It's not delaying the restart, so whilst correct in Law (no 2nd caution), wrong in every other respect. I also think it's cheating for the PK. Not all contact is a foul and that was trivial at bestThe ref obv feeling brave with the absence of some, erm, volatile fans
We dont know, has the keeper been given 2-3 shouts earlier in the game before the incident that we dont see, in which he was penalised snd cautioned?
If so, i,e its been commonplace throughout the game, maybe he been stretching it a bit at the last few goal kicks that we dont see, maybe with Ar and ref trying to encourage him to keep going
Am puzzled though as to why, having obviously been determined enough to give the offence, why not complete the trick with a second yellow?
If your brave ( naive?) enough to give the offence, then, be strong enough to take the sanction too. Note, am aware its not a mandatory card here.
to us at the council pitch, use your savvy, the decision seems like a surprise, when you hear of refs being confronted after the game, its usually because of a decision like this, you might feel you are strong and applying the rules, but, its not really the best game management for us plebs
sometimes being right is not as preferable to being sensible
its a clear pk tho
Not sure but you would imagine he had been. He was already on a caution for delaying the restart.The ref obv feeling brave with the absence of some, erm, volatile fans
We dont know, has the keeper been given 2-3 shouts earlier in the game before the incident that we dont see, in which he was penalised snd cautioned?
If so, i,e its been commonplace throughout the game, maybe he been stretching it a bit at the last few goal kicks that we dont see, maybe with Ar and ref trying to encourage him to keep going
Am puzzled though as to why, having obviously been determined enough to give the offence, why not complete the trick with a second yellow?
If your brave ( naive?) enough to give the offence, then, be strong enough to take the sanction too. Note, am aware its not a mandatory card here.
to us at the council pitch, use your savvy, the decision seems like a surprise, when you hear of refs being confronted after the game, its usually because of a decision like this, you might feel you are strong and applying the rules, but, its not really the best game management for us plebs
sometimes being right is not as preferable to being sensible
its a clear pk tho
It's not delaying the restart, so whilst correct in Law (no 2nd caution), wrong in every other respect. I also think it's cheating for the PK. Not all contact is a foul and that was trivial at best
That would be incredibly harsh to commit two offences in 103 minutes and receive two cautions, with one being persistent.we dont know what happened before, and, he is already on a yc?
Persistent would cover it?
am giving the pk, the guy who committed it reaction also, fast feet, trip.
Think it was the commentator that pushed the idea mostly. I don't think a caution was warranted and personally think would be incorrect in law without having to put a slant on it.Maybe I'm missing something here, but surely, irrespective of what has gone on before, it's the referee's decision, so long as he's correct in law.
From what I can see, the ref has simply awarded an IDFK against the GK for holding onto the ball for more than 6 seconds. Why complicate things by trying to attach other possible scenarios and offences to it in order to suggest he should have cautioned him as well?
Think it was the commentator that pushed the idea mostly.
Said the same in another group. But it shows what we are up against.Now there's a thing! Lol. I honestly have no idea where they get these people from. You'd hope that even if they don't have an extensive knowledge of the LOTG, they might at least have a copy at hand or even a SME to explain/correct them before they open their gobs and say something like he did. "I can't imagine what the referee has given that free kick for if it wasn't time wasting."
We're not sati g it should be a caution. I agree, it's not a caution.What would the caution be for? Can't be delaying the restart as it wasn't stopped, and can't really be persistent infringement as you'd effectively be admitting that you had let him hold it for more than 6 seconds previously without penalising. Caution just isn't needed here and there is a very strong argument to say it would be plain incorrect.
Penalty was nailed on for me.
We're not sati g it should be a caution. I agree, it's not a caution.
But I can see how someone who does not know the laws as we do would think it should be
Ciley said he was puzzled as to why there was no caution, that was my point, as well as obviously the commentators.
it was more my curiosity to why, according to commentators, he had already been cautioned, unless i missed it, for this offence
Only watched it once, so its possible i never heard or misheard something, so apologies if the first yc was for something else
If that makes sense!
Commentator said he'd already been cautioned for "time wasting". Pound to a penny it was for taking too long at a goal kick (delaying the restart) but only my guess.
LOTG say if the GK holds onto the ball for longer than 6 seconds, it's an IDFK.
For me, the ref's got it spot on.