West Ham's Adrian has Red Card Over-Turned

[aintforever]

You can argue it all you like but because Mané was running away from goal it isn't a regarded as a goalscoring opportunity under the current IFAB interpretation of the Laws.

 

That explains it then. A bunch of dickhead refs following the literal interpretation of the law rather than use common sense.

[Sour Mash]

You can argue it all you like but because Mané was running away from goal it isn't a regarded as a goalscoring opportunity under the current IFAB interpretation of the Laws.

That's ridiculous, what other IFAB interpretations are worth knowing?

 

Also, if it is that black and white, the ref should have judged the incident accordingly at the time.

[shurlock]

You can argue it all you like but because Mané was running away from goal it isn't a regarded as a goalscoring opportunity under the current IFAB interpretation of the Laws.

 

What about the player who attempts to round the keeper and shifts to the side? Isn't he technically running away from goal, both in terms of distance and direction?

[BlakeySFC]

My first thought when I heard this:

 

[Whitey Grandad]

You can argue it all you like but because Mané was running away from goal it isn't a regarded as a goalscoring opportunity under the current IFAB interpretation of the Laws.

 

I thought that at first but the offence wasn't a foul on Mané, who was indeed not running towards goal, but rather a deliberate handball and the only decision there is whether he had denied an 'obvious goal scoring opportunity', which I think is normally interpreted to mean more likely to score than not.

[The9]

I thought that at first but the offence wasn't a foul on Mané, who was indeed not running towards goal, but rather a deliberate handball and the only decision there is whether he had denied an 'obvious goal scoring opportunity', which I think is normally interpreted to mean more likely to score than not.

 

The ref should interpret it with "direction of travel" in mind. He didn't, but it should be a red card if the Laws actually reflected a DOGSO rather than this weird interpretation which if anything takes away from an accurate calculation of what a goalscoring opportunity is.

 

As far as the other International Board rulings, a lot of the changes in offside (like getting rid of "daylight") and pretty much anything that needs more detail. They also consider and vote on the law changes.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Also, if it is that black and white, the ref should have judged the incident accordingly at the time.

 

Exactly, and that's why it was overturned.

 

To overturn a red card the referee has to have made a " clear and obvious error" . There is no grey area in overturning a red card , no " I've seen them given" type decisions . It will only be overturned if it was " clear and obvious " that the referee interrupted the rules wrongly . Yet people are still on here arguing about it FFS.

[Whitey Grandad]

Exactly, and that's why it was overturned.

 

To overturn a red card the referee has to have made a " clear and obvious error" . There is no grey area in overturning a red card , no " I've seen them given" type decisions . It will only be overturned if it was " clear and obvious " that the referee interrupted the rules wrongly . Yet people are still on here arguing about it FFS.

 

Quite so, but I'm sure we'd all like an explanation of the reason for the decision, not least the referees amongst us.

[Sour Mash]

Exactly, and that's why it was overturned.

 

To overturn a red card the referee has to have made a " clear and obvious error" . There is no grey area in overturning a red card , no " I've seen them given" type decisions . It will only be overturned if it was " clear and obvious " that the referee interrupted the rules wrongly . Yet people are still on here arguing about it FFS.

But plenty of people have seen them given and think it could still be classed as a red and the ref obviously thought it was a red at the time, whole thing doesn't seem very clear.

[Lord Duckhunter]

But plenty of people have seen them given and think it could still be classed as a red and the ref obviously thought it was a red at the time, whole thing doesn't seem very clear.

 

Graham Poll said before it was rescinded that it would be overturned 100% and that there was no doubt as the rules stood the ref got it wrong . It was not a clear denial of a goal scoring opportunity because Mane didn't have full control of the ball, and was moving away from the goal . Whether people feel that the rules should mean a sending off in those circumstances , is open to debate . But that's a debate about changing the interpretation of what constitutes denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Weds game was played under the existing interpretation and the ref made a clear and obvious error. Look at the RB one or the Bentake one against Spurs , both quite harsh . But they were never going to be overturned as they weren't clear errors of fact , they were subjective decisions . In trying to get consistency from game to game they are trying to make denial of a goal scoring opportunity less subjective , less about does the ref think he'll score and more about is X Y & Z happening . Mane proberly would have scored, but would Yoshida or JWP from the exact same situation. Once you start breaking from the guidelines and allow refs to decide if they think somebody will score , they'll be even more confusion .

