Keane on Bamford....Red?

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:55 am

Diesel wrote:I've just spoken to Michael Keane at a sportsmans dinner, he said he pretended to slip to avoid a red card.

He said that if he was the ref. he would have sent himself off.

I've won then..

He himself said he was very lucky. On another day or playing a bigger club i believe a red would have been given,when your down at the bottom it all goes against you as we know from experience.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:03 am

It was definitely a slip and definitely a red.

Nice to see Ashley Barnes reinforcing my opinion of what an odious little **** he is too.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:38 am

If he slipped (which he did), it wasn't a foul, and hence not a red card. To commit a foul, it has to be intentional - either you intend to foul the opponent, or else in doing something else intentional (eg. making a tackle) you commit a foul. If you're just running along and you fall over, even if someone else falls over you as a result, it's not a foul.

Even though it was deemed to be a foul, Bamford's first touch took it wide. He would have had to change direction to the right and then change again to the left; by the time he got to the ball, would Heaton have got there first? That, coupled with it being accidental anyway, would be why the ref gave Keane the benefit of the doubt.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:47 am

dsr wrote:If he slipped (which he did), it wasn't a foul, and hence not a red card. To commit a foul, it has to be intentional - either you intend to foul the opponent, or else in doing something else intentional (eg. making a tackle) you commit a foul. If you're just running along and you fall over, even if someone else falls over you as a result, it's not a foul.

Even though it was deemed to be a foul, Bamford's first touch took it wide. He would have had to change direction to the right and then change again to the left; by the time he got to the ball, would Heaton have got there first? That, coupled with it being accidental anyway, would be why the ref gave Keane the benefit of the doubt.

Lol. When did accidentally tripping an opponent stop being a foul? When a striker with the ball runs across a defender chasing them, which causes the chasing defender to trip the attacker, that's a foul. There's nothing intentional about it but it's still a foul.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:58 am

dsr wrote:If he slipped (which he did), it wasn't a foul, and hence not a red card. To commit a foul, it has to be intentional - either you intend to foul the opponent, or else in doing something else intentional (eg. making a tackle) you commit a foul. If you're just running along and you fall over, even if someone else falls over you as a result, it's not a foul.

Even though it was deemed to be a foul, Bamford's first touch took it wide. He would have had to change direction to the right and then change again to the left; by the time he got to the ball, would Heaton have got there first? That, coupled with it being accidental anyway, would be why the ref gave Keane the benefit of the doubt.

According to the KRBFC handbook you are talking outta your japseye and making up rules as you go along. The KRBFC handbook also said I should end this post with a facepalm emoji but unfortunately that isn't possible at this current time.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:03 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol. When did accidentally tripping an opponent stop being a foul?

Never. Accidentally tripping an opponent has never been a foul, so obviously it could never stop being a foul.

The offence used to be "intentionally tripping or attempting to trip an opponent", but now it's changed to be a bit more complicated:

"A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent"

I don't think anything that Keane did could be seen as careless, reckless, or using excessive force.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:04 am

KRBFC wrote:According to the KRBFC handbook you are talking outta your japseye and making up rules as you go along. The KRBFC handbook also said I should end this post with a facepalm emoji but unfortunately that isn't possible at this current time.

I hope you're drunk.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:07 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol. When did accidentally tripping an opponent stop being a foul? When a striker with the ball runs across a defender chasing them, which causes the chasing defender to trip the attacker, that's a foul. There's nothing intentional about it but it's still a foul.

read the rules turtle

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:14 am

I can't believe people still haven't grasped this. The laws have changed, if a foul prevents a clear goalscoring opportunity it is only a yellow card offence if accidental. It was clearly accidental. Obviously Keane and Jenas don't know the rule, which I also didn't until about 8 hours ago, but it was absolutely the correct decision.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:26 am

Rileybobs wrote:I can't believe people still haven't grasped this. The laws have changed, if a foul prevents a clear goalscoring opportunity it is only a yellow card offence if accidental. It was clearly accidental. Obviously Keane and Jenas don't know the rule, which I also didn't until about 8 hours ago, but it was absolutely the correct decision.

