Dean has come out and said he got the Luiz decision terribly wrong. He thought at the time that Ba had no chance of getting the ball, but on review sees it was a mistake.

aaron,

As D'Jeezus says, the last man rule is just a pure generalisation of the rule.

And no-one is suggesting Parker, or anyone else for that matter, could score from the position where he was fouled - that isn't part of the rule.

Whilst it was harsh, i dont think it was as terrible a decsion as some are making out - its certainly not on comparison to the "ghost goal" Attwell awarded Reading instead of a corner against Watford in 2008.

At the end of the day, if you make no attempt at the ball you're going to get punished.

End of.

At the end of the day, if you make no attempt at the ball you're going to get punished.

--

No Bolton fan thinks he should have got away with it, it was a cynical foul, a yellow card but not a red, never in a million years ....

It is the depth of the opportunity, parker had a hell load to do to score from there - he had to run 50 yards, or pick out a 30 yard pass to defoe, who had to be onside, and then beat Jaaskelainen.

Terrible decish!

you cant seriously justify it, your clutching at straws if you are trying. Either way, tottenham would of beat us regardless, because coyle picked 4-4-2 against the best midfield in the prem! What a t urd!

BWFCCLEGG,

he had to run 50 yards

=================================

It wouldnt matter if he had to run 100 yards. If it is a goal scoring opportunity, its the same as if it was 1 yard out.

I'm not convinced it was a red either, i just dont think it was a shocking decision. Not as bad as the decision not to send of Luiz in the Newcastle v Chelsea match.

I guarantee if the same challenge was made the ref would haven't produced a red if it was a spurs player on a wanderers player.

or pick out a 30 yard pass to defoe, who had to be onside

-----------------

Yeah good point

On that basis, a yellow would have been harsh

aaron,

That, i can neither confirm or deny.

as is said - depth of goal scoring opportunity - it is much more difficult to score from 50 yards than 1 yard.

On your logic, if a goalie is fouled in his own box, that player should be sent off as it was a goalscoring opportunity because the goalie could of caught the ball and hoofed it 100 yards over thopposition goalies yead!

Chicken was it an OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity? if not, shocking decision .....