Last Man

[clapham_gull]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but this rule went a few years ago and didn't exist for long.

So why do commentators continue to get this wrong ? On BBC, the commentator was looking to see for another "covering defender" as the AFC Wimbledon player was sent off.

But it's stopping a goal scoring opportunity isn't it ?

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sheebo]

I think the theory is if there's no defender anywhere in sight, it constitutes a clear goal scoring opportunity. If there is a defender it's not considered one as its not 'clear' as the defender can make a challenge or put striker off. But yes, you are quite correct in the rules...

 

[darkwolf666]

When have rules ever had an impact on anything a football commentator has ever said? I swear half the rules they spout are bollocks.

What, like "but he got a touch on the ball" before a defender launches a player into row Z...!

 

[Peter Grummit]

"There was contact..." is my pet hate. Yes, it's a contact game!

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[supaseagull]

You're confusing this law with what was called the double jeopardy law where a penalty and a red card could be given.

The law for blatantly/violently denying a goalscoring opportunity hasn't changed.

A foul on a running striker committed by the last man of the defence will no longer result in a direct red card and suspension, unless the foul is violent or consists in a hand-ball in the box. As long as the foul is judged to be an honest attempt at taking the ball, the defender will only be shown a yellow card.

This is why the red card for Onuha against us for QPR was the wrong decision and he should never have been given a straight red.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tubby]

Not quite right. The laws of the game have not changed for challenges outside the penalty area and any denial of a goal scoring opportunity is a red card. Inside the penalty area it is a yellow card if a challenge is made with the feet for the ball but this does not include challenging through the back of a player as there would be no chance of winning the ball fairly.

 

[clapham_gull]

You're confusing this law with what was called the double jeopardy law where a penalty and a red card could be given.

The law for blatantly/violently denying a goalscoring opportunity hasn't changed.

A foul on a running striker committed by the last man of the defence will no longer result in a direct red card and suspension, unless the foul is violent or consists in a hand-ball in the box. As long as the foul is judged to be an honest attempt at taking the ball, the defender will only be shown a yellow card.

This is why the red card for Onuha against us for QPR was the wrong decision and he should never have been given a straight red.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not confusing anything. I'd heard commentators refer to "last man", " last player" etc. for many years after the law had changed.


Not talking about double jeopardy.

The phrase stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity is rarely used. You can sent off for such outside the box...

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

I think the theory is if there's no defender anywhere in sight, it constitutes a clear goal scoring opportunity. If there is a defender it's not considered one as its not 'clear' as the defender can make a challenge or put striker off. But yes, you are quite correct in the rules...

Exactly. Different wordings for much the same rule really.

 

[Hamilton]

Here http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

it says that this is about "unacceptable intervention"

 

[Gazwag]

, unless the foul is violent or consists in a hand-ball in the box.

Interesting that Pogba didn't even get a yellow card v Liverpool on Sunday

 

[BensGrandad]

The FA rejected the appeal that Onuha should have been a yellow

 

[Mellotron]

"There was contact..." is my pet hate. Yes, it's a contact game!

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Agreed, but also the opposite is just as stupid;

"But he got the ball"

Nowhere in the laws of the game does it state anything relevant about whether someone gets the ball or not. It has zero to do with whether a tackle is deemed reckless, excessive, or out of control. "Got the ball" is completely meaningless.

 

[Mellotron]

As long as the foul is judged to be an honest attempt at taking the ball, the defender will only be shown a yellow card.

This is why the red card for Onuha against us for QPR was the wrong decision and he should never have been given a straight red.

I don't think Onouha was trying to get the ball. He knew Baldock was far, far quicker than him, so had to try and stop him.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I don't think Onouha was trying to get the ball. He knew Baldock was far, far quicker than him, so had to try and stop him.

Whilst I agree with you, whether or not it could be considered a 'genuine attempt for the ball' is entirely irrelevant to Onouha's red - that only comes into play inside the box.

 

[supaseagull]

Whilst I agree with you, whether or not it could be considered a 'genuine attempt for the ball' is entirely irrelevant to Onouha's red - that only comes into play inside the box.

Sorry but that's Not what I said.

Given the foul was outside of the box and there was no violent intent, the card should have been yellow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dazzer6666]

Sorry but that's Not what I said.

Given the foul was outside of the box and there was no violent intent, the card should have been yellow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought it was a yellow if a penalty was given (ie offence took place in the box) , but still a red if outside the box as the penalty is deemed the primary sanction and a red in addition is 'double jeopardy' ?

 

[Kazenga <3]

I thought it was a yellow if a penalty was given (ie offence took place in the box) , but still a red if outside the box as the penalty is deemed the primary sanction and a red in addition is 'double jeopardy' ?

Yes think HKFC is correct. I was under the impression that the rule is such that if you deny a clear goalscoring opportunity outside the box, it is still a red card and a free-kick regardless of the nature of the foul. Whereas inside the box it would be a yellow card and a penalty if there was a genuine attempt to play the ball; this to prevent the old triple-jeopardy of penalty, red card and ban. The reason for it being kept as a red card outside the box being that the denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity being punished by only a free-kick and a yellow card is not proportionate as chances are the free-kick won't represent a clear goalscoring opportunity in itself. Would otherwise lead to all manner of cynical challenges outside the box and the issue of interpretation of the foul- this way the punishment is a clear deterrent; outside and off, inside and penalty.