General Wolves News

[PuntsWolf]

That is what someone said but it's a load of bollocks (the rule itself, rather than what was said). Just blow the whistle after the advantage is over and send the bloke off. If you can stop the play randomly for an injury, you can stop it to send a guy off at the end of the advantage regardless of whether the ball is dead.

 

[Banjo]

That is what someone said but it's a load of bollocks (the rule itself, rather than what was said). Just blow the whistle after the advantage is over and send the bloke off. If you can stop the play randomly for an injury, you can stop it to send a guy off at the end of the advantage regardless of whether the ball is dead.

Agreed. Otherwise the attacking team (the 'victim') is prejudiced just because they want to carry on the attack. A red card is a red card and should be given whether the attacking team still scores or not on my view. It's meant to be a punishment to the offender not a reward for the victim.

 

[b3h]

Ah yeah of course. So we'd probably take the goal and yellow... Still, not sure if the ref should have let play carry on. A red is a red isn't it

 

[PuntsWolf]

He definitely should have let play carry on!

It's not a balatant red anyway. Meyler on Hennessey was a shocker last night, he probably didn't get sent off if it was the 95th minute.

On both occasions there was a degree of leneiency given the situations. Whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant. It's not like he punched him in the face so had to send him off.

 

[Parkins left foot]

Suspect that our view of the incident & the Refs action would be coloured by whether Jota put the ball in the net or not

Kudos though to Leo who would have seen the challenge coming & didn't flinch or pull out

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Didn't someone say to be a red the ref would have had to have stopped play there and then?

The referee does not have to stop play immediately if he is going to send someone off. However, the problem is that if the next time the ball goes out of play is when the player who has committed the offence scores a goal. The referee awards the goal, and then sends the player off for an offence committed before he scored. You would then have a situation whereby a goal has been scored by a player who should not be on the pitch.

We strongly recommend referees to stop play immediately if a red card is to be issued, as one can imagine the commotion if the above scenario happened.

 

[Johnny75]

The referee does not have to stop play immediately if he is going to send someone off. However, the problem is that if the next time the ball goes out of play is when the player who has committed the offence scores a goal. The referee awards the goal, and then sends the player off for an offence committed before he scored. You would then have a situation whereby a goal has been scored by a player who should not be on the pitch.

We strongly recommend referees to stop play immediately if a red card is to be issued, as one can imagine the commotion if the above scenario happened.

That's the best case for TV goal reviews I can think of. Goal would not be allowed and player sent off.

If it was like American Football for example then using the Wolves example Nuno would have the choice (1) Let the goal stand and Mills stays on the pitch (2) the play gets pulled back to where the offence took place, Wolves get a free kick and Mills is sent off. I think every team would choose 1.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

That's the best case for TV goal reviews I can think of. Goal would not be allowed and player sent off.

If it was like American Football for example then using the Wolves example Nuno would have the choice (1) Let the goal stand and Mills stays on the pitch (2) the play gets pulled back to where the offence took place, Wolves get a free kick and Mills is sent off. I think every team would choose 1.

On what grounds would the goal be disallowed?

 

[machin05]

The referee does not have to stop play immediately if he is going to send someone off. However, the problem is that if the next time the ball goes out of play is when the player who has committed the offence scores a goal. The referee awards the goal, and then sends the player off for an offence committed before he scored. You would then have a situation whereby a goal has been scored by a player who should not be on the pitch.

We strongly recommend referees to stop play immediately if a red card is to be issued, as one can imagine the commotion if the above scenario happened.

Could they not apply the same logic as when they play an advantage after a foul? No danger of the red card offender scoring if the ref stops play as soon as the subsequent attack breaks down.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Could they not apply the same logic as when they play an advantage after a foul? No danger of the red card offender scoring if the ref stops play as soon as the subsequent attack breaks down.

Not as the law stands at the moment. The referee would have to stop play immediately and send the player off, or wait until the ball is next out of play.

 

[Johnny75]

On what grounds would the goal be disallowed?

In your example the guy committing the offence would be sent off so chalking the goal off.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

In your example the guy committing the offence would be sent off so chalking the goal off.

The problem with that is as the law stands, provided no offence had been committed in the build up to the goal following the red card offence, then the referee could not disallow it.

As things stand, the referees association is of the opinion that it would be safer for the referee to remove any possibility of such a situation arising by stopping play immediately and issuing the red card.

 

[Kenny]

The referee does not have to stop play immediately if he is going to send someone off. However, the problem is that if the next time the ball goes out of play is when the player who has committed the offence scores a goal. The referee awards the goal, and then sends the player off for an offence committed before he scored. You would then have a situation whereby a goal has been scored by a player who should not be on the pitch.

We strongly recommend referees to stop play immediately if a red card is to be issued, as one can imagine the commotion if the above scenario happened.

v Forest last season at Molineux that nearly happened, although the offence was a yellow card, it was the players 2nd so he was off....but play went on for the advantage, we wasted it they attacked almost scored and then the game naturally stopped and the ref went back and booked the player and off he went.

 

[Johnny75]

The problem with that is as the law stands, provided no offence had been committed in the build up to the goal following the red card offence, then the referee could not disallow it.

WTF Frank it's your example.

The problem is that if the next time the ball goes out of play is when the player who has committed the offence scores a goal.

Ergo the goal would be disallowed. Are you being deliberately argumentative?

 

[Alan]

I remember during the Solbakken/Saunders season Berra got sent off after the referee had allowed play to continue and we were furious.

Can't remember who it was against. It was early in the season though IIRC.

 

[PuntsWolf]

The referee does not have to stop play immediately if he is going to send someone off.
.

Could they not apply the same logic as when they play an advantage after a foul? No danger of the red card offender scoring if the ref stops play as soon as the subsequent attack breaks down.

Not as the law stands at the moment. The referee would have to stop play immediately and send the player off, or wait until the ball is next out of play.

This isn't what you say in the first quote....

Regardless, they can stop the play. Blow the whistle like the do for an injury.

And if some idiot a the FA will be angry because they broke the rules, then change the stupid rule.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I remember during the Solbakken/Saunders season Berra got sent off after the referee had allowed play to continue and we were furious.

Can't remember who it was against. It was early in the season though IIRC.

Watford away, we appealed and won.

He was deemed to have prevented a goal scoring opportunity, which was ridiculous as the player he fouled still had his opportunity.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Johnny, I am not being argumentative at all, just explaining why the referee should stop play if he intends to send off a player.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

In your example the guy committing the offence would be sent off so chalking the goal off.

A goal cannot be disallowed because a player is being sent off. The referee can only disallow the goal if an offence has been committed, offside or handball for example. A referee certainly cannot disallow a goal because he is issuing a delayed red card. It really is fraught with danger.

 

[Johnny75]

A goal cannot be disallowed because a player is being sent off. The referee can only disallow the goal if an offence has been committed, offside or handball for example. A referee certainly cannot disallow a goal because he is issuing a delayed red card. It really is fraught with danger.

Bloody hell you're being difficult today. If you read what is written I have said this is a good advocate for TV reviews of goals. That way the ref can let play go on if they are not sure and always review it, chalk the goal off and send the player off.

I am trying to say the ref can make a decision in time rather than a split second decision and get it wrong.