Consistently Wrong Refereeing decisions...

[stamfordram]

I think that was my point Tricky - I do disagree with the decision to send the player off -both players should have stayed on and both goals should have stood.

Both players were sent off for "denying goal scoring opportunities" but if both goals were awarded then goal scoring opportunities were not denied

The Ward one was particularly poignant as instead of a goal we got a free kick outside of the area which didn't seem fair - at least we got a penalty yesterday.

I understand the rules were probably applied strictly but in my view the application was wrong

[ellafella]

Most of you seem to be missing the point, Dave is 100% correct.

Once the decision has been made to send a player off, then play HAS TO stop.

So unless you disagree with the decision on the sending off then the title of this thread is wrong not the ref.

So many football fans are critical when utterly clueless, thanks for proving a point here Ella, stick to stats coz you know eff all about football.

Oh. OK Tricky. I bow to your superior knowledge and eloquence in debate.

Why don't you address the point behind my post though. Want me to explain it again?

[ellafella]

I think that was my point Tricky - I do disagree with the decision to send the player off -both players should have stayed on and both goals should have stood.

Both players were sent off for "denying goal scoring opportunities" but if both goals were awarded then goal scoring opportunities were not denied

The Ward one was particularly poignant as instead of a goal we got a free kick outside of the area which didn't seem fair - at least we got a penalty yesterday.

I understand the rules were probably applied strictly but in my view the application was wrong

Good job we have Stamford to explain it to Tricky.

[Ramondo]

For me, regardless of the rules regarding whether a red card offence can be ignored by playing the advantage, the more relevant issue was whether the ref had blown before the ball hit the net.

As soon as Ince went down I was looking at the ref and could see he whistle in his mouth before Bent scored, in fact I didn't see Bent shoot because I was watching the referee. I knew it wasn't a goal when everyone around me was celebrating.

So if he's blown the whistle, the game has officially stopped and nothing that happens after that counts until the restart.

[dcfcdavecov]

Doesn't matter if the ball hit the back of the net before he blew. He has to bring it back for the red card.

I'd hAve preferred a yellow and the goal, but they are not the rules.

[Ramondo]

Doesn't matter if the ball hit the back of the net before he blew. He has to bring it back for the red card.

I'd hAve preferred a yellow and the goal, but they are not the rules.

I'm not disputing what the rule is. The point I was making was that the goal wouldn't have counted even if that rule wasn't in place because (as far as I could tell) the ref had blown already.

So there's no point moaning about the rule potentially costing us a goal in this instance.

[tricky1972]

Most of you seem to be missing the point, Dave is 100% correct.

Once the decision has been made to send a player off, then play HAS TO stop.

So unless you disagree with the decision on the sending off then the title of this thread is wrong not the ref.

So many football fans are critical when utterly clueless, thanks for proving a point here Ella, stick to stats coz you know eff all about football.

Oh. OK Tricky. I bow to your superior knowledge and eloquence in debate.

Why don't you address the point behind my post though. Want me to explain it again? [/quote]

Yes, please explain it, are you...

a. saying it's a 'wrong refereeing decision'?

or

b. asking if a sending off and a penno is a lesser advantage than a goal and yellow card? Then it depends, I suppose, you could always play the last 20 minutes of the game and bring it back to that incident to work out the 'ad

[tricky1972]

I think that was my point Tricky - I do disagree with the decision to send the player off -both players should have stayed on and both goals should have stood.

Both players were sent off for "denying goal scoring opportunities" but if both goals were awarded then goal scoring opportunities were not denied

The Ward one was particularly poignant as instead of a goal we got a free kick outside of the area which didn't seem fair - at least we got a penalty yesterday.

I understand the rules were probably applied strictly but in my view the application was wrong

Good job we have Stamford to explain it to Tricky. [/quote]

This explains what you would like the rules to be, not what they are.

I would like the rules to be that no goal scored by Derby is allowed to count (the Attwell rule we'll call it).

But it seems that you all concede the fact that the initial goal shouldn't have st

[southernram22]

I think the rules should be any team who score a goal when a foul has happened should be allowed to have advantage .

[ramspride]

A red card offence cannot have an advantage played after it. As soon as it's committed, the game stops.

Refs are right in both circumstances, according to the rules.

Wrong Dave

Advantage


According to the principle of advantage, play should be allowed to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from ongoing play. The referee indicates this by calling "play on!" and extending both arms in front of his body.[7]

FIFA's guidance on the interpretation of the Laws for referees outlines the considerations a referee must make when deciding whether to play advantage; these include the severity of the offence and the potential for attacking opportunity. Referees are instructed to make such decisions "within a few seconds" of the offence.[1]:72

In rare situations, advantage can also be applied if the foul was also a misconduct. Play is allowed to continue, but at the next stoppage in play the cau