That's not the new rule. The new rule applies only in the penalty area, and it basically says that if a defender is making a genuine attempt to tackle the forward but fouls him, he will only get booked; if he is not making a genuine attempt to tackle, he will still be sent off. This is the text:

"Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned unless:
• The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or
• The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball or
• The offence is one which is punishable by a red card wherever it occurs on the field of play (e.g. serious foul play, violent conduct etc.)

In all the above circumstances the player is sent off."

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:34 am

dsr wrote:That's not the new rule. The new rule applies only in the penalty area, and it basically says that if a defender is making a genuine attempt to tackle the forward but fouls him, he will only get booked; if he is not making a genuine attempt to tackle, he will still be sent off. This is the text:

"Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned unless:
• The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or
• The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball or
• The offence is one which is punishable by a red card wherever it occurs on the field of play (e.g. serious foul play, violent conduct etc.)

In all the above circumstances the player is sent off."

So can you point me to the rule that states that a player is sent off for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity outside the penalty area, whether accidental or not? Happy to be proven wrong but I can't find it.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:46 am

It's all in Law 12, pages 86-87 of the attached. This is the basic law about red cards for preventing a goalscoring opportunity:

"Sending-off offences
A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the opponents’ goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)"

and the "as outlined below" is the bit I quoted earlier, the exception newly introduced where a genuine attempt to get the ball inside the penalty area results only in a penalty and yellow card, even if it was a goalscoring opportunity.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footbal ... eutral.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but my point is that the offence of preventing a goalscoring opportunity has to be one punishable by a free kick; and to be a free kick, the trip has to be done "carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force". In other words, if you're trying for the ball and miss it and get the man, or I suppose if you're running about looking the wrong way and run into someone, then that would be careless. If you're running in a straight line doing nothing out of the ordinary and your feet slide from under you, that's an accident (and it's rare) and it shouldn't, in theory, be a foul.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:01 am

dsr wrote:Never. Accidentally tripping an opponent has never been a foul, so obviously it could never stop being a foul.

The offence used to be "intentionally tripping or attempting to trip an opponent", but now it's changed to be a bit more complicated:

"A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent"

I don't think anything that Keane did could be seen as careless, reckless, or using excessive force.

So your argument isn't that it shouldn't have been a red, it's that it shouldn't have even been a free kick?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:21 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:So your argument isn't that it shouldn't have been a red, it's that it shouldn't have even been a free kick?

Your comprehension skills are improving.

HiroshimaClaret · Post by **HiroshimaClaret** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:19 am

Just watched it again on the MOTD `highlights`. I`m amazed in real time from his angle of events the ref didn`t send Keane off as it must have looked a nailed-on `professional foul` BUT in actuality Keane slipped before any contact was made, made no actual attempt (in my opinion) once he had slipped to `tangle` with Bamford ALSO (if this still applies in the rules) the striker`s first touch would have taken him away from the goal.

Who knows!? An honest pundit or an ex-ref not wanting to make a headline maybe will enlighten us! Yellow seems right to me (?????) but that may not be to the rules.

HiroshimaClaret · Post by **HiroshimaClaret** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:22 am

dsr wrote:If he slipped (which he did), it wasn't a foul, and hence not a red card. To commit a foul, it has to be intentional - either you intend to foul the opponent, or else in doing something else intentional (eg. making a tackle) you commit a foul. If you're just running along and you fall over, even if someone else falls over you as a result, it's not a foul.

Even though it was deemed to be a foul, Bamford's first touch took it wide. He would have had to change direction to the right and then change again to the left; by the time he got to the ball, would Heaton have got there first? That, coupled with it being accidental anyway, would be why the ref gave Keane the benefit of the doubt.

You`re absolutely spot on...I think!!!!!

ashtonlongsider · Post by **ashtonlongsider** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:51 am

Think we got lucky, definitely a Red card IMO.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:25 am

The answer is simple. It was a foul, but the player in question was Bamford, therefore in no ones wildest imagination does that constitute a goal scoring opportunity!

SkiptonClaret · Post by **SkiptonClaret** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:07 am

Goalposts · Post by **Goalposts** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:14 am

The MOTD pundits where split on this also, for me this is one of those debates where I agree with everyone

Except BRBFC of course that goes without saying

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:17 am

Yellow was correct. It was a foul but not intentional because he clearly slipped. Bamfords touch was sideways not forward so not a clear cut chance on goal.

I could understand if he had got a red and then rescinded on appeal with the video evidence.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:31 am

The touch taking him sideways was class and obviously to give him a good angle on goal.

Slip or not its a foul and for me a red. Im sure we have had similar where we have had players clumsily fall into an opponent before. Thinking Caldwell at west ham but may be wrong.

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:55 am

I suspect the real answer is that it probably was a goal scoring opportunity, but the referee recognised that the foul was accidental and so used a bit of common sense to say he wasn't sure if Bamford's touch had resulted in an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity. As a consequence he avoided the consequences of a sending off and suspension for a genuine accident.

The only other way for the ref to avoid sending him off was to not give a foul at all, which would clearly have been unfair on Boro.

This is the problem with trying to categorise decisions as either right or wrong. In many, many cases its not so simple, the decision is subjective and the ref has some discretion.

wilks_bfc · Post by **wilks_bfc** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:12 am

On first view it did look a red to me but seeing replays from different angles then you can see Keane slip.

Not sure on the positioning of the ref or lino but it was a good spot by one of them to see it

bobinho · Post by **bobinho** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:19 am

Having watched it over and over again, I have come to the following conclusion, but only after repeated study. And I have only come to this conclusion due to watching solely michael Keane in this incident.
The foul was accidental. If you watch just Keane you can see the suddenness of of his standing foot slipping away. As he was running towards bamford, his fall was naturally in that direction. Bamfords fist touch was taking him slightly out wider than a central run on goal and lowton may well have made it to the goal line, with Heston bearing down on bamford and the ball-which was waaaaayyyy ahead of bamford anyway. Maybe a factor was "oh it's bamford, no chance of a goal anyway".

Seriously though. Foul, yes. Sending off, no.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:39 am

I hate to bring the laws of the game into it, but surely the answer should have been no punishment at all. He slipped. That's clear. The law says there is only punishment if the player is "careless, reckless or using excessive force". Which one? None. The yellow is a sop because fans "something" must be done.

bobinho · Post by **bobinho** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:41 am

That may, in fact, be right!

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:13 am

thatdberight wrote:I hate to bring the laws of the game into it, but surely the answer should have been no punishment at all. He slipped. That's clear. The law says there is only punishment if the player is "careless, reckless or using excessive force". Which one? None. The yellow is a sop because fans "something" must be done.

Only problem with that is it's wrong

jtv · Post by **jtv** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:17 am

Would definitely have been a red if Keane had broken Bamford' s violin.

Top Claret · Post by **Top Claret** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:40 am

Seen it on Match of the Day and Keane went arse over ********, so definitely not a red

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:12 pm

taio wrote:Only problem with that is it's wrong

It would help if you laid out your reasoning. Unless there is none.

Winstonswhite · Post by **Winstonswhite** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:18 pm

Goals on Sunday say there's been a change of law and as it was an accidental foul in a goal scoring opportunity it was correctly punished with a yellow card.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:20 pm

I've just seen that on Goals on Sunday. They asked the question and Lampard thought it was a red. Kammy then explained the new law in place as of this season and that the ref got it spot on.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:23 pm

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"

At the very worst, it falls under "careless" and therefore no card. In reality it was just an accident. Shouldn't even have been a free kick.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:23 pm

thatdberight wrote:It would help if you laid out your reasoning. Unless there is none.

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty
area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• spits at an opponent

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:45 pm

taio wrote:A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty
area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• spits at an opponent

FIFA's Laws of the Game explain "impeding" in more detail. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't include making contact as it replaced the old "obstruction".

"Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the
opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an
opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player."

In any case, since the ball was clearly in Bamford's orbit, it can't be that law that applied.

Happy to understand by what reading of the Laws and not just, "It has to be!" you arrive at your conclusion.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:49 pm

It's blatantly a foul as per the Laws of the Game but not a sending off - Atkinson got the decision right to award of free kick but not send Keane off.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:53 pm

taio wrote:It's blatantly a foul as per the Laws of the Game but not a sending off - Atkinson got the decision right to award of free kick but not send Keane off.

When the person saying "as per the Laws of the Game" can't or won't quote which law it is, one might suspect that it's not actually a foul at all. It's not a foul if you slip, even if you bring your opponent down. Unless you have something substantial and backed-up to add, don't bother.

