Keane on Bamford....Red?

[thatdberight]

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

"My reading on the change to that law..."
"I havent (sic) seen the specific law..."

Well, that's an authoritative view, then. As well as being wrong. Not, I suspect, that you care if it's wrong. It's just something to say.

[Devils_Advocate]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... nalty-area

By reading I actually mean reading of several articles which all say pretty much the same as the one linked above. Ive said if you can show me the actual law and prove me wrong then fine but I cannot be arsed trawling through all the laws of the game

[thatdberight]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... nalty-area

By reading I actually mean reading of several articles which all say pretty much the same as the one linked above. Ive said if you can show me the actual law and prove me wrong then fine but I cannot be arsed trawling through all the laws of the game

To be fair to you, you are consistent. You can't even be "arsed" reading the article you cite which is entitled, "...softening rules on fouls in the penalty area". It then continues, buried deep in the first sentence, "Accidental fouls inside the box will not be an automatic sending-off". It then continues to be obtuse by waiting until the first paragraph to mention, "...altering sending-off offences inside the penalty area".

[Devils_Advocate]

And my reading of that and a few other articles is that they have addressed the issue by changing the rule on all accidental fouls.

Please put me out of my misery if I am wrong and quote me the new law as it will save us all time in the long run

Edit: Found a more explicit article which does confirm the change is only for accidental fouls in the penalty area so I have changed my own opinion. Should have been Red and Keane was a lucky boy

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Bamford had flicked the ball away from the direction of the goal and it could be argued that he did not have it under his control, in fact, there was a good chance that Heaton may well have reached it before Bamford. This must have been what the referee thought and would also have been confirmed by the AR who was also close to the action. Foul correctly given and caution is also correct.

[thatdberight]

Bamford had flicked the ball away from the direction of the goal and it could be argued that he did not have it under his control, in fact, there was a good chance that Heaton may well have reached it before Bamford. This must have been what the referee thought and would also have been confirmed by the AR who was also close to the action. Foul correctly given and caution is also correct.

Thanks AC46 - good to have your view.

For my understanding, can you run me through which parts of Law 12 you think apply both in terms of determining whether it was a foul or not and then what the correct sanction should be.

Thanks.

[taio]

For my understanding, can you run me through which parts of Law 12 you think apply both in terms of determining whether it was a foul

Already done that for you:

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

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

[Rileybobs]

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... misconduct

I've changed my view again. See FAQ 11 from the FA website on the link above. If a clear goal scoring opportunity was prevented outside of the box then it should be a red card as a free kick isn't deemed a clear goal scoring opportunity. Shows how little we all know about the laws of the game!!

So whether or not Keane should have been sent off depends entirely on whether the referee deemed it to be a clear goal scoring opportunity which is very much open to debate.

[thatdberight]

Already done that for you:

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

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

Didn't know you had two IDs - are you AC46? In the same way that you give credence to suchgiants of the game as Chris Kamara (even though we now know what he said about the changes to the laws this year were rubbish), I'd like to hear from AC46 who will give me an understanding that, to me, carries more weight that what you say.

[taio]

Didn't know you had two IDs - are you AC46? In the same way that you give credence to suchgiants of the game as Chris Kamara (even though we now know what he said about the changes to the laws this year were rubbish), I'd like to hear from AC46 who will give me an understanding that, to me, carries more weight that what you say.

How can it carry more weight when I've copied verbatim from the Laws of the Game? I'm happy to accept that it should have been a red card - that was my original thought until I heard Kamara confidently said that the rules changed to include this situation, which does seem to be wrong.

Perhