Sending off correct?

[nickolas]

3 minutes ago, Midred said:

And with our record, If he'd gone over in the box would the ref just have said "play on?"

Have a looks at Rover’s penalty given in their FA Cup match. Absolutely no way are we getting that. Awful. 

[cityexile]

I think the position of ‘is there a covering defender’ comes in to it in terms of is there another defender than conceivably get a tackle in to stop the goal scoring opportunity. The last defender, is so far from the ball there is no way he is stopping the goal scoring chance. He could block the effort, but so could a goalie. 

[NcnsBcfc]

I think looking at the footage, the ref was running directly behind Bannan.

What he saw was a player becoming aware that Knight was soon going into the 18 yard box and any foul from him would be a penalty.

On that basis, he "tactically" bought Knight down right on the edge of the box at the very last opportunity. The ref obviously saw this as a cynical attempt to stop Knight shooting and thus under "Serious foul play" it was a straight red card.

The player and Keeper in front of Bannan didn't come into the equation for me. All about Bannan's actions on the pitch.

[Major Isewater]

28 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You two must be old enough to remember this then?

My first thought when I saw Hackett’s response was “todays ref is Keith Hackett from Sheffield”.

Brilliant that a ref comes from Great Bookham. 

[GrahamC]

On a related topic I thought the ref was poor, let a couple of really nasty challenges by them go first half & didn’t seem remotely bothered by the time their goalkeeper had the ball in his hands. Felt like at times he was refereeing a game from the 70s..

However as one of many sat by me who thought the challenge from Bannan was “yards” inside the box, he was 100% right & I was wrong.

On the red card I agree with @Harry with a defender behind him on reflection it is harsh, though for a side destined to always get far fewer penalties than anyone else for some inexplicable reason, I’ll take what we can get.

Edited November 5, 2023 by GrahamC

[steveybadger]

Just had another look on the 15 min highlights on Sky, pausing the pics. Contact is clearly outside and Knight does a slightly artificial jump to take him into the area, so no pen. The covering defender is almost behind the goalie and there is a big ‘uncovered’ the keeper’s right, so it clearly is a scoring opp.

So well done ref.

[DT The Optimist]

Perhaps harsh... we will never agree on that card ... what we will agree on mind not sorry to see Bannan leave the pitch, although in his mid 30's (born 89)  now still a class act. Was best player on the pitch.  We used to have a 'love in' with old Barry...  never wastes a ball.. every thing went through him

[Rob k]

11 hours ago, elhombrecito said:

You certainly can't argue that there was a defender and goalkeeper covering, but you also can't deny it was a 'clear goalscoring opportunity' therefore, a sending off is correct.

It was a clear goal scoring ‘opportunity’ that was denied by a clinical foul as Conway is right next to Knight for a tap in. 

[Cowshed]

11 hours ago, elhombrecito said:

You certainly can't argue that there was a defender and goalkeeper covering, but you also can't deny it was a 'clear goalscoring opportunity' therefore, a sending off is correct.

You are misunderstanding the word clear in relation to IFAB who set the rules. Clear will mean almost certainly score when all variables are considered.  The defender between the attacker and GK would prevent  the opportunity being DOGSO as it would not be 1v1. 

10 hours ago, Harry said:

But how can anyone say it’s a clear goal scoring opportunity when there is a denfeder stood directly between you and the goal? 
 

If that was a sending off today, then why wasn’t this one for Boro. Last man, player running directly in on the keeper, with the ball at his feet. 
 

 

Because the player is attacking from an angle. The wider the angle the less obvious the goal scoring opportunity is. 

[bcfctim]

10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

To also add, will be interesting to see if it gets overturned on appeal, that'll tell us either way as I'm sure Sheffield Wednesday will appeal it.

Hackett again fwiw. I still think the correct call was made anyway.

Distance between the offence and the goal: On the edge of the box

General direction of play: Striker clean through on goal

Likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball: In total control of the ball, about to have a shot

Location and number of defenders: One defender behind the keeper hoping to block on the line, nowhere near making a challenge on the ball

Hence, denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. Red card.

Also Bannan's deliberately tripped him making no attempt to win the ball so even if it was in the penalty area it would still be a red card

[Supersonic Robin]

As others have said, I'm amazed that this is even being discussed and that Wednesday fans genuinely feel aggrieved.

Pretty blatant red as far as I'm concerned.

Bannan trips Knight (deliberately, by the look of it) from behind as he is entering the box 1 vs 1 with the goalkeeper (okay, there's also a defender near the goal who looks unlikely to influence play much). In doing so, Bannan undoubtedly denies a clear goalscoring opportunity. What more is there to talk about?

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, bcfctim said:

Distance between the offence and the goal: On the edge of the box

General direction of play: Striker clean through on goal

Likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball: In total control of the ball, about to have a shot

Location and number of defenders: One defender behind the keeper hoping to block on the line, nowhere near making a challenge on the ball

Hence, denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. Red card.

Also Bannan's deliberately tripped him making no attempt to win the ball so even if it was in the penalty area it would still be a red card

Your going through the  DOGSO rule of DDDC. Distance from goal. Defenders covering. Direction of play. Control of ball.

