Newport County vs Exeter City Matchday Thread

[REDMIKE]

Bang on yet people seem quite happy to totally ignore the evidence provided.

Newport fans on their forum are saying it was only a yellow card.

 

[The Proper Chap]

Newport fans on their forum are saying it was only a yellow card.

All of them ??

 

[Alistair20000]

Red card, yellow card, no card.

It has happened. Nothing can change that unless we are appealing.

Time to move on as Tony Blair used to say.

 

[John William]

It's not irrelevant though is it. OC suggested that Maynard didn't have control of the ball, one of the considerations listed in the law that referees have to decide upon. In many cases this is a matter of opinion and judgement. if the law was as clear cut as you suggest these kinds of discussions wouldn't happen.

OC was talking about whether the forward would have controlled the ball or the keeper might have saved it. That is indeed irrelevant. Once the referee decides the tests of Law 12 are met (the opportunity), the liklihood of the GK saving it or the forward missing or not controlling the ball don't matter.

I'm not actually a fan of the Law as worded, but that's a different issue. There are whole swathes of the Laws that are poor, eg the handball law, offside, feigning injury, etc but refs have to apply them as best they can. IMO the ref on Tuesday had no choice

 

[IndoMike]

Irrelevant. The Law is based on the possibility of a goal ("opportunity") given specified tests, not the probability. It may be a bad rule but that is the rule.

So if a player is lining up for a shot 30 yards out (a la Beckham or several.others) and is fouled then the fouler gets a direct red.

 

[John William]

So if a player is lining up for a shot 30 yards out (a la Beckham or several others) and is fouled then the fouler gets a direct red.

Not necessarily, it depends on the tests in Law 12 one of which is distance from goal, but in principle that could be the case if the Referee so judges.

As I have said many times, we all need to reflect on what the Laws of the Game say, not our own views on fairness and what we would like to happen. To repeat, the cold, hard reality is that the criteria for a red card are:

"denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick" ...

"The following must be considered:

• distance between the offence and the goal
• general direction of the play
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• location and number of defenders"

You can argue about whether those tests were met on Tuesday (IMO it's pretty clear that they were), but introducing other issues (like whether the keeper might have saved it) doesn't change anything.

 

[grecIAN Harris]

Not necessarily, it depends on the tests in Law 12 one of which is distance from goal, but in principle that could be the case if the Referee so judges.

As I have said many times, we all need to reflect on what the Laws of the Game say, not our own views on fairness and what we would like to happen. To repeat, the cold, hard reality is that the criteria for a red card are:

"denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick" ...

"The following must be considered:

• distance between the offence and the goal
• general direction of the play
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• location and number of defenders"

You can argue about whether those tests were met on Tuesday (IMO it's pretty clear that they were), but introducing other issues (like whether the keeper might have saved it) doesn't change anything.

To answer the considerations:

25-30 yards from goal
Ten yards left of centre with the general play veering further left (Maynard was running from right to left across Hartridge)
On that pitch not quite as easily as you might on a 'normal' pitch
The only defender that matters is Hartridge and his general movement of direction (straight line towards the bye line) would have got him between the goal and Maynard before Maynard had an opportunity to shoot.

How many goals get scored 25-30 yards out? Very few in the grand scheme of things
How many goals get scored from a direct shot (never mind getting control of the ball and then shooting) from where Maynard was eventually going to get the ball? Even less
Likely hood of gaining full control of the ball before Hartridge got back goal side, Maynard was good when he was younger but he's older and less agile now
See above

All in all, the referee made a monumental balls up because he didn't even allow himself to consider the options, never mind actually come to the right decision.

 

[John William]

To answer the considerations:

25-30 yards from goal
Ten yards left of centre with the general play veering further left (Maynard was running from right to left across Hartridge)
On that pitch not quite as easily as you might on a 'normal' pitch
The only defender that matters is Hartridge and his general movement of direction (straight line towards the bye line) would have got him between the goal and Maynard before Maynard had an opportunity to shoot.

How many goals get scored 25-30 yards out? Very few in the grand scheme of things
How many goals get scored from a direct shot (never mind getting control of the ball and then shooting) from where Maynard was eventually going to get the ball? Even less
Likely hood of gaining full control of the ball before Hartridge got back goal side, Maynard was good when he was younger but he's older and less agile now
See above

All in all, the referee made a monumental balls up because he didn't even allow himself to consider the options, never mind actually come to the right decision.

Fair enough. I think this analysis is overly favourable to a City PoV but at least it is based on what happened on the pitch and what might have influenced the referee's decision based on his reading of the Law, so we are now on what the Law says not what it doesn't.

And the key word in the Law is still opportunity, not the percentage likelihood of success. If Law 12 said anything about that likelihood, we would have a case.

Last word from me on the subject.

 

[IndoMike]

Fair enough. I think this analysis is overly favourable to a City PoV but at least it is based on what happened on the pitch and what might have influenced the referee's decision based on his reading of the Law, so we are now on what the Law says not what it doesn't.

And the key word in the Law is still opportunity, not the percentage likelihood of success. If Law 12 said anything about that likelihood, we would have a case.

Last word from me on the subject.

According to your quote from the lawbook: "obvious goal - scoring opportunity".
If Hartridge was right on his tail then for me it certainly wasn't a clear - cut (obvious) opportunity.
The fact is that Hartridge just put his hand on Maynard's shoulder. Maynard probably knew it wasn't an obvious goal so he did what so many players do : collapse like he'd been hit with a sledgehammer. Hartridge showed his inexperience : he shouldn't have given Maynard the excuse to go down . But imo the ref was far too quick to give the red. A yellow would have sufficed. I'm not saying this through bias : my eyesight is perfect and I can see
I reckon if Bowman had gotten his red first
the ref wouldn't have red-carded Hartridge.
But assuming Bowman really did elbow the Newport bloke, the ref had no choice in that situation.
Angry with Bowman : there was no need to elbow : the ball was just floating around near the touchline. He should know by now not to do that kind of thing.

 

[tonykellowfan]

Hartridge ran over the back of Maynards legs and tripped him.