Naughton - penalty/red card

[Millbanks]

The solution is allowing refs the flexibility to come to a consensus on the rules and how they are applied, rather than the set-in-stone approach of FIFA. It's all well and good a bunch of old men in suits coming up with if's and buts in a board room because they feel they need to cover all possibilities due to being paid so much, but there are so many modifiers and caveats to any given decision that the rules are nigh on impossible to apply correctly in a real-time situation...or the rule isn't thought through properly and you get instances where a team is hugely penalised (red card and penalty) because a guy accidentally handled the ball but it happened to contravene the 'clear goal scoring opportunity' rule.

Right. So what do you suggest? I am yet to see someone who felt it wasn't a red card and blamed the current rule system come up with a better method of defining situations like this.

I meant that he was sent off because it was on target, which seems to automatically assume it was deliberate. It clearly wasnt deliberate, and had it been on the edge of the 18yard box, with the ball going away from the goal, even a penalty might not have been given.....

Point being that the exact same incident doesnt suddenly become intentional due to where it happened, and what direction the ball was travelling.

I don't think the fact it was deliberate or not even needs to come into a decision like this. Fact is, he is defending just yards from his goal, he is the last man, Nolan has had a shot towards the goal, and it's hit his hands. What could, or might have happened, we will never know. But if that was the other team, I would be livid if a yellow was given. It's unfortunate on Naughton's part, but he has denied a clear goal-scoring opportunity. It's no different to making a last ditch slide tackle and not getting the ball, in my opinion.

I don't think there is a lack of clarity in the rule book personally. It was a definite pen, and probably a red.

:baeshock::lamelawtf::lennon:aulinhofacepalm:

 

[MKYid]

Right. So what do you suggest? I am yet to see someone who felt it wasn't a red card and blamed the current rule system come up with a better method of defining situations like this.

The solution is allowing refs the flexibility to come to a consensus on the rules and how they are applied, rather than the set-in-stone approach of FIFA...or common sense as it is otherwise known.

...It's unfortunate on Naughton's part, but he has denied a clear goal-scoring opportunity. It's no different to making a last ditch slide tackle and not getting the ball, in my opinion.

It was unfortunate on Naughtons part...not deliberate, or malevolent, just unfortunate. But he stopped a goal scoring opportunity so it is only right that Wet Spam get to re-take that opportunity via a penalty. But why the red card? Because in other instances of denying a goalscoring opportunity it could well be deliberate and, if outside the box, won't guarantee a penalty, so to ensure 'fairness' a red card is applied to the situation regardless. Of course in other situations such as Naughtons where he has accidentally prevented a goalscoring opportunity inside the box, the other team get a penalty AND Naughton HAS to go to ensure 'fairness'. ...regardless of how unfair it may end up being.

It's these variables and nuances within individual incidents that need refs to be able to show some flexibility and common sense rather than have to operate to the letter of a law as drawn up by a load of old men in a boardroom theorising possibilities and permutations of what could happen.

 

[tricky]

Gibbs wasn't - he got sent off.

Oxlaide Chamberlain was lucky, he only got a yellow from the FA after it was 'fixed'

To be fair I couldn't tell the difference between gibbs and oxo cube in real time vidoes.













Even in slo-mo they both look like cunts to me.

 

[tricky]

I take it there has been no appeal then?

maybe the opportunity to play someone other than Naughton at RB is too good an opportunity.

 

[tricky]

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.

Should we field a team with Thalidomide full backs then?

Of course throw ins might become an issue, but it's worth thinking about.

 

[Boltonspur]

Should we field a team with Thalidomide full backs then?

Of course throw ins might become an issue, but it's worth thinking about.

What a fucking abomination of a posting. Cunt.

 

[SinghYid]

 

[Mrs Perryman]

Definite penalty...... not so definite sending off ........ just my opinion from seeing it at normal speed. Even after watching the replay, I still think the sending off was harsh.

 

[Mick Cooper]

What a fucking abomination of a posting. Cunt.

speak your mind FFS!

 

[Reedy49]

To be honest, we were probably better off without the useless twat on the field.

 

[tricky]

speak your mind FFS!

Not sure he was being serious given a comment he'd made about Heskey and people who had suffered from strokes.

Maybe he just has to sit a little closer to the keyboard than most! :baeshock:

I don't suspect him to be a humourless gimp, this place has more than its fair share.

 

[alexwooty]

The solution is allowing refs the flexibility to come to a consensus on the rules and how they are applied, rather than the set-in-stone approach of FIFA...or common sense as it is otherwise known.



It was unfortunate on Naughtons part...not deliberate, or malevolent, just unfortunate. But he stopped a goal scoring opportunity so it is only right that Wet Spam get to re-take that opportunity via a penalty. But why the red card? Because in other instances of denying a goalscoring opportunity it could well be deliberate and, if outside the box, won't guarantee a penalty, so to ensure 'fairness' a red card is applied to the situation regardless. Of course in other situations such as Naughtons where he has accidentally prevented a goalscoring opportunity inside the box, the other team get a penalty AND Naughton HAS to go to ensure 'fairness'. ...regardless of how unfair it may end up being.

It's these variables and nuances within individual incidents that need refs to be able to show some flexibility and common sense rather than have to operate to the letter of a law as drawn up by a load of old men in a boardroom theorising possibilities and permutations of what could happen.

I have to disagree... while it would be nice in theory to think that all refs are capable of perfectly applying common sense and flexibility to any given situation, all that would end up happening is even more maddening inconsistency between different referees and different matches. If anything, I'd like less flexibility in the rules, so that the pressure is taken off referees and we don't have to rely on their split-second judgements.

I'd rather be in a situation where every Premier League ref punishes a particular handball/tackle/dissent/diving situation equally harshly, rather than the current situation where some refs are more harsh than others, you never know what a particular ref will do and a ref can always justify whatever he does end up doing based on the subjectivity and flexibility in the rules.

A good example of this is in Spain, where any contact between the ball and an outfield player's hand or arm is punishable by a free kick/penalty and a yellow card, every time. Harsh? Absolutely. But Spanish players have learnt very quickly to keep their arms well tucked away when closing down an opponent.

 

[Mensa]

Good lord still this? Thank god we play again tonight!

This has gone on longer than Lloris concussion debate!

 

[Mick Cooper]

Not sure he was being serious given a comment he'd made about Heskey and people who had suffered from strokes.

Maybe he just has to sit a little closer to the keyboard than most! :baeshock:

I don't suspect him to be a humourless gimp, this place has more than its fair share.

I'm sure he wasn't