Sending off correct?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Would it have been overturned other way round I wonder. 

Seem to recall Sykes got a retrospective 4 game ban last season, seemed rather like making an example but then again a Preston player did get respectively banned after our game there. Googled it, Ched Evans it was.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/sheffield-wednesday-referees-barry-bannan-4403869

Are Sheffield Wednesday really that hard done by compared to many.  Albeit the headline is more clickbait than the article.

I remember our penalty record among other things.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I still think it was a penalty.  Because although some contact happened outside (and contact in itself is not a foul), the contact that tripped him was inside.  Therefore penalty.  The ref should then consider DOGSO.  Imho, if he decides it is is the box, then based on the rules I think it was a red card too, I thought it was an obvious goalscoring position.

As the ref gave the infringement outside, DOGSO does not apply (DOGSO only applies in the box, or for handballs) .  So ref shouldn’t have sent Bannan off as it wasn’t excessive force, etc, etc.

Ref got it wrong imho.

 

(I’ve learned a bit more about the rules I didn’t know previously)

Edited November 14, 2023 by Davefevs

[CTIDhc]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I still think it was a penalty.  Because although some contact happened outside (and contact in itself is not a foul), the contact that tripped him was inside.  Therefore penalty.  The ref should then consider DOGSO.  Imho, if he decides it is is the box, then based on the rules I think it was a red card too, I thought it was an obvious goalscoring position.

As the ref gave the infringement outside, DOGSO does not apply (DOGSO only applies in the box, or for handballs) .  So ref shouldn’t have sent Bannan off as it wasn’t excessive force, etc, etc.

Ref got it wrong imho.

 

(I’ve learned a bit more about the rules I didn’t know previously)

DOGSO only in the box? that is mental I never knew that!

 

Sort of applies reverse double jeopardy in that case! Its either all (penalty & red card) or nothing!!

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, CTIDhc said:

DOGSO only in the box? that is mental I never knew that!

 

Sort of applies reverse double jeopardy in that case! Its either all (penalty & red card) or nothing!!

Yep, that was the bit I learned.  So if you’re gonna trip someone, do it outside the box.

[Mr Popodopolous]

39 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I still think it was a penalty.  Because although some contact happened outside (and contact in itself is not a foul), the contact that tripped him was inside.  Therefore penalty.  The ref should then consider DOGSO.  Imho, if he decides it is is the box, then based on the rules I think it was a red card too, I thought it was an obvious goalscoring position.

As the ref gave the infringement outside, DOGSO does not apply (DOGSO only applies in the box, or for handballs) .  So ref shouldn’t have sent Bannan off as it wasn’t excessive force, etc, etc.

Ref got it wrong imho.

 

(I’ve learned a bit more about the rules I didn’t know previously)

Dave thanks, so not a red card but potential penalty? Thought was just outside the box personally however the law seems to be forever evolving.

What do you make of the call to overturn? Still somewhat surprised at it personally. Do they publish Written Reasons?

Edited November 14, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[1960maaan]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Dave thanks, so not a red card but potential penalty? hought was just outside the box personally however the law seems to be forever evolving.

What do you make of the call to overturn? Still somewhat surprised at it personally. Do they publish Written Reasons?

I can't see that it's a pen, trip is outside the box .
DOGSO ? Well , denied a clear shot on goal from inside the box and if that isn't a goal scoring opportunity I don't know what is. But does it qualify ? 
I've rock   rolled the clip as well as I could , and this looks like the contact.

[Super]

Think the ref got it completely right. It's a red card and not a pen. No idea how that's been overturned still it hardly matters to us now.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Sheffield Wednesday fans, local journos etc bandwagon jumping not that it matters to us but then as I said last week, Lansbury at Hillsborough 2021.

There was a questionable late penalty vs us just before Christmas 2019 at Hillsborough too.

[italian dave]

On 07/11/2023 at 17:40, 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.

Maybe judged “not a clear goal scoring opportunity” because they’ve considered our record this season of failing to put away even open goal chances!

[Three Lions]

On 05/11/2023 at 11:10, Cowshed said:

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. 

