Naughton - penalty/red card

[Park Lane James]

I think a lot of you seem to be missing the word 'opportunity' when evaluating whether it was a red card or not. Nolan fired a shot from four yards away from goal - that is clearly denying a goalscoring opportunity.

By the letter of the law - the referee made the right decision.

 

[Park Lane James]

For me Lloris position meant it should have been yellow

Why exactly? It doesn't matter if you think the goalkeeper would have saved it, Naughton has still denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. If the infringement happens, then you have to 'take away' the player from the situation (Naughton) and judge whether there was a goalscoring opportunity or not. There clearly was.

Stupid decision from Naughton

 

[Blanchflower]

I think a lot of you seem to be missing the word 'opportunity' when evaluating whether it was a red card or not. Nolan fired a shot from four yards away from goal - that is clearly denying a goalscoring opportunity.

By the letter of the law - the referee made the right decision.

Surely virtually every passage of attacking play could be considered a goalscoring opportunity - a long punt upfield from the half way line could possibly go in if the keeper slips over

 

[Park Lane James]

Surely virtually every passage of attacking play could be considered a goalscoring opportunity - a long punt upfield from the half way line could possibly go in if the keeper slips over

Is that an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' though? I would say that putting your hands up to stop a shot from 4 yards away from the goal is about as obvious as it can get.

 

[Abbey Yid]

It's shifting, Lloris won't get there IMO. But it's almost irrelevant as Naughton doesn't know that.

I think a lot of you seem to be missing the word 'opportunity' when evaluating whether it was a red card or not. Nolan fired a shot from four yards away from goal - that is clearly denying a goalscoring opportunity.

By the letter of the law - the referee made the right decision.

It is COMPLETELY relevant, because if it's a shot off target then there is no goalscoring opportunity, is there? The entire situation hinges upon whether the ball is going into the net. If it's going wide it's a yellow, but if it's clearly going in (ie Suarez v Ghana, Gibbs/AOC v whoever it was) then yes, definitely red.

The referee didn't see it, and the linesman did but from that angle he would've had no idea if it was going in or not. Therefore, without 100% certainty neither of them can say it should've been a red.

 

[Park Lane James]

It is COMPLETELY relevant, because if it's a shot off target then there is no goalscoring opportunity, is there? The entire situation hinges upon whether the ball is going into the net. If it's going wide it's a yellow, but if it's clearly going in (ie Suarez v Ghana, Gibbs/AOC v whoever it was) then yes, definitely red.

The referee didn't see it, and the linesman did but from that angle he would've had no idea if it was going in or not. Therefore, without 100% certainty neither of them can say it should've been a red.

My first thoughts on seeing the incident was that Naughton put his hands up on purpose and that the ball was flying into the back of the net. If I was a neutral looking into the incident then I would have throught it would have been a red card as well if I'm perfectly honest

 

[WindyCOYS]

It is COMPLETELY relevant, because if it's a shot off target then there is no goalscoring opportunity, is there? The entire situation hinges upon whether the ball is going into the net. If it's going wide it's a yellow, but if it's clearly going in (ie Suarez v Ghana, Gibbs/AOC v whoever it was) then yes, definitely red.

The referee didn't see it, and the linesman did but from that angle he would've had no idea if it was going in or not. Therefore, without 100% certainty neither of them can say it should've been a red.

So if MNF were to analyse it tonight and show it to be going in, you'll concede that it was the correct decision?
It certainly looks from the GIF as if it's going in.

 

[Blanchflower]

So if MNF were to analyse it tonight and show it to be going in, you'll concede that it was the correct decision?
It certainly looks from the GIF as if it's going in.

No - the ref and lino still can't be 100% certain at the time of making the decision.

If they are proved correct then it will just be by pure chance, Foy didn't even see the incident at all.

 

[Boltonspur]

My first thoughts on seeing the incident was that Naughton put his hands up on purpose and that the ball was flying into the back of the net. If I was a neutral looking into the incident then I would have throught it would have been a red card as well if I'm perfectly honest

Agree. Had it been a Spam defender & we had got neither the penalty or a sending off (or both) we would be screaming at the injustice of it, how the hell the ref didn't see it etc. it was an error of judgment by Naughton & perhaps the red was harsh, but it was a nailed on penalty. Strangely enough, having watched the highlights again, I think we played better with 10 men. Anyway, it's done now. 3 points on the board. Spam where they belong in the table & we haven't even hit the groove yet. COYS

 

[78Spur]

I think Naughton was just too close to intentionally block the shot with his hand, I think that raises the question if he had genuinely intended to block the shot.

