To be honest, I think the wording of the law confuses matters and almost encourages appeals.

But the point is that this very good and reasonable discussion has proved that there was not an obvious goalscoring opportunity. We have out up enough points to suggest this. Knight could've covered, players could've got back etc, etc.

Therefore it isn't obvious. If it were obvious we would not be discussing this.

If the Bolton appeal is denied this will become a landmark decision in English football. Other referees will begin to dismiss players for similar tackles. We will see players up and down the country being sent off in similar circumstances. Do fans of any club want the game to be refereed consistently like this? I doubt it. Sending off players ruins big games. We don't need the Laws reinterpreted in a way which encourages more sendings off.

So long as you accept it is totally irrelevant to a discussion as to whether a correct decision was made, I'm happy to say I expect we would have lost anyway

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

Oh I totally accept it was irrelevant in the greater scheme of things - you were lucky it wasn't a cricket score to be fair, regardless of whether Gary was playing or not

To be fair, i have just checked the official wording & this is what the rule book says:

• 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

Now, i think it was obvious that Parker was moving towards his opponents goal, which would have resulted in a goal scoring opportunity.

I'm not 100% convinced it was a red but i can see why the ref saw it as such, in the spur of the moment.

Just seen om Sky that the refs must consider:

:- distance to the goal

:- direction of play

:- likelihood of player controlling the ball

:- something to do with location and number of defenders

So, the distance to the goal is a massive issue. He is on the halfway line. Direction of play, no real issue with this. Likelihood of player controlling the ball. Well, Parker had nicked it away, but you could argue that his touch was slightly toward his left and thus toward the sideline. Meaning he would have to deviate from his direct route to goal, allowing Knight and possible even Robbo to get back behind the ball.

Dermot Gallacher agrees that it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity.

Looks like it the appeal may be successful.

TBH

I hope they do overturn it .......Whether it was or wasnt a red is water under the bridge now and the punishment Bolton received during the match s is enough without a further sanction

The other thing that gets me about reds is that another team will benefit from an incident during a match they had nothing to do with

squid

The other thing that gets me about reds is that another team will benefit from an incident during a match they had nothing to do with

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

True. But its obviously all about punishing the team from who the player was sent off. But i see your point.

Ok Chick

You're right of course , how about banning him from the next game he plays against the side he was sent off against

squid

Again, a good idea.

But what if we've already played Bolton twice this season - or what if the said player moves club in January or even abroad?

Chicken, it was a red card, no doubt it that is why the ref can him red. Parker was clean through with Adebayor to his right. What we should be talking about is the poor defending by Cahill who was caught in possession.

DL,

What we should be talking about is the poor defending by Cahill who was caught in possession

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

And also the run by Parker to close Cahill down. If young kids ever need a good example of the importance of closing defenders down, this was it.

Diamond, go back and read the article.

From the laws of the game, it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity ...

I think the majority of people I have spoken to feel it was a bad decision but it depends on which side of the fence you are.

Fingers crossed an appeal is succesful, otherwise I dread to think what our starting back line will be against Villa on saturday. <OK>

DL, it wasn't a red card.

For starters, Adebayor was not clean through. It wasn't Adebayor, I think it was Defoe.

Secondly, Zat Knight can move you know? He would've cut off the pass.

You clearly haven't read through the last loads of comments have you?

Moses,

Diamond, go back and read the article.

From the laws of the game, it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity ...

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

To be fair, nowhere in the article does it confirm it wasn't a goal scoring opportunity - the opinions are either yes, no, or sitting on the fence.

To be fair, nowhere in the article does it confirm it wasn't a goal scoring opportunity - the opinions are either yes, no, or sitting on the fence.

--

No, we have established that by the rules of the game, it wasn't a CLEAR/ OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity by the laws of the game.

TheReebokRowbot

Secondly, Zat Knight can move you know? He would've cut off the pass.

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

What pass?

If Knight was looking to cut off the pass, then Parker really is in on goal.

By that logic, it is definitely a sending off - as Parker would not have anyone challenging him.

I think you've just unwittingly backed up the refs decision.

Moses

No, we have established that by the rules of the game

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

Who has?

I dont think we were in any such agreeance.

Chicken, both managers have come out to say it wasn't a sending off, so has every pundit, so has an ex referee.

We also believe that it is not a red card enough to launch an appeal against it, if we get reppealed, then will it still be a red in your opinion.

Moses,

if we get reppealed, then will it still be a red in your opinion.

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

Have you read the actual article text?

I have already said it was harsh but i dont think the decision was an appalling one. By the letter of the law (also stated in one of my posts) i can again see why it was given.

You say that one ex ref has said it wasn't a red, well i can counteract that really easily by saying a current ref thought it was - Attwell.

I hope he does win the appeal but its not nailed on that he will - not by any stretch.

What pass?

If Knight was looking to cut off the pass, then Parker really is in on goal.

By that logic, it is definitely a sending off - as Parker would not have anyone challenging him.

I think you've just unwittingly backed up the refs decision.

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

The pass that DL was referring to when he said "Parker was clean through with Adebayor to his right."

Parker was not clean through, and Adebayor being to his right is irrelevant as Knight would've cut out that pass - if indeed it were to come.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

TheReebok,

But if Knight was covering the pass, Parker would have had a direct route to goal - so by that logic, he was last man.

You cant have him covering the pass & Parker's run at goal.

The more i think about it, the more i think Attwell got this spot on.

Attwell is a terrible ref. I have been in attendance to quite a few bolton games when he has had a shocker. IMO he isn't prem ref quality at present.

WhiteBic

Now that i do agree with.

He should have had his stripes taken away as soon as he awarded a goal at Reading that didnt even go in the goal. That wouldnt have even happened in a school playground, with jumpers for goalposts.