Heaton

[HawkTheSeagull]

Initially thought that Heaton was the last man, although he wasnt, but its irrelevant as he denied a clear goalscoring opportunity.

The ref must have focused on that Heaton wasnt the last man and thats why he only got a yellow. Buckley was attempting to round the keeper and score, thats why he was going the wrong way - i mean he was hardly going to run directly at the keeper !!

No idea about the 2nd yellow though, couldnt really see what happened.

 

[bristolseagull]

Should have been the easiest decision of the day.

 

[Acker79]

Having watched the replay of the second yellow on ssn, it looks like he throws the ball up, then tries to catch it as buckley passes, but fumbles it and picks it up off the ground. But, it appears as if the ref whistled before he picked it up. I'm not convinced he goes out of his area, it's too close to call unless you are looking for a reason to send him off, and apparently buckley has admitted the ball touched his head before heaton reclaimed it, and that's one of the things Dyche is arguing to claim it shouldn't have been a yellow, so it seems it must have been because he touched it twice...

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

It's unsurprising that 'professional foul' doesn't make it into the rules of the game as a term is it is too colloquial and falsely gives the impression that it only applies to professional players. That said, it is generally understood to be the type of foul where you concede a less severe punishment to ensure an opponent does not score e.g. the Willie Young foul on Paul Allen in the 1980 FA Cup Final which led to the first serious attempt to deal with this kind of tactic.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Having watched the replay of the second yellow on ssn, it looks like he throws the ball up, then tries to catch it as buckley passes, but fumbles it and picks it up off the ground. But, it appears as if the ref whistled before he picked it up. I'm not convinced he goes out of his area, it's too close to call unless you are looking for a reason to send him off, and apparently buckley has admitted the ball touched his head before heaton reclaimed it, and that's one of the things Dyche is arguing to claim it shouldn't have been a yellow, so it seems it must have been because he touched it twice...

We are starting to get into the territory where football refereeing overlaps with mind-reading. Even if the ball touched Buckley's head, did the goalkeeper know this? If he didn't and had the intent of committing a second bootable offence, would that be enough to send him off?

 

[LamieRobertson]

I was intrigued that adam virgo speaking on radio sussex thought the ref got the first decision correct.....me I thought the ref was bonkers str8 red...the second incident was just bizarre

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

I was intrigued that adam virgo speaking on radio sussex thought the ref got the first decision correct.....me I thought the ref was bonkers str8 red...the second incident was just bizarre

What reason did he offer?

 

[TheJasperCo]

Strictly speaking, according to the Laws of the Game, as Buckley was facing away from goal when he was brought down, the keeper should not have been given a straight red. As for the second booking, it's weird because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, so it couldn't have been given for handling outside the area.

 

[LamieRobertson]

What reason did he offer?

Tbh I cant remember ...too busy shouting at the radio that he was wrong

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Strictly speaking, according to the Laws of the Game, as Buckley was facing away from goal when he was brought down, the keeper should not have been given a straight red. As for the second booking, it's weird because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, so it couldn't have been given for handling outside the area.

It wasn't, it was for handling twice in his own area without another playing touching it in the meantime.

 

[brightn'ove]

The keeper was so far out of the box and Buckley had so much space in front of him that, whichever direction he was going (and left of the keeper was the most threatening route), he would have had time and space to put a clear shot into the net, without the need to rush anything. You wouldn't see a clearer goal-scoring opportunity than this one.

Thank you, stops me needing to post it, Buckley may have touched it left, but would have definitely had the pace to take another touch to shoot.

 

[Pantani]

Strictly speaking, according to the Laws of the Game, as Buckley was facing away from goal when he was brought down, the keeper should not have been given a straight red. As for the second booking, it's weird because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, so it couldn't have been given for handling outside the area.

It is all well and good quoting the 'Laws of the Game', it is much better if you can be bothered to actually read and understand them. Acker 79 has posted the relevant laws earlier in this thread. 'Facing' away from goal is not mentioned anywhere in those rules, the direction of play does not equate to which direction the player is facing.