When the foul is committed there is a covering defender. The Keeper and defender are in close proximity to the attacker. The players are covering. They do not have to be challenging. That could easily be the failure in the test.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Cowshed

[Mr Popodopolous]

The litmus test will be if Sheffield Wednesday appeal and it is overturned surely.

[Supersonic Robin]

Just seen that the red card has been overturned.

Why? I have absolutely no f****** idea. Seemed blatant to me

 

[MarcusX]

On 05/11/2023 at 00:21, Harry said:

Sorry. I’m not having this. 
If that was given against us I’d be livid. 
Surely the rule has always been ‘is he the last man’. He’s not. There is another defender who is pretty much bang in between Knight and the goal. If that’s not a ‘covering man’ I don’t know what is. 
I’d be mad if that was against us. 

I don’t think it’s about “last man” as such, but my initial thought (and it hasn’t changed) was that it wasn’t really a “clear goal scoring opportunity” in the sense that you usually see a red.

Theres enough cover there to make it difficult, it’s not an open goal. Red seemed harsh, not surprised it’s over turned.

[Harry]

12 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

I don’t think it’s about “last man” as such, but my initial thought (and it hasn’t changed) was that it wasn’t really a “clear goal scoring opportunity” in the sense that you usually see a red.

Theres enough cover there to make it difficult, it’s not an open goal. Red seemed harsh, not surprised it’s over turned.

I think the phrase “last man” is really a short way of saying “it’s a clear goalscoring opportunity”. 
Invariably, if the last man brings you down he’s likely denying you a free run on goal. 
So yes, whilst it’s not ‘technically’ the rule it’s a kinda shorthand version. 
 

In this case, when Knight is brought down there is another defender stood 5 yards infront of him, directly between him and the goal. 
That’s why it’s not denying an obvious goal, for me. 

[Rob k]

59 minutes ago, Harry said:

I think the phrase “last man” is really a short way of saying “it’s a clear goalscoring opportunity”. 
Invariably, if the last man brings you down he’s likely denying you a free run on goal. 
So yes, whilst it’s not ‘technically’ the rule it’s a kinda shorthand version. 
 

In this case, when Knight is brought down there is another defender stood 5 yards infront of him, directly between him and the goal. 
That’s why it’s not denying an obvious goal, for me. 

I Still think it’s a clear goalscoring ‘opportunity’ purely for the fact he can get an easy pass to Conway to knock it in. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

If it's overturned does that suspect it was a suspect call or is it all subjective?

Either way it is the first suspect big call that we have been given in our favour in a very long time. One down, many more to go?

Edited November 7, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Midred]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If it's overturned does that suspect it was a suspect call or is it all subjective?

Either way it is the first suspect big call that we have been given in our favour in a very long time. One down, many more to go?

Looking at the other thread they appear to agree that it was a clear scoring chance but only due a yellow?

[trickytimes]

I thought it was a clear red at the time, and still think so. Barry Bannan thought it was a clear chance also, other wise he would not have brought him down. It does not have to be a certain goal for it to be a red card. I am very surprised it was overturned. As they say on Refwatch DOGSO - denial of goal scoring opportunity, which it certainly was.

[Mr Popodopolous]

FWIW Peach ie co host of our friends at SecondTierPod called it as a wrong decision on Friday.

Them aside, FA wise would be interested to see the reasoning.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[reddoh]

On 05/11/2023 at 08:59, nickolas said:

How is this even being discussed? Read a very long twitter thread today with a lot of dumbass salty northerners complaining about their bad luck and even some of our own fans saying they’d be upset if given against us. Does noone actually follow the rules of the game we all go to watch?!
Bannan deliberately kicked Knight’s legs out ( im sat dead in line in the Dolmoan). Last man clear on goal, its irrelevant whether there’s a defender there. 
Was soooo close to also being a penalty. 

sorry to hear that

[red panda]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

FWIW Peach ie co host of our friends at SecondTierPod called it as a wrong decision on Friday.

Them aside, FA wise would be interested to see the reasoning.

Am I being thick here, or did Peach call it a wrong decision the day before the match??  Lottery numbers please (by DM, don't tell anyone else)

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, red panda said:

Am I being thick here, or did Peach call it a wrong decision the day before the match??  Lottery numbers please (by DM, don't tell anyone else)

Apologies. meant Sunday. Doh.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[red panda]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

I meant Sunday. Doh.

It's been a long few days ...

[Charlie BCFC]

That’s a disgrace of a decision that it’s overturned, if Knight wouldn’t have been taken down then it would’ve likely been a goal and if not a big chance. How that is not deemed a goal scoring opportunity is ridiculous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Then gives Sheffield Wednesday fans and even a journo a narrative that they're hard done by, one of their journos pretty much said he thinks they don't lose without it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Still, what comes around goes around.. anyone remember this? I do!

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/56812881

We stayed in the game and dug out a late point. Lansbury got a red and they got a penalty for a supposed handball on the line. A penalty that they missed.

Was overturned on appeal.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[milo1111]

The incident Saturday was just inside the box. Should of been a penalty regardless of a red card or not.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Edited November 14, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous