DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79096--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red card question - Gills v Donny (Chilowicz)
DIR By: nemesis
Date: April 28, 2024, 3:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Arbitre anglais link ---
>
> You raise a good point about almost all GK offences wrongly
expected to get a RC these days, due to a lack of understanding
(and commentators!) It’s simply another judgement (like any
other player) as to whether it’s prevented a goal or an obvious
opportunity.
>
> In this case, the attacker is never getting the ball and 3
defenders would’ve cleared it /beaten him to it anyway. Looks
like it’s going wide to me, but we can’t tell for certain.
Supportable decision, but if going wide, it should be a YC for
SPA.
>
--- End Quote ---
How is it a promising attack if it's going wide?
#Post#: 79106--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red card question - Gills v Donny (Chilowicz)
DIR By: Tonydent
Date: April 29, 2024, 3:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the kind of red card that footballers, fans, football
clubs, and even goalkeepers expect. There will be no appeal from
Donny as they believe it’s the right decision.
From what I’ve seen, the ball was heading in the general
direction of the goal, at a speed that would have *probably*
beaten the covering defenders. Hard to be certain, but I think
99/100 referees, and 100/100 fans / players etc would give a red
card here.
#Post#: 79108--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red card question - Gills v Donny (Chilowicz)
DIR By: Acme Thunderer
Date: April 29, 2024, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Tonydent link ---
>
> This is the kind of red card that footballers, fans, football
clubs, and even goalkeepers expect. There will be no appeal from
Donny as they believe it’s the right decision.
> From what I’ve seen, the ball was heading in the general
direction of the goal, at a speed that would have *probably*
beaten the covering defenders. Hard to be certain, but I think
99/100 referees, and 100/100 fans / players etc would give a red
card here.
>
--- End Quote ---
Totally agree. In this situation, I think it is irrelevant
whether the ball was heading goal-wards or wide or indeed
whether an attacker would have got to the ball before the
defenders had a chance to clear it. It was after all not a shot
on or off target. The goalie prevented a clear goal-scoring
opportunity by handling the ball outside the area and the red
card was expected and fully justified.
#Post#: 79116--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red card question - Gills v Donny (Chilowicz)
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: April 29, 2024, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Acme Thunderer link ---
>
> [quote author=Tonydent link=topic=5960.msg79106#msg79106
date=1714380880]
> This is the kind of red card that footballers, fans, football
clubs, and even goalkeepers expect. There will be no appeal from
Donny as they believe it’s the right decision.
> From what I’ve seen, the ball was heading in the general
direction of the goal, at a speed that would have *probably*
beaten the covering defenders. Hard to be certain, but I think
99/100 referees, and 100/100 fans / players etc would give a red
card here.
>
--- End Quote ---
Totally agree. In this situation, I think it is irrelevant
whether the ball was heading goal-wards or wide or indeed
whether an attacker would have got to the ball before the
defenders had a chance to clear it. It was after all not a shot
on or off target. The goalie prevented a clear goal-scoring
opportunity by handling the ball outside the area and the red
card was expected and fully justified.
[/quote]
Just adding a slight dissenting view, which I only intend to be
constructive.
The direction of the ball is relevant - if the ball was going to
the corner flag, then it wouldn't be a red, so we can all
instinctively agree that there is a spectrum leading to a line
where 'obviously-red' and 'obviously-not-red' meet? That - at
least - isn't novel in the LotG when it comes to subjective
decision making.
To extend examples further (DOGSO v DOG if we can call it that),
an attacker with a clear shot on goal who loses the chances from
a handball by a defender results in a red card; if that same
defender handles a shot, it's a yellow card unless either the
defender is basically on the goal line, or it's clear that the
goalkeeper is unlikely to save it. That's always been the case,
but it was tightened up even further this last summer as IFAB
want to reduce cautions awarded in the penalty areas for
non-reckless challenges.
A shot already taken is not treated the same as an opportunity
to shoot.
Therefore, it is important as to where the ball is going. If
it's definitely going wide then a red card cannot be the correct
decision.
All of that said - I'm in total agreement that the defenders are
of a limited mitigation in such examples, as they cannot use
their hands, but they would still be considered. I also agree
that is looks like it's goal-bound, and the defenders are
unlikely to get to it. 100% red card for me also.
#Post#: 79123--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red card question - Gills v Donny (Chilowicz)
DIR By: Acme Thunderer
Date: April 29, 2024, 8:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Affy_Moose link ---
>
> [quote author=Acme Thunderer link=topic=5960.msg79108#msg79108
date=1714382204]
> [quote author=Tonydent link=topic=5960.msg79106#msg79106
date=1714380880]
> This is the kind of red card that footballers, fans, football
clubs, and even goalkeepers expect. There will be no appeal from
Donny as they believe it’s the right decision.
> From what I’ve seen, the ball was heading in the general
direction of the goal, at a speed that would have *probably*
beaten the covering defenders. Hard to be certain, but I think
99/100 referees, and 100/100 fans / players etc would give a red
card here.
>
--- End Quote ---
Totally agree. In this situation, I think it is irrelevant
whether the ball was heading goal-wards or wide or indeed
whether an attacker would have got to the ball before the
defenders had a chance to clear it. It was after all not a shot
on or off target. The goalie prevented a clear goal-scoring
opportunity by handling the ball outside the area and the red
card was expected and fully justified.
[/quote]
Just adding a slight dissenting view, which I only intend to be
constructive.
The direction of the ball is relevant - if the ball was going to
the corner flag, then it wouldn't be a red, so we can all
instinctively agree that there is a spectrum leading to a line
where 'obviously-red' and 'obviously-not-red' meet? That - at
least - isn't novel in the LotG when it comes to subjective
decision making.
To extend examples further (DOGSO v DOG if we can call it that),
an attacker with a clear shot on goal who loses the chances from
a handball by a defender results in a red card; if that same
defender handles a shot, it's a yellow card unless either the
defender is basically on the goal line, or it's clear that the
goalkeeper is unlikely to save it. That's always been the case,
but it was tightened up even further this last summer as IFAB
want to reduce cautions awarded in the penalty areas for
non-reckless challenges.
A shot already taken is not treated the same as an opportunity
to shoot.
Therefore, it is important as to where the ball is going. If
it's definitely going wide then a red card cannot be the correct
decision.
All of that said - I'm in total agreement that the defenders are
of a limited mitigation in such examples, as they cannot use
their hands, but they would still be considered. I also agree
that is looks like it's goal-bound, and the defenders are
unlikely to get to it. 100% red card for me also.
[/quote]
Having looked at it again, I take your point. I had not realised
that the header back (by a defender) was strong enough to have
ended up in the goal direct had the goalie not intervened. A few
years ago Andre Marriner sent off an Arsenal player for
deliberately handling a shot which was clearly going wide. That
was an error, but this was not the case at Gillingham and
presumably Mr Chilowicz would have been admirably placed to see
whether the header was goal bound or going wide for a corner. So
yes, a red card was approrpriate.
#Post#: 79167--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red card question - Gills v Donny (Chilowicz)
DIR By: JohnCoyle
Date: April 29, 2024, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A better view of the penalty incident (after the red card).
HTML https://twitter.com/owen_collins7/status/1785012622200561954?t=1FEkk5Kd4TGcechjZNF9iQ&s=19
I fully accept the red card, but I think we should have had a
penalty for that challenge.
#Post#: 79169--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red card question - Gills v Donny (Chilowicz)
DIR By: guest308
Date: April 29, 2024, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JohnCoyle link ---
>
> A better view of the penalty incident (after the red card).
>
HTML https://twitter.com/owen_collins7/status/1785012622200561954?t=1FEkk5Kd4TGcechjZNF9iQ&s=19
>
> I fully accept the red card, but I think we should have had a
penalty for that challenge.
>
--- End Quote ---
Stone Waller
#Post#: 79171--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red card question - Gills v Donny (Chilowicz)
DIR By: TVOS
Date: April 29, 2024, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JohnCoyle link ---
>
> A better view of the penalty incident (after the red card).
>
HTML https://twitter.com/owen_collins7/status/1785012622200561954?t=1FEkk5Kd4TGcechjZNF9iQ&s=19
>
> I fully accept the red card, but I think we should have had a
penalty for that challenge.
>
--- End Quote ---
How did they win 10 games on the bounce playing at that speed?
#Post#: 79282--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red card question - Gills v Donny (Chilowicz)
DIR By: elbee94
Date: May 1, 2024, 9:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m in agreement with the majority here that i’d definitely be
expecting a red card - however, it’s been overturned!
#Post#: 79284--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red card question - Gills v Donny (Chilowicz)
DIR By: Acme Thunderer
Date: May 1, 2024, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: elbee94 link ---
>
> I’m in agreement with the majority here that i’d definitely be
expecting a red card - however, it’s been overturned!
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm a bit surprised tbh, but maybe the panel thought that it
could have been going wide. I cannot think it was because it
actually followed a back header from the Donnies defender and
therefore not strictly DOGSO. Similar but different
circumstances to the Cooney red card, Crewe v Wrexham, which was
also overturned on appeal, and a bit ironic that the two players
involved are likely to be facing up to each other next Monday in
the L2 playoff.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page