I would also like to commend Acker 79 for often being the person who bothers to find, and post, the relevant rules and regulations for this type of decision. It is most useful for those who only seem to understand or listen to the TV pundit BS that we are fed with our football coverage week in week out.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Strictly speaking, according to the Laws of the Game, as Buckley was facing away from goal when he was brought down, the keeper should not have been given a straight red. As for the second booking, it's weird because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, so it couldn't have been given for handling outside the area.

Actually, the laws of the game aren't that prescriptive.

It says the referee should consider: 'the direction of the play'.

Although Buckley was heading towards the goal line on the edge of the penalty area, the direction he was moving in enabled him to have a clear goal scoring opportunity. If he had moved directly towards the goal, it would not have afforded him a clear goal scoring opportunity as he would have clattered into the keeper, or the keeper would have blocked the shot.

 

[stripeyshark]

We will have to wait to see the replays, but I suspect the keeper wasn't the last man....

He was the last man.

If it was a defender who took out Buckley, with the keeper on the line, he is the last man. Why is that different when you only have a defender on the line who can't use his hands?

 

[stripeyshark]

Red. Anyone that says otherwise doesn't understand the rules of football.

Exactly. HE WAS THE LAST MAN!!!

 

[brightonrock]

I don't think being last man is relevant, it doesn't matter if the player was on the line when Buckley was fouled. If Buckley had gone through the middle one-on-one with the keeper and been scythed down by a defender, he'd be sent off. In this case the role of the keeper as literal last man and defender as last outfield player were reversed, as the defender was roughly in line with the keeper (IMO slightly behind) when Buckley was taken out. If Buckley had gone by without being tripped he'd either have scored into an empty net, or had a one-on-one chance from eight yards against a covering defender who can't handle it. My money would be on the attacker 999 times out of 1000. It's a red card, it was ludicrous. At least the ref evened it out with an equally ridiculous second yellow.

 

[Earlybird]

The 'Last man' has nothing to do with it. Its not a Law.
It was a reckless challenge, it should have been a straight red wherever it happened on the park.
It was a deffo red in in the box. Looked to me as the 'last' defender was the far side of the action
and the keeper stopped a clear goal scoring opportunity, therefore its a red and a direct FK.

Lucky for the ref, the opportunity to right the wrong presented itself..Happy Days

 

[shaolinpunk]

Buckley would have, had Heaton not fouled him, had the ball in the penalty area with the keeper outside of it and a lone defender possibly closing Buckley down from behind/the side but more likely busting a gut to try and get to the line before Buckley could roll it into the empty net. I don't see how that isn't a goal scoring opportunity that was denied

 

[TheJasperCo]

It is all well and good quoting the 'Laws of the Game', it is much better if you can be bothered to actually read and understand them. Acker 79 has posted the relevant laws earlier in this thread. 'Facing' away from goal is not mentioned anywhere in those rules, the direction of play does not equate to which direction the player is facing.

I would also like to commend Acker 79 for often being the person who bothers to find, and post, the relevant rules and regulations for this type of decision. It is most useful for those who only seem to understand or listen to the TV pundit BS that we are fed with our football coverage week in week out.

Actually, the laws of the game aren't that prescriptive.

It says the referee should consider: 'the direction of the play'.

Although Buckley was heading towards the goal line on the edge of the penalty area, the direction he was moving in enabled him to have a clear goal scoring opportunity. If he had moved directly towards the goal, it would not have afforded him a clear goal scoring opportunity as he would have clattered into the keeper, or the keeper would have blocked the shot.

You're both right, common sense should prevail, but the one purpose of rules is to ensure consistency in their application, whether or not you agree with. I think it should have been a red card for that foul, I was just pointing out that - strictly speaking - the ref was correct in only booking the goalie. When I was training to be a ref, scenarios such as these were used to test us on what our decision would be in similar situations. The Laws aren't actually that definitive, for the reasons you've pointed out - they allow for discretion in some cases.

It wasn't, it was for handling twice in his own area without another playing touching it in the meantime.

That's what I thought. People around me in the NW corner thought it was for deliberate handball, hence the confusion

 

[HastingsSeagull]

Red for me, I could see it from here!