Your real name isn't Keith Stroud, is it?

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:57 pm

thatdberight wrote:When the person saying "as per the Laws of the Game" can't or won't quote which law it is, one might suspect that it's not actually a foul at all. It's not a foul if you slip, even if you bring your opponent down. Unless you have something substantial and backed-up to add, don't bother.

Your real name isn't Keith Stroud, is it?

A direct free kick is awarded if a player impedes an opponent with contact.

It's pretty clear that Keane impeded his opponent with contact.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:58 pm

I've already quoted from the Laws of the Game. And your reference to "impeding the progress of an opponent" is not relevant because that relates to an indirect free-kick, which was not the case.

...and no my name isn't Keith Stroud and, no, I'm not a referee - you don't need to be one to know that it was a foul unless you are clueless. CHange your username to thatdbewrong.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:14 pm

taio wrote:I've already quoted from the Laws of the Game. And your reference to "impeding the progress of an opponent" is not relevant because that relates to an indirect free-kick, which was not the case.

...and no my name isn't Keith Stroud and, no, I'm not a referee - you don't need to be one to know that it was a foul unless you are clueless. CHange your username to thatdbewrong.

You're both selectively and erroneously quoting. Impeding (not impeding without contact) is defined in the Law I quoted.

You also now seem to be saying yellow was right but arguing for red since you see it as a foul that stopped a goalscoring opportunity.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:22 pm

I'm not saying it was a red card.

The definition of impeding you quoted was specifically in the context of an indirect free-kick.

The general definition which is relevant as per the Laws of the Game is:

To delay, block or prevent an opponent’s action or movement

Keane clearly prevented Bamford's action or movement.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:24 pm

So it wasn't a goalscoring chance?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:28 pm

thatdberight wrote:So it wasn't a goalscoring chance?

As someone said above it was confirmed on Goals on Sunday that a new rule covers this situation which means it wasn't a red card. I presume they are correct in their reference to this new rule.

fidelcastro · Post by **fidelcastro** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:40 pm

I haven't read all the thread, but I thought Phil Neville had it spot on in his summary on MOTD.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:42 pm

taio wrote:As someone said above it was confirmed on Goals on Sunday that a new rule covers this situation which means it wasn't a red card. I presume they are correct in their reference to this new rule.

Well, if you're getting your views from Chris Kamara, we know where we stand. The law has not changed for the incident we're talking about so I think you do think it should have been a red.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:49 pm

thatdberight wrote:Well, if you're getting your views from Chris Kamara, we know where we stand. The law has not changed for the incident we're talking about so I think you do think it should have been a red.

Yes I'm getting that particular view from Chris Kamara. If he's lying and there is no such rule then, yes, it should have been a red card. My views about whether it was a free kick are based on what I know, which are supported by the Laws of the Game. You're wrong and you have used an incorrect definition to try and support your view. The definition of 'impeding' I've referred you to is the right one.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:05 pm

taio wrote:Yes I'm getting that particular view from Chris Kamara. If he's lying and there is no such rule then, yes, it should have been a red card. My views about whether it was a free kick are based on what I know, which are supported by the Laws of the Game. You're wrong and you have used an incorrect definition to try and support your view. The definition of 'impeding' I've referred you to is the right one.

He's not lying. He's just wrong. Like you.

The reduction of the punishment to yellow for denying a goal scoring opportunity related only to fouls in the penalty area. If you believe that was a foul and a goalscoring opportunity yesterday, by definition you believe it was a red card.

Your still trying to bring impeding into this when the law says that only applies when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. Rather than argue about the meaning of impeding, it would be easier to accept that the second requirement means it's a non-starter.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:10 pm

As I said it was a foul so if there is no such rule then it should have been a red card. The laws are clear - that a direct free kick is awarded if a player impedes an opponent with contact, with impeding meaning 'to delay, block or prevent an opponent’s action or movement'

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:13 pm

My reading on the change to that law is that it was driven by the so called triple-punishment situation for when an accidental foul in the penalty area led to a penalty, red card and suspension however whilst this was the driver for the change the new rule covers all accidental fouls inside or outside the box.

This means Kamara is correct and yellow was the right decision. I havent seen the specific law itself so if you can show it state this rule only applies to a foul in the box then I will change my opinion