My take is that the defender has to be seen to intentionally block the shot with their hand to prevent the goal to get a red, I am probably being biased but I don't think Naughton genuinely moved to block the shot, if he did he has way faster reactions than I had him down for!!

I totally agree it's a penalty but I think the red is a bit harsh in this case.

 

[Blanchflower]

One thing I would add is that Foy's willingness to send off Collins makes me think that he thought it was harsh once he'd either looked at a replay at half time or spoken to the 4th official.

 

[MKYid]

BTW - reach forward with your leg and turn your head (as he does) and see where your arms go. Your shoulder twists, your arms don't go up!

Before a bunch of folk in offices worldwide start giving their colleagues an impromptu ballet performance, it's worth adding 'get some bloke to blast a football at you at the same time and see where your arms go?'.

For me, as Naughton goes in with his leg his arms come up toward his chest / face (protection). As he comes through he leaves his arms behind and they make contact as he turns away. The important point is, his attempt to make the block was with his leg because he had no idea the ball was going to go toward the top of the goal, nor could he react fast enough to intentionally try to stop it so it wasn't deliberate. Were his arms in a 'natural' position? As far as I'm concerned as long as they are connected to his body at the shoulders...it's natural.

Also. Hugo had it covered.

 

[78Spur]

One thing I would add is that Foy's willingness to send off Collins makes me think that he thought it was harsh once he'd either looked at a replay at half time or spoken to the 4th official.

I think compensatory reffing is very common and that wouldn't surprise me, it happens a lot more at lower levels where there aren't replays, often I believe officials do talk to one another and that can affect how they referee the rest of the game, especially if it's quite a clean game otherwise.

 

[MKYid]

Stupid decision from Naughton

Decision? Naughtons only decision was to challenge Nolan and try to win the ball..which is a good decision, he was just unfortunate in what happened.

 

[Yorkshire_Spurs]

Naughton:

 

[CockFlavour]

There's no way a team should be penalised twice for an incident like that. It was a pathethic sending off.

 

[VirginiaSpur]

Nope, not a red.

Penalty and a yellow. He lost his head, but if the ref and assistant need time to consult with each other then as far as I'm concerned it's not cut and dry and a red shouldn't be given, especially not so early in the match.

 

[WindyCOYS]

No - the ref and lino still can't be 100% certain at the time of making the decision.

If they are proved correct then it will just be by pure chance, Foy didn't even see the incident at all.

Is it not possible that the linesman said into his mic "it wasn't going over, so if you can see that it wasn't going wide, it's a red card"?

I think Naughton was just too close to intentionally block the shot with his hand, I think that raises the question if he had genuinely intended to block the shot.

My take is that the defender has to be seen to intentionally block the shot with their hand to prevent the goal to get a red, I am probably being biased but I don't think Naughton genuinely moved to block the shot, if he did he has way faster reactions than I had him down for!!

I totally agree it's a penalty but I think the red is a bit harsh in this case.

Your take is, unfortunately for Naughton, not the definition the referees use. The defender has to be seen to have his hand in an unnatural position. If the ball then hits that hand, it's deemed deliberate handball. There doesn't have to be a movement of hand to ball as the cliche suggests.

 

[Maciek84]

Is it not possible that the linesman said into his mic "it wasn't going over, so if you can see that it wasn't going wide, it's a red card"?

You could see lino on tely when camera pointed at him saying RED, at least thats what i thought i seen .

 

[Thelonious]

The defender has to be seen to have his hand in an unnatural position. If the ball then hits that hand, it's deemed deliberate handball. There doesn't have to be a movement of hand to ball as the cliche suggests.

This is where it becomes subjective, hence why I say the rule is a crock of shit. What's unnatural to 1 ref isn't unnatural to another, so many blurred lines in the game today. If you turn your back on the ball (or at least go in side on), then you will move your hands to an unnatural position. Because the rules are what they are, I can see why he was given a red but it's bullshit imo. It's bullshit because it's not really clear cut is it? Getting the card rescinded, or upheld provides no further clarity for me.