Dangerous Goalkeeping

[Number 6]

For me it was a foul and a yellow card but given the way the laws are written, I think the outcome of Dyer's header matters.

If it goes in, as it did, it should be a retrospective yellow. He came to get the ball and didn't so it's a foul but we'd obviously rather have the goal.

If it doesn't go in I think rule becomes sketchy. It's a foul and a pen but colour of card is interesting. Could argue he has denied the goalscoring opportunity with a foul and so it's a red in this case.

This is why I think "Denies goal scoring opportunity" needs changing. It's impossible to deny a goal scoring opportunity if he's scored, by its very definition. But this means whether or not Dyer's header goes in could change the card.

[Jordan]

Guzan may be "entitled" to go for 50-50 balls just like anyone else, but ironically, had he stayed on his line, Dyer would never have scored.

There have been a few posts mentioning that Guzan was "the last man," which isn't the law. Guzan couldn't have gotten a red for "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity," as Dyer scored and rendered that point moot.

I think there's definitely a concern that Guzan's challenge might have been reckless. Guzan's a hard bastard, and I've seen him put a little extra sauce on 50-50 challenges several times.

[Jordan]

If, hypothetically, the goalie had punched it clear, and Dyer follow through and clattered into him, unless there was a clear advantage to be played it would have immediately been given as a foul on the keeper. Clear foul in my opinion.

The ref should have played advantage in our favour, let the ball run into the net, given the goal and then booked the keeper.

I think this would have been the best course of action.

[DB11]

No I'm sure that's only the case with yellows. No advantage can be played if the player's gonna walk

 

Wrong

 

For me it was a foul and a yellow card but given the way the laws are written, I think the outcome of Dyer's header matters.

If it goes in, as it did, it should be a retrospective yellow. He came to get the ball and didn't so it's a foul but we'd obviously rather have the goal.

If it doesn't go in I think rule becomes sketchy. It's a foul and a pen but colour of card is interesting. Could argue he has denied the goalscoring opportunity with a foul and so it's a red in this case.

This is why I think "Denies goal scoring opportunity" needs changing. It's impossible to deny a goal scoring opportunity if he's scored, by its very definition. But this means whether or not Dyer's header goes in could change the card.

 

No because the opportunity has gone once he's headed the ball, regardless of whether it goes in or not. That's why it is denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, not denying a goal.

[HighPeakFox]

Maybe a tabloid can have an article about how Dyer could have been killed......

[The whole world smiles]

It hasn't really been highlighted but don't you think that giant carrot playing in goal for Villa should have been booked for flooring Dyer ?  He damn near took his head off and if you say he was going for the ball that would be stretching it.  Its something that happens a lot and keepers seem to be able to get away with it ....   to me thats (very) dangerous play and if an outfield player did it the ref would have a card out faster than you could say "keepeeeeers !"  .....    It wouldn't have looked out of place on a rugby pitch ....

 

He was going for the ball and he got a shoulder on it thats why it looped up, watch it again.

[Countryfox]

He was going for the ball and he got a shoulder on it thats why it looped up, watch it again.

 

Dyer got it first, then in a nano second it hit Guzans shoulder, looped up and went in ......  Dyer got the ball and Guzan got the man

[Number 6]

No because the opportunity has gone once he's headed the ball, regardless of whether it goes in or not. That's why it is denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, not denying a goal.

So the outcome of Dyer's header matters. It was a loopy path it took, if it was travelling slower you could argue Dyer still on his feet would have got to it and knocked it in.

If someone deliberately tried to stop a goal scoring opportunity and failed, they actually get let off the red by definition of the law. That's what I don't like about it. Being shit at cheating shouldn't be less punishable.

[Steven]

"Guzan could have killed him. If he did that on the street he would be arrested and hopefully jailed." © Mark Halsey

[stix]

Wrong

No because the opportunity has gone once he's headed the ball, regardless of whether it goes in or not. That's why it is denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, not denying a goal.

Do you think he should have been booked? Being a ref an'all.

[filbertstreet]

"Guzan could have killed him. If he did that on the street he would be arrested and hopefully jailed." © Mark Halsey

Wrong way round, reporters don't like us.

 

"Dyer could have killed the poor goalkeeper by launching his head directly in to his fists."

[Steven]

Wrong way round, reporters don't like us.

 

"Dyer could have killed the poor goalkeeper by launching his head directly in to his fists."

 

How stupid of me.

[DB11]

Do you think he should have been booked? Being a ref an'all.

 

I think that he definitely should have been, but in terms of the referee managing the game LCFC were happy they got the goal, Villa (and Guzan) were annoyed they'd conceded. Did the game need a yellow card in that situation? I don't think so and I think if he'd cautioned him it would have been unexpected and the referee would have lost a bit of match control.

 

Sometimes it's not as black and white as giving a decision - you have to weigh up the effects it would have on your match control. If the laws of the game are black and white and you cannot use your discretion (eg. handball on the line to save a certain goal you cannot not give a red card even if it's the last minute of the game and the other team are 10-0 up. Even at under 11s you're getting a red card for that) but where you can use discretion and it will assist with match control then do it. Being a referee is about maintaining control and ensuring the game is played fairly, why give a decision that will turn the game into chaos unless you have no choice and your hands are tied.

 

It reminded me a little of

[Great Boos Up]

Advantage played and the goal stands. Centre kick then hold play while ref sends Guzan off. Obviously then it has to be a penalty and we win 4-2. Plus Villa get deducted 6 points and have to rename their stadium "little girls swings and seesaw park" and....

[Countryfox]

I think that he definitely should have been, but in terms of the referee managing the game LCFC were happy they got the goal, Villa (and Guzan) were annoyed they'd conceded. Did the game need a yellow card in that situation? I don't think so and I think if he'd cautioned him it would have been unexpected and the referee would have lost a bit of match control.

 

Sometimes it's not as black and white as giving a decision - you have to weigh up the effects it would have on your match control. If the laws of the game are black and white and you cannot use your discretion (eg. handball on the line to save a certain goal you cannot not give a red card even if it's the last minute of the game and the other team are 10-0 up. Even at under 11s you're getting a red card for that) but where you can use discretion and it will assist with match control then do it. Being a referee is about maintaining control and ensuring the game is played fairly, why give a decision that will turn the game into chaos unless you have no choice and your hands are tied.

It reminded me a little of

 

Disappointed. You said he should have been booked but you wouldn't have booked him .. Match control ?? What happens when people get away with things .... They do it again. Let's just hope he doesn't break someone's neck next time

[Countryfox]

My reply got lost in the middle of your bit !!

[Kitchandro]

Should have been a red, it was Schumacher-esque.

 

It was a 50-50 but the manner of Guzan's challenge was completely reckless.

[Kitchandro]

I think that he definitely should have been, but in terms of the referee managing the game LCFC were happy they got the goal, Villa (and Guzan) were annoyed they'd conceded. Did the game need a yellow card in that situation? I don't think so and I think if he'd cautioned him it would have been unexpected and the referee would have lost a bit of match control.

 

Sometimes it's not as black and white as giving a decision - you have to weigh up the effects it would have on your match control. If the laws of the game are black and white and you cannot use your discretion (eg. handball on the line to save a certain goal you cannot not give a red card even if it's the last minute of the game and the other team are 10-0 up. Even at under 11s you're getting a red card for that) but where you can use discretion and it will assist with match control then do it. Being a referee is about maintaining control and ensuring the game is played fairly, why give a decision that will turn the game into chaos unless you have no choice and your hands are tied.

 

It reminded me a little of

 

I'm sure this 'match control' thing is something that professional referees do, and frankly it's absolutely sickening.

 

Being a referee is not about maintaining control, it's about being fair. It's extremely sad that you and no doubt other referees actually think the referee's job is to control the game. Players control the game, referees are just there to make sure the rules are followed.

 

If a decision is right, it's right, it should be irrelevant whom it pisses off.

 

In this situation, a red card should have been given because it's dangerous play. It doesn't matter that we scored, keepers should be punished for putting other players at risk by cleaning players out with their dangerous, selfish challenges.

[Finnaldo]

There should be a reform of referees and conduct around them. Only captain's should be allowed to approach them and should do so in an orderly manner, failure results in a caution for them. That should prevent referees from feeling they have to control the match.

On the other hand, referees should also be punished for failure to get blatant decisions right post-match. Neither party should be allowed to feel the right to rule over the other.

[Countryfox]

I'm sure this 'match control' thing is something that professional referees do, and frankly it's absolutely sickening.

 

Being a referee is not about maintaining control, it's about being fair. It's extremely sad that you and no doubt other referees actually think the referee's job is to control the game. Players control the game, referees are just there to make sure the rules are followed.

 

If a decision is right, it's right, it should be irrelevant whom it pisses off.

 

In this situation, a red card should have been given because it's dangerous play. It doesn't matter that we scored, keepers should be punished for putting other players at risk by cleaning players out with their dangerous, selfish challenges.

Couldn't have put it better myself ,,, nice one !

[Jordan]

I can't see why DB11 would go on about the nuances of yellow cards and "match control," and then use the infamous Schumacher vs Battiston collision as a comparison. There were no "match control" considerations there--that was a shocking oversight by the referee and everybody that isn't German can agree that Schumacher deserved a red card.

The Guzan vs Dyer incident wasn't some split-second challenge in the midfield in the middle of the game, or two players getting into a heated tussle along the sidelines. Those might be times for a ref to call a player or the captains over and say, "All right, lads--I've let you have your fun, but clean it up. The next player that goes overboard is going into the book." Or if a ref just letting the players get on with it if the game has been a hard- yet fair-tackling game.

No--Guzan hit Dyer like a freight train. It was a serious incident. Was it serious foul play? That's the discussion that ought to be happening, not some referee-speak BS.

[FireFox]

"Match control"?! bs

What if Dyer was (as he probably should have been) forced to stop playing, then they put one past us while we are down a man, they get a goal kick and Guzan gets a yellow for time wasting, and finally we get a great chance to make it 4-3, but Guzan makes an incredible save? There were 5 minutes of added time, it could have happened. (Okay this is Villa we are talking about, no it couldn't have.)

[Guest]

About time something was done about this. Keepers seem to be able to do whatever the hell they want without repercussions yet are a ridiculously protected bunch by the officials when the boot is on the other foot. Countless times you see keepers knocking people out 'going for the ball' yet often the ball goes near them from crosses/set pieces and they fall to the ground a free kick goes their way whether they've been fouled or not.

[MPH]

Think people are misunderstanding the 'match control' comment.

Watched many matches where the ref looses control and subsequently respect of the players. Matches like that become horrible to watch with many nasty tackles and they loose the flow of the game.