Edited 15 February, 2015 by Lord Duckhunter

[hutch]

Graham Poll said before it was rescinded that it would be overturned 100% and that there was no doubt as the rules stood the ref got it wrong . It was not a clear denial of a goal scoring opportunity because Mane didn't have full control of the ball, and was moving away from the goal . Whether people feel that the rules should mean a sending off in those circumstances , is open to debate . But that's a debate about changing the interpretation of what constitutes denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Weds game was played under the existing interpretation and the ref made a clear and obvious error. Look at the RB one or the Bentake one against Spurs , both quite harsh . But they were never going to be overturned as they weren't clear errors of fact , they were subjective decisions . In trying to get consistency from game to game they are trying to make denial of a goal scoring opportunity less subjective , less about does the ref think he'll score and more about is X Y & Z happening . Mane proberly would have scored, but would Yoshida or JWP from the exact same situation. Once you start breaking from the guidelines and allow refs to decide if they think somebody will score , they'll be even more confusion .

Not if it involves Pelle

[The9]

Graham Poll said before it was rescinded that it would be overturned 100% and that there was no doubt as the rules stood the ref got it wrong . It was not a clear denial of a goal scoring opportunity because Mane didn't have full control of the ball, and was moving away from the goal . Whether people feel that the rules should mean a sending off in those circumstances , is open to debate . But that's a debate about changing the interpretation of what constitutes denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Weds game was played under the existing interpretation and the ref made a clear and obvious error. Look at the RB one or the Bentake one against Spurs , both quite harsh . But they were never going to be overturned as they weren't clear errors of fact , they were subjective decisions . In trying to get consistency from game to game they are trying to make denial of a goal scoring opportunity less subjective , less about does the ref think he'll score and more about is X Y & Z happening.

 

One of the problems I have with this (useless) current interpretation, is that by the letter of the law (or of the interpretation of the law), a playing brought down whilst rounding the keeper is moving away from the goal and thus isn't denied a goalscoring opportunity when the ref considers the direction of travel of the player and the ball.

 

As you said, this shouldn't be a debate about whether it was a red card (it wasn't, under the current interpretation), it should be a discussion about whether that interpretation is a bloody ridiculous load of nonsense (which I think it is, as you can probably tell). The keeper deliberately handling to prevent a player having the opportunity to put the ball past them in a position where they are unable to use their hands should be about as bolted on a red card as there is.

[The9]

Anyway, here's the law and the DOGSO interpretation bit (page 130, Law 12):

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf WARNING, BIG FAT PDF!

 

Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity

There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an

obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the offence to occur

inside the penalty area.

If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring opportunity and

a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an

opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned.

 

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 goalscoring opportunity

may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free

[shurlock]

Anyway, here's the law and the DOGSO interpretation bit (page 130, Law 12):

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf WARNING, BIG FAT PDF!

 

Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity

There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an

obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the offence to occur

inside the penalty area.

If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring opportunity and

a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an

opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned.

 

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 goalscoring opportunity

may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free

 

So your intial post was technically incorrect and misleading - there is no hard and fast or automatic rule saying that there is no goal scoring opportunity for a player running away from goal. It simply says that direction of play is one factor that the referee should consider, though weigh alongside a whole host of other factors when making a decision.

[The9]

So your intial post was technically incorrect and misleading - there is no hard and fast or automatic rule saying that there is no goal scoring opportunity for a player running away from goal. It simply says that direction of play is one factor that the referee should consider, though weigh alongside a whole host of other factors when making a decision.

 

Mmmmm... I would say it's the only basis for overturning the decision, so it's the only pertinent factor here - though happy to accept that Mane being a bit off-balance might have contributed towards "likelihood of keeping... the ball" as well. I will also say it's actually in the Laws in this form, not just an interpretation.

 

I've just been checking back through the laws online to see when this was introduced, and it's even in 2007/08 word for word - which is why I've been referring to it as an IFAB Interpretation, because I don't recall this being the case back then, even though it's been in the Laws since at least then - the IFAB also proffers "guidance" and I suspect somewhere along the line they've clarified it, thus bringing it to the attention of officials and, effectively, changing how the laws are implemented.

 

Oh, and Sour Mash, there's a whole string of "IFAB sez" stuff in there. Technical Area specifications, Goal line technology post modifications, ball testing standards, if you can have adverts on your pants (NEW!), referee legal liability, tie-breakers in the event of a draw, penalty shootout procedures, the lot.

 

You can find the entire Archive of Football Laws and IFAB decisions here. If you're a massive loser... like me.

[The9]

Not that I've been looking or anything, but even the 1997 complete rewrite of the Laws mentions a red card for serious foul play for "a player moving towards his opponent's goal with an obvious opportunity to score a goal" being "impeded by an opponent by unlawful means". P26 of the document that was scanned, p32 of the actual scan.

 

http://ssbra.solidwebworks.com/lib/IFABarc/pdf/1997/1997min.pdf

 

I'm pretty sure there's still a communication from FIFA to national associations clarifying the "moving towards goal" bit missing from this equation.

 

2006: "4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity

by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a

goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

5. denies 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"

 

Ok, 2007 is the first year using the current wording of "direction of play", though it's not even mentioned in the 2007 IFAB meeting. 2008's IFAB review mentions a significant revamp to include IFAB decisions as interpretations within the Laws themselves, but doesn't change any of it.

 

There is still nothing since 2007 to suggest a change in the way refs consider Denying Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity, even though that has definitely happened between 2007 and 2014/15.

Edited 16 February, 2015 by The9

[The9]

Oh, and this season's IFAB is in Belfast on 28 February. To reflect their role in creating the game, the 4 home nations get a vote each and FIFA gets 4 as well.

[The9]

What about the player who attempts to round the keeper and shifts to the side? Isn't he technically running away from goal, both in terms of distance and direction?

 

Yup. And that's what I've been moaning about.

 

However... I've found the 2013/14 US Soccer Federation Advice to Referees document (here) and this is the equivalent document to the "missing piece" I've been mentioning, because it contains (or at least reflects) the information FIFA sends to national associations on how referees should interpret the Laws in practice... it is an official statement of US Soccer Federation interpretations of the Laws.

 

and it says

 

"12.D.6 Committing an Offense Punishable by a Free Kick or Penalty Kick Which

Interferes with a Goal-Scoring Opportunity

The send-off for interfering with a goal-scoring opportunity depends critically on the

referee’s judgment regarding all four of the following factors:

• Number of Defenders – no more than one defender (not counting the defender

who committed the foul) between the foul and the goal being attacked. The

judgment here involves determining if a defender, who may be closer to the goal

line than the location of the foul, is nevertheless unable to provide any effective

defense, and should therefore not be counted in this factor.

• Distance to Goal – the closer the location of the foul is to the goal, the stronger is

the opportunity to score a goal. There is no cut-off number of feet or yards, only

the referee’s decision that the specific distance provides an obvious opportunity.

• Distance to Ball – an attacker who is fouled at a moment when the ball has been

played beyond what is, in the referee’s opinion, a reasonable playing distance

will have been unlikely to effectively maintain the attack.

• Direction of Play – the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the

time the foul occurs. A brief diversion to one side or another to avoid a defender

does not change a decision that the main direction is still toward the goal."

 

Which suggests that Mane not "moving toward the goal" is indeed the criteria for this not being a red card, as specified in a recent (2013/14) national association guidance to referees.

 

The FA's more wishy-washy wording from 2014/15 (here) says:

"Denying goal-scoring opportunities

If a player who is moving towards the opposing team’s goal is denied an obvious goal-scoring

opportunity by unlawful means, or, if in the same circumstances, the ball is deliberately handled by a

player other than a goalkeeper in his/her own penalty area (i.e. an offence punishable by a free kick or a

penalty kick), thus denying the attacking player’s team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity,

the offending player shall be sent off the field of play, in accordance with Law 12 (S4) (S5). In the event of unfair impeding without any body contact and an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is

denied, the restart will be by an indirect free kick and the offending player must be sent from the field

of play.

These circumstances are most likely to arise when one of the teams, from a defensive position, sets up a

favourable attacking position by quickly transferring the ball from one end of the field of play to the

other. However, referees are reminded that obvious is the key word in this context. Therefore, factors to

consider before making a judgement about such an offence are the distance from the goal, the direction

that the attacking player is moving and the number of defenders that are in positions to make a

challenge on the attacking player."

Edited 16 February, 2015 by The9

[Window Cleaner]

Ah well, we should have beaten them after he went

 

Justly, Jaaskeleinen made some good saves didn't he ? Always plays blinders against Saints.

[hasper57saint]

Adrian gets red rescinded and SFC decide NOT to appeal against Ryan's (which I still believe was only a yellow) but who am I to argue with such an August body?

[Whitey Grandad]

So your intial post was technically incorrect and misleading - there is no hard and fast or automatic rule saying that there is no goal scoring opportunity for a player running away from goal. It simply says that direction of play is one factor that the referee should consider, though weigh alongside a whole host of other factors when making a decision.

 

There are two separate possible cases here. One is denying a OGSO by deliberate handball (as in this instance) and the other is fouling an opponent 'running towards goal'. For deliberate handball the running towards goal bit is not essential but is one of the factros to be considered.

 

My main concern here is that an experienced referee came to his conclusion during the game and for some reason unknown that decision has been overturned. There are numerous seminars involving these referees and their governing bodies so one would assume that these types of situation would have been extensively covered in some attempt to reach some form of consistency.

