[Albion] Sending Off

[Pavilionaire]

I don't think a penalty would have been given for the tussle itself, but I think the ref saw Cancelo misjudge the flight of the ball, could see he was struggling to get the the ball first so when he thinks Welbeck gets ahead and gets brought down the ref shows red.

Cancelo does have Welbeck's arm, but was it a just an unfortunate tangle of arms or an intentional hook from the defender to impede the forward?

I don't know what this bollocks was all about having "control" of the ball before being brought down. When has that ever been a factor? If the striker is chasing a loose ball over the top but hasn't yet touched it, gets brought down by the last man defender it's still a penalty.

 

[Skuller]

I must say been surprised that no poll or even thread on how crap the ref was. Probably tells its own tale....

You should read some of the Man City fans' sites to find those threads (and how). Here's a quote from one of them "Well I phoned Ian Campbell from the National Referees Association .... He asked if it was an emergency as it was 11.45pm. I said of course it is what are your comments on the City / Brighton refereeing? He hung up."

 

[Mackenzie]

Red.

No debate.

 

[portslade seagull]

Watching it at the ground most of the Group I was with were fully expecting the ref to change his original decision. Not sure Welbs had control of the ball but it was a last man decision denying a goal scoring opportunity

 

[blue-shifted]

I thought it was harsh.

Danny has a fair bit to do to get it under control, so didn't look like a clear goalscoring opportunity.

Having said that, we've had some absolute howlers go against us this season

 

[Machiavelli]

Thought it was harsh at time but even more so having seen replays. Just 2 players battling for the ball in a contact sport.

I didn't have the best view live, being up the north end of WSU. I think MotD's analysis was decent enough. It's not clearcut to me, because of the initiation of contact thing, but it wasn't a dreadful decision, and I don't think it was conclusive -- or 'clear and obvious' -- enough to be overturned by VAR.

 

[zeemeeuw]

Exactly, most other areas on the pitch the same contact is not even a booking. Webster committed a worse foul when he got booked for deliberately bringing down one of their players in the dying minutes, knowing he was well covered behind him. Those are the rules they work and play to. Cancelo denied Webster the chance to score. The ref has little flexibility to apply the rules.

What? he stopped Webster scoring too ... should have had 2 red cards then.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Watching it at the ground most of the Group I was with were fully expecting the ref to change his original decision. Not sure Welbs had control of the ball but it was a last man decision denying a goal scoring opportunity

I thought it was harsh.

Danny has a fair bit to do to get it under control, so didn't look like a clear goalscoring opportunity.

Having said that, we've had some absolute howlers go against us this season

Welbeck doesn't need control of the ball - that is irrelevant, he just needs to be given the chance control it and then the opportunity to score.

The ball had bounced, was coming down nicely, just as Welbeck was entering the area. At this level I have no idea how that isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity?

 

[blue-shifted]

Welbeck doesn't need control of the ball - that is irrelevant, he just needs to be given the chance control it and then the opportunity to score.

The ball had bounced, was coming down nicely, just as Welbeck was entering the area. At this level I have no idea how that isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity?

Hmm ..... but the less you have control over the ball the less clear the goalscoring opportunity is going to be.

Difficulty of reaching or controlling the ball will feed into the clearness or otherwise of the chance

 

[brighton_tom]

Correct me if I'm wrong but when outside the box it's still a red even if the defender is making a genuine attempt to play the ball. It's only in the box where it's no longer a red (if the defender is making a genuine attempt to play the ball) as a penalty is deemed sufficient punishment.

You may be correct. Either way last nights one was a red by the laws.

 

[Yoda]

Saw those Dion comments, very disappointing. He says ''at most its a foul''. A foul by a defender who is the last man, to stop a goalscoring chance and is not making an attempt for the ball, is a red card.

Yep! The rules are the player fouled needs to be in control of the ball, or in a position where they would get control of the ball. Welbz had gotten in front so was in a position where he would get control of the ball, therefore it's a red. Harsh as it's a soft foul (a bit like Dunks at Wolves) but is still a foul and a red.

 

[Weststander]

Yeah agree with most posters.

Was it a foul? Yes definitely.
Not convinced he would have scored, but it would definitely have been a big chance in xg terms.
It's a red.

It only needs to have been an opportunity.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Hmm ..... but the less you have control over the ball the less clear the goalscoring opportunity is going to be.

Difficulty of reaching or controlling the ball will feed into the clearness or otherwise of the chance

Yeah, that is what I was saying in response. It isn't relevant 'was Welbeck in control of the ball', the question is was he denied the opportunity to control it or take a first time shot. I feel pretty confident that had Cancelo not fouled him, Welbeck would have had a chance that was easier than say his Leeds or Newcastle goals. Was he denied the opportunity? It's a yes from me.

 

[Hamilton]

Thought it was harsh at time but even more so having seen replays. Just 2 players battling for the ball in a contact sport.

I think it looked harsh, but was it a foul? No matter how light the touch, he took Welbeck out, so it was a foul. With that in mind, and considering Welbeck's position on the pitch, I can understand why the red card was given.

With VAR, I doubt they thought they were in a position to correct any clear or obvious error.

 

[southstandandy]

Thought it was harsh personally, but would City not be screaming for a red if the incident had happened at the other end? Thought so.

There are numerous poor decisions over a season - the one that I thought was hugely contentious was the other day where the Fulham goalkeeper handled the ball 15 yards outside of his area v Burnley. Missed by the officials and even VAR too. Not even a yellow card shown!

Mistakes will always be made, with or without VAR.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

It only needs to have been an opportunity.

Yeah agree with that, but interestingly the VAR check said it was checking whether it was a goal scoring opportunity.
This would imply a level of evaluation is required.

The usual commentary on this is "was he the last man". so it may have just been that.
But I guess there also needs to be some consideration of whether he would have been in control of the ball.

 

[Weststander]

Yeah agree with that, but interestingly the VAR check said it was checking whether it was a goal scoring opportunity.
This would imply a level of evaluation is required.

The usual commentary on this is "was he the last man". so it may have just been that.
But I guess there also needs to be some consideration of whether he would have been in control of the ball.

I would just add that Cancelo made damn sure that Welbeck wasn't in control of the ball.

A free Welbeck may well've been.

Imho.

 

[Swansman]

Bit harsh but I dont really give a shit.

Same could be said against Wolves. Arlo Guthrie could have gone on and no one would have thought of it but a slight tug in the shirt and immediatly his legs broke down.

 

[vagabond]

Well we’ve had plenty of decisions not go our way. So that’s the way it goes.

 

[Fungus]

As regards the foul, he seemed to catch Wellbeck's knee, as well as locking arms.
As regards the goalscoring opportunity, it can't be judged on the player's ability to score, or it wouldn't have been a red card if Maupay had been fouled.