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

 

On 05/11/2023 at 12:35, Cowshed said:

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.

 

 

Not giving a red for dogso there. What did your boy think? 

[Dr_Castro]

It might have been overturned on the basis that city strikers actually crafting a goal scoring opportunity is so vanishingly small at the moment….

[Mr Popodopolous]

I suspect the above post was humour but as per FBREF we are 13th for Non Penalty Expected goals but fall to 16th once Expected Goals that include penalties are included.

18th for shots on goal but Cardiff, Preston and Swansea have all had less..been awarded 3, 2 and 2 respectively. Stoke, Huddersfield and Millwall all in a similar boat to us this year.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Cowshed]

57 minutes ago, Three Lions said:

 

Not giving a red for dogso there. What did your boy think? 

 No DOGSO. No red card.

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I still think it was a penalty.  Because although some contact happened outside (and contact in itself is not a foul), the contact that tripped him was inside.  Therefore penalty.  The ref should then consider DOGSO.  Imho, if he decides it is is the box, then based on the rules I think it was a red card too, I thought it was an obvious goalscoring position.

As the ref gave the infringement outside, DOGSO does not apply (DOGSO only applies in the box, or for handballs) .  So ref shouldn’t have sent Bannan off as it wasn’t excessive force, etc, etc.

Ref got it wrong imho.

 

(I’ve learned a bit more about the rules I didn’t know previously)

Your a brilliant informative poster Dave, but DOGSO does apply outside the box. DOGSO could be applied on the half way line in rare scenarios (GK- all up for corner and team counters).

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Cowshed said:

 No DOGSO. No red card.

Your a brilliant informative poster Dave, but DOGSO does apply outside the box. DOGSO could be applied on the half way line in rare scenarios (GK- all up for corner and team counters).

Haha, in which case my understanding prior to reading the rules was right then.  The FA page is incredibly ambiguous then!

From:

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Have you got anything that explains it with total clarity?

[Cowshed]

13 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Haha, in which case my understanding prior to reading the rules was right then.  The FA page is incredibly ambiguous then!

From:

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Have you got anything that explains it with total clarity?

IFAB do differing official versions of the rules, full and simplified, there is also glossaries and details, but to my knowledge that is as good (clarified) as it gets. 

The EFL website  may interest and its behind the whistle section. There is a decision featured, Red card, DOGSO outside of the area -  Behind the Whistle: The weekend's key match decisions - The English Football League (efl.com)

[1960maaan]

10 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

IFAB do differing official versions of the rules, full and simplified, there is also glossaries and details, but to my knowledge that is as good (clarified) as it gets. 

The EFL website  may interest and its behind the whistle section. There is a decision featured, Red card, DOGSO outside of the area -  Behind the Whistle: The weekend's key match decisions - The English Football League (efl.com)

Thanks for that , it does add a different slant on it. IMO it is a goalscoring opportunity , although there is a defender back he isn't closing Knight who would have had a clear shot on goal as I think my screen shot shows. He could be about to shoot, be odd if he wasn't, and that looks like a decent chance to me. I don't mind they overturned it, but basically Bannon was kicking out at Knight as there was no attempt to play the ball. 
Really tough for the Ref this one. 

18 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

 

[hinsleburg]

4 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Thanks for that , it does add a different slant on it. IMO it is a goalscoring opportunity , although there is a defender back he isn't closing Knight who would have had a clear shot on goal as I think my screen shot shows. He could be about to shoot, be odd if he wasn't, and that looks like a decent chance to me. I don't mind they overturned it, but basically Bannon was kicking out at Knight as there was no attempt to play the ball. 
Really tough for the Ref this one. 

 

I think what didn't help the ref was how close to the box it was as just created more uncertainty and doubt.

It kind of felt real time in the ground it had to be either a penalty or red card... A couple of yards further back I think he would have given a yellow but the extra pressure of crowd, players and also probably not being 100% sure himself if inside or outside would have added to the severity in his mind.

