Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity

[Stoneybloke]

The laws of the game state that:

Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:

 

• 
   
  
• the distance between the offence and the goal
  
• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  
• the direction of the play
  
• the location and number of defenders
  
• the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick
  

 

Now that seems to me to be a lot of split second decision making required by a referee on something which is extremely subjective.

 

In addition:

 

A Referee must answer YES to all of the following questions - before deciding that it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity or not. The Referee is the only person who can decide whether a goal scoring opportunity was obvious or not.

 

(a) Does the area between the attacker and the goal have fewer than two nearby defending players who are able to intervene, between the attacker and the goal?

 

(b) Was the attacker running directly towards the goal? (and not away from the goal at an angle - for example - obliquely towards the corner flag).

 

© Is the ball at a reasonable distance to enable the attacker to have reached the ball to play it?

 

(d) Was the foul committed near the goal? (the farther from goal, the less likely it is that an obvious goal scoring opportunity existed).

 

(e) Did the attacker have a reasonable chance for a shot towards goal, or to make progress towards the goal without being challenged by another outfield defender?

 

(f) Was the ball still in play when the foul was committed? (for example, did the Assistant Referee flag for offside just before the foul was committed).

 

(g) Was there enough match time remaining on the Referees watch, for the attacker to have covered the distance to enable a goal to be scored or attempted?

 

On point (e) I would have said that it was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity, but of course, I don't have the superhuman powers of decision making possessed by Mr. Collum

[Stoneybloke]

considine tripped the guy, hes a plank

Yes, but would he have scored?

[ScottishJohn]

Yes, but would he have scored?

 

Probably not.

[RUL]

End of story.

[ollie1903]

It was a pen and it was a sending off, as harsh as it seems. The law needs reviewed though as it effectively killed the game as a contest and a spectacle. Ridiculous though, not only is he punished with a pen and a red, but I believe he now misses another league game.

 

Not that that matters much now of course

[RUL]

A red was beyond a joke Ollie.

[Bamber]

The laws of the game state that:

 

 

Now that seems to me to be a lot of split second decision making required by a referee on something which is extremely subjective.

 

In addition:

 

 

 

On point (e) I would have said that it was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity, but of course, I don't have the superhuman powers of decision making possessed by Mr. Collum

 

 

As soon as he gave the penalty it was a red card - thems the rules really.

 

As for e) yes he had every chance of getting a shot away - good bad indifferent it doesnt matter he had a chance of a shot

 

it is one of these double punishment rules though personally i would like to see it changed that in the box to either a red card or a penalty is awarded - Let the captain of the punished team decide. I reckon in most cases they will take the penalty except towards the end of the game where they would take the card

[dezzy_dan]

There's a slight argument that Langfield may have got to the ball ahead of him, but on balance it was definitely a goal scoring opportunity in that he would have been one on one with him had he not been tripped.

 

Red card under the rules. The rules are sh*t though.

[ollie1903]

A red was beyond a joke Ollie.

I agree completely. But as sh*t and as harsh as it is, he had to walk. Today's football is sh*t

[Dandyjam]

It was a pen and it was a sending off, as harsh as it seems. The law needs reviewed though as it effectively killed the game as a contest and a spectacle. Ridiculous though, not only is he punished with a pen and a red, but I believe he now misses another league game.

 

Not that that matters much now of course

 

Said this in match thread. Minimal contact, which is all that c**t Stokes needed all afternoon but as soon as ref gives pen, has to be a red card by the laws of the game as they are. Needs to be changed, pen and a yellow would have sufficed.

[Jaws]

The red card rule for a goal scoring opportunity is a joke to be honest. Is a penalty not punishment enough? The ref is basically giving them their goal scoring opportunity back by awarding the pen but we have to play the rest of the game with 10 men. Where's the fairness in that?

 

It's one of a number of rules i would stamp out of the game. I mean all it is is a mistimed challenge, there's no malice in it, there was no deliberate intent to stop Hooper from scoring, just a mistimed challenge. Let's be honest the game was over after it, despite Stokes missing.

[OddJob]

I do not believe if that had been at the other end we'd have got the decision. Just imo of course.

[Foster14]

The problem with the suggestion that stopping a goal scoring opportunity shouldn't be a red card offence is made a bit more problematic based on where the challenge happens. If Considine had done it two yards outside the box, would a yellow card and free-kick be a suitable punishment? I don't think so. The red card is there as a deterrent to stop players doing such things.

[Stoneybloke]

The problem with the suggestion that stopping a goal scoring opportunity shouldn't be a red card offence is made a bit more problematic based on where the challenge happens. If Considine had done it two yards outside the box, would a yellow card and free-kick be a suitable punishment? I don't think so. The red card is there as a deterrent to stop players doing such things.

Who does it deter? Obviously not Considine, he makes a habit of it.

[zig-a-zig-ah]

As soon as he gave the penalty it was a red card - thems the rules really.

 

As for e) yes he had every chance of getting a shot away - good bad indifferent it doesnt matter he had a chance of a shot

 

it is one of these double punishment rules though personally i would like to see it changed that in the box to either a red card or a penalty is awarded - Let the captain of the punished team decide. I reckon in most cases they will take the penalty except towards the end of the game where they would take the card

 

Are you for real min?

 

Said this in match thread. Minimal contact, which is all that c**t Stokes needed all afternoon but as soon as ref gives pen, has to be a red card by the laws of the game as they are. Needs to be changed, pen and a yellow would have sufficed.

 

It was Hooper that went down under the Considine "challenge" ...

 

Stokes that made a meal of the Young "challenge"

[RTYD]

The laws of the game state that:

 

 

Now that seems to me to be a lot of split second decision making required by a referee on something which is extremely subjective.

 

In addition:

 

 

 

On point (e) I would have said that it was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity, but of course, I don't have the superhuman powers of decision making possessed by Mr. Collum

 

The once certainty is that had it been a bigotfest game it woiuld have been a yellow card.

[diamondsr4ever]

considine tripped the guy, hes a plank

 

[fatshaft]

I can't believe anyone can dispute the red card under the rules of the game today. It was as clear a red (once the ref decides it's a foul, which it was) as you'll see. Stop sounding like the Tims themselves, because that's what some of you are like.

[vanderark14]

The once certainty is that had it been a bigotfest game it woiuld have been a yellow card.

 

or had it been at the other end of the ground it would have been a pen and nothing else for fear of a back lash from the weegie press and Lennons yellow gob

[a don in oz]

The rules may or may not suck but the ref got it spot on in both cases. Considine had on his clown shoes and got shown up.

 

Let's not go all Celtic here and start this kind of ref against us pish.

[vanderark14]

The rules may or may not suck but the ref got it spot on in both cases. Considine had on his clown shoes and got shown up.

 

Let's not go all Celtic here and start this kind of ref against us pish.

 

the big decision were not my major beef with that c**t collum. The slightest touch on a plastic paddy yesterday resulted in a free kick whilst the paddys were given free reign to do as they please, especially that ned Scott Brown.

[vanderark14]

how the f**k is that agoal scoring opportunity fan the ball is going in to the goal keepers f**king hands. what a load of sh*t, any one who believes Considine had to go needs a f**king brain scan

[robbo]

id like the last man rule changed slightly.

 

instead of seeing the team reduced to 10 men which kills the game, id like to see an enforced substitution to bring on a u18 player.

 

the team is still punished as they lose an experienced player and have to take on a younger guy but it means they keep 11 players and this kid gets much needed experience which is surely good for club and country.

[vanderark14]

id like the last man rule changed slightly.

 

instead of seeing the team reduced to 10 men which kills the game, id like to see an enforced substitution to bring on a u18 player.

 

the team is still punished as they lose an experienced player and have to take on a younger guy but it means they keep 11 players and this kid gets much needed experience which is surely good for club and country.

 

they are punished enough by conceding a penalty. theres no need for any "laast man" rule Robbo.

 

its nonsense

[StandFree_MainStand]

the big decision were not my major beef with that c**t collum. The slightest touch on a plastic paddy yesterday resulted in a free kick whilst the paddys were given free reign to do as they please, especially that ned Scott Brown.

 

 

A bit like Mulgrew's foul on Vernon in the lead up to the first penalty? He was all over him, diamond etc. were punished for far less during the course of the game. Its beyond a joke.

[vanderark14]

A bit like Mulgrew's foul on Vernon in the lead up to the first penalty? He was all over him, diamond etc. were punished for far less during the course of the game. Its beyond a joke.

 

correct SFM

 

Mulgrew used both hands to get up for the ball and keep vernon down. Collum couldn't wait to get that red card out of his pocket, he had it out before any of us had the chance to vent our anger in the stands at the b*stard,

 

well done to the scumbag tims, their plan worked, threaten collum and his family and make sure he doesn't go against them ever again.

 

he handed them a f**king buy yesterday

[StandFree_MainStand]

correct SFM

 

Mulgrew used both hands to get up for the ball and keep vernon down. Collum couldn't wait to get that red card out of his pocket, he had it out before any of us had the chance to vent our anger in the stands at the b*stard,

 

well done to the scumbag tims, their plan worked, threaten collum and his family and make sure he doesn't go against them ever again.

 

he handed them a f**king buy yesterday

 

The thing is, what Celtic and Lennon have done this season by publicly criticising the SFA and referees.. they have made it nigh on impossible for a referee to give any kind of decision against them. Its a similar story with Rangers, less obvious perhaps but David Weir was the ref in our game last wednesday!

 

Theres been so much scrutiny this season over 'bias' from one side of the old firm to the other.. The SFA brick it every time and fail to stand up to either side, therefore favour them both.. meaning its the rest of us who are made to suffer.

 

Remember this all started, or 'kicked off' rather, because Celtic had a penalty decision reversed - when the whole world could see that it was never a penalty in the first place! Sour Grapes.

 

If any more evidence is required to see that the 'bias' or 'conspiracy' against the old firm is a load of rubbish, just look at our statistics against celtic this season: THREE red cards and SEVEN (count them SEVEN) penalties in just 5 games. Its a joke.

[vanderark14]

The thing is, what Celtic and Lennon have done this season by publicly criticising the SFA and referees.. they have made it nigh on impossible for a referee to give any kind of decision against them. Its a similar story with Rangers, less obvious perhaps but David Weir was the ref in our game last wednesday!

 

Theres been so much scrutiny this season over 'bias' from one side of the old firm to the other.. The SFA brick it every time and fail to stand up to either side, therefore favour them both.. meaning its the rest of us who are made to suffer.

 

Remember this all started, or 'kicked off' rather, because Celtic had a penalty decision reversed - when the whole world could see that it was never a penalty in the first place! Sour Grapes.

 

If any more evidence is required to see that the 'bias' or 'conspiracy' against the old firm is a load of rubbish, just look at our statistics against celtic this season: THREE red cards and SEVEN (count them SEVEN) penalties in just 5 games. Its a joke.

 

I remember fans of other teams laughing at Craig Levein for his rant after Mccury f**ked over utd at Ibrox, he actually handed the huns that game, Levein had it spot on, Rangers and Celtic are all that matter to the SFA and SPL. Instead of laughing at him the rest of us should have been standing up to the OF. Its about time the rest of the league did exactly that.

[Foster14]

I remember fans of other teams laughing at Craig Levein for his rant after Mccury f**ked over utd at Ibrox, he actually handed the huns that game, Levein had it spot on, Rangers and Celtic are all that matter to the SFA and SPL. Instead of laughing at him the rest of us should have been standing up to the OF. Its about time the rest of the league did exactly that.

 

Yes, that should have been the case. I don't remember much laughing about it to be honest, just a complete lack of back-up from anyone else. He didn't do himself any favours by doing right at the end of the match, it was a rant, and it seemed heat of the moment. He didn't do much backing up of that himself at any later point. Also, it says something when the shining example that has been set in being honest about the SFA and SPL is now Scotland manager and panders to the Old Firm at every opportunity for being afraid to get on the wrong side of them.

[vanderark14]

Yes, that should have been the case. I don't remember much laughing about it to be honest, just a complete lack of back-up from anyone else. He didn't do himself any favours by doing right at the end of the match, it was a rant, and it seemed heat of the moment. He didn't do much backing up of that himself at any later point. Also, it says something when the shining example that has been set in being honest about the SFA and SPL is now Scotland manager and panders to the Old Firm at every opportunity for being afraid to get on the wrong side of them.

 

1, it may have been a rant but he was right and thats all that should matter

 

2. When does he pander to the OF?