Derby red card

In the Cotter incident, the defender puts his arm across Cotter's chest, and very clearly impedes his run making no real attempt to play the ball. It's the sort of incident which referees were instructed to double down on at the last World Cup, and they did. Why the same set of rules isn't being applied domestically, I'm not really sure.

I have doubts that either Norwood incident warranted a penalty, but in my opinion the Cotter one was absolutely blatant.

 

That's what the player does in this Derby/Wednesday incident but no one thinks this is a penalty.

 

The contact seemed much more minimal in the Wednesday v Derby game, but I must admit I've only watched it back once, and from one angle.

 

Fowls penalty - barely any contact at all. Horrendous decision.

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12875384/derby-1-0-down-and-down-to-10-men

The angles of the Cotter one on the Sky highlights package makes it look quite innocuous, but if seen from behind the goal it's absolutely blatant. Presumably from the ref's position it didn't look like much.

 

I never thought I’d have much sympathy for Derby fans but after seeing the Davies sending off & the Norwood non-penalty I would be seething if I was in their shoes.

 

That’s only relevant though if it was clear goal scoring opportunity

 

The ref is stood outside the box directly behind them so from his position he wouldn’t be able to see the players hand across his chest anyway.

Yet another day of being on the wrong end of numerous decisions once again.

 

Agreed.

 

Watching it again he wasn't too far away. Not sure what sort of view the linesman had. Poor officiating.

 

The defender had his arm round Cotter's chest and was almost on his back. No way is that a fair challenge and would have been given anywhere else on the pitch - but not in the box when it would result in a penalty for Barnsley apparently.

 

It wasn't a dangerous or in any way reckless challenge (actually not even a foul) and there was the goalkeeper and a defender between him and the goal. So under any criteria you care to invoke, it's hard to see how it warranted a red card.

 

I don't believe it's a foul but having given the foul...

Can you point me to the law/rule that mentions anything about how many players are between an infringement and the goal and how that affects the decision to send a player off.

 

Law 12 I believe.

Says something about consideration being given to number and position of defending players.

 

Does it say if there are two players closer to the goal than the infringement, that it is often cited, it's not a sending off?

 

I've never heard anyone say that to be fair.

 

Maybe you should read Brush's comment, the comment I'm answering.

 

Let's scrap penalties altogether. We never get one anyway. Then rename the "penalty area" and call it the "goalkeeper handling area" instead. If you're fouled in the box, it's just another free kick; some will be direct, some will be indirect. Take all such free kicks from the closest corner of the box. Penalties are more trouble than they're worth.

 

He doesn't say that. He says between the player and the goal, ie he is covering. Between a player and the goal is different to closer to the goal.

Former head of referees Keith Hackett says there was a covering defender and the ref got it wrong by the way. As does everyone else I've spoken to except you who bizarrely a month ago said you'd only seen one really poor decision all season and is now going out of his way to defend an absolutely horrendous decision. I don't get it Jay, I really don't.

 

I'm not going out of my way, I don't think it's a penalty. I'm saying, and I'm actually agreeing with Redhelen here so it's not just me, that if you give the foul then according to the rules of the game then it can easily be interpreted as a red card. I also make clear that it's definitely open to interpretation.

And what I'm not doing, unlike yourself, is trying to use spurious arguments like claiming there is a difference between saying 'closer to' or 'between' . It's just a turn of phrase.

And there's a very pertinent reason I'm making these points.

Anger towards referees on here is at fever pitch. And it's been growing all season. It's not helped by the club complaining about referees. We recently had an incident where bottles were thrown onto the pitch at protest to perceived poor decisions from the referee. We've had encroachment numerous times onto the pitch this season and have been fined numerous times. There's the very real possibility that, should a poor decision go against us in the playoffs, that someone is going to run on the field and hurt someone. It's building up and it's coming. Against a perceived injustice that doesn't exist that everyone is hell bent on ramping up.

We need to follow the rugby union model before something stupid happens and it starts by personally accepting the decisions of the officials who are employed to take charge of the game.

 

I'm not sure I can Jay but the "perceived wisdom" is that if the last defender (excluding goalkeeper) commits a "professional" foul to deny a goal scoring opportunity then the defender should be sent off. As you imply, I don't think this is in the official rules as such.