[The9]

Adrian gets red rescinded and SFC decide NOT to appeal against Ryan's (which I still believe was only a yellow) but who am I to argue with such an August body?

 

Don't get me started on dangerous/reckless etc.

[The9]

There are two separate possible cases here. One is denying a OGSO by deliberate handball (as in this instance) and the other is fouling an opponent 'running towards goal'. For deliberate handball the running towards goal bit is not essential but is one of the factros to be considered.

 

My main concern here is that an experienced referee came to his conclusion during the game and for some reason unknown that decision has been overturned. There are numerous seminars involving these referees and their governing bodies so one would assume that these types of situation would have been extensively covered in some attempt to reach some form of consistency.

 

It's hardly unknown, I've mentioned it about 10 times on this thread. Mane wasn't moving towards goal.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's hardly unknown, I've mentioned it about 10 times on this thread. Mane wasn't moving towards goal.

 

Yes, I'm with you on this. And Mané wasn't fouled either, it was deliberate handball.

[shurlock]

Mmmmm... I would say it's the only basis for overturning the decision, so it's the only pertinent factor here - though happy to accept that Mane being a bit off-balance might have contributed towards "likelihood of keeping... the ball" as well. I will also say it's actually in the Laws in this form, not just an interpretation.

 

I've just been checking back through the laws online to see when this was introduced, and it's even in 2007/08 word for word - which is why I've been referring to it as an IFAB Interpretation, because I don't recall this being the case back then, even though it's been in the Laws since at least then - the IFAB also proffers "guidance" and I suspect somewhere along the line they've clarified it, thus bringing it to the attention of officials and, effectively, changing how the laws are implemented.

 

Oh, and Sour Mash, there's a whole string of "IFAB sez" stuff in there. Technical Area specifications, Goal line technology post modifications, ball testing standards, if you can have adverts on your pants (NEW!), referee legal liability, tie-breakers in the event of a draw, penalty shootout procedures, the lot.

 

You can find the entire Archive of Football Laws and IFAB decisions here. If you're a massive loser... like me.

 

There are other factors that might have contributed to the decision of an OGSO being overturned, including the presence of a defender, the distance to goal and the fact that Mané was off balance, though Adrian arguably threw him off balance through the handball.

 

No, my larger point is that the rule, as formulated, is a discretionary, not a mandatory one (say like the decision to award a corner or throw-in). That is to say, there is nothing in the rulebook stating that every case in which the player is not moving towards goal, it cannot be a OGSO. That fact will obviously count against the player (balanced against other factors), but it won't automatically rule out an OGSO, as you were originally and wrongly implying.

 

In reality, there will be a broad and rich spectrum of cases where the player is running away from goal -from a player rounding the keeper to Manė's situation, from moving 1 degree away from goal to 180 degrees - some will be deemed an OGSO, others won't -and that flexibility is deliberately provided for by the rules.

 

The hope is that there will be enough precedents, enough Mané-type situations on record to help refs flesh out these ambiguities to the point where they begin to look like a codified, mandatory rule; but ultimately every situation is unique and will depend on discretion of the ref.

Edited 16 February, 2015 by shurlock

[Whitey Grandad]

There are other factors that might have contributed to the decision of an OGSO being overturned, including the presence of a defender, the distance to goal and the fact that Mané was off balance, though Adrian arguably threw him off balance through the handball.

 

No, my larger point is that the rule, as formulated, is a discretionary, not a mandatory one (say like the decision to award a corner or throw-in). That is to say, there is nothing in the rulebook stating that every case in which the player is not moving towards goal, it cannot be a OGSO. That fact will obviously count against the player (balanced against other factors), but it won't automatically rule out an OGSO, as you were originally and wrongly implying.

 

In reality, there will be a broad and rich spectrum of cases where the player is running away from goal -from a player rounding the keeper to Manė's situation, from moving 1 degree away from goal to 180 degrees - some will be deemed an OGSO, others won't -and that flexibility is deliberately provided for by the rules.

 

The hope is that there will be enough precedents, enough Mané-type situations on record to help refs flesh out these ambiguities to the point where they begin to look like a codified, mandatory rule; but ultimately every situation is unique and will depend on discretion of the ref.

 

Yes, you would hope so, but in this situation the ref has had his decision, honestly reached, as incorrect which undermines his authority. I would argue that in this particular situation Adrian knew perfectly well what he was doing in denying what he thought was a possible goal and in the general spirit of the game a red card was the least that should have been awarded. A penalty goal would stop anyone doing it in the future.