 

[Cowshed]

46 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Thanks for that , it does add a different slant on it. IMO it is a goalscoring opportunity , although there is a defender back he isn't closing Knight who would have had a clear shot on goal as I think my screen shot shows. He could be about to shoot, be odd if he wasn't, and that looks like a decent chance to me. I don't mind they overturned it, but basically Bannon was kicking out at Knight as there was no attempt to play the ball. 
Really tough for the Ref this one. 

 

My Son refs, we also have one on here. The two are saying no red card. I agree as a coach.

My Son says look at the considerations, not rules as I called them - Distance from goal, defenders covering, direction of play etc.

I think they are numerous things that could have happened in a split second. I am not convinced there is not a heavy touch in there, the keeper and defender are moving to force the player away from goal, their narrowing the angle, there is a lot going on I see as a coach x those considerations. I think it fails that quick test of being a obvious goal scoring opportunity so no red card. 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Cowshed

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

IFAB do differing official versions of the rules, full and simplified, there is also glossaries and details, but to my knowledge that is as good (clarified) as it gets. 

The EFL website  may interest and its behind the whistle section. There is a decision featured, Red card, DOGSO outside of the area -  Behind the Whistle: The weekend's key match decisions - The English Football League (efl.com)

Ta for this, good to read rationale.

[1960maaan]

9 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

My Son refs, we also have one on here. The two are saying no red card. I agree as a coach.

My Son says look at the considerations, not rules as I called them - Distance from goal, defenders covering, direction of play etc.

I think they are numerous things that could have happened in a split second. I am not convinced there is not a heavy touch in there, the keeper and defender are moving to force the player away from goal, their narrowing the angle, there is a lot going on I see as a coach x those considerations. I think it fails that quick test of being a obvious goal scoring opportunity so no red card. 

 

TBH if Bannon isn't there and a City player is in that position, I'm calling him all the names under the Sun if he doesn't score. Like I said though, not surprised it was over turned and that split second the Ref has is tough. But, IMO , that is a goalscoring chance. 
Now whether it's clear enough for the Ref to send him off , then that feels like a different decision.
Who'd be a Ref.

[Steve Watts]

The craziness being that if the offence happened a yard further forward it wouldn't even have been a foul as we all know there's no way we're being given a penalty unless he's shanked by every member of the opposing team, including the coaching staff! 

On 05/11/2023 at 09:12, cityexile said:

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. 

That's the inconsistency that bugs me.  If a defender brings a player down with the keeper still in position it's a red.  If a keeper brings a player down but there's a covering defender it tends not to be, in my experience. (Though I may be imagining things there)

On 14/11/2023 at 20:07, Davefevs said:

Haha, in which case my understanding prior to reading the rules was right then.  The FA page is incredibly ambiguous then!

From:

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Have you got anything that explains it with total clarity?

I like the second highlighted paragraph.  Denied by a handball offence wherever it occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)....why the bit in brackets when referring to handball offences?!?  Clearly if the keeper is in the area there is no offence if he handles it!  It's like they go out of their way to make things ambiguous!

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

The craziness being that if the offence happened a yard further forward it wouldn't even have been a foul as we all know there's no way we're being given a penalty unless he's shanked by every member of the opposing team, including the coaching staff! 

That's the inconsistency that bugs me.  If a defender brings a player down with the keeper still in position it's a red.  If a keeper brings a player down but there's a covering defender it tends not to be, in my experience. (Though I may be imagining things there)

I like the second highlighted paragraph.  Denied by a handball offence wherever it occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)....why the bit in brackets when referring to handball offences?!?  Clearly if the keeper is in the area there is no offence if he handles it!  It's like they go out of their way to make things ambiguous!

Maybe off a backpass?

[cidercity1987]

The more I think about it the more mad it is overturned.

Cynical trip literally and deliberately just outside the penalty area BECAUSE Bannan thought it was a goalscoring opportunity. 

Defenders out of position and a clear shot on goal to follow.

It would have been so unfair to be only a free kick and yellow.

[Steve Watts]

50 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Maybe off a backpass?

Ffs Dave.... don't come at me with logic!

[cidercity1987]

I notice Brownhill was sent off for a very similar offence yesterday.

Correct decision and I bet it doesn't get overturned, or even appealed 

Edited February 25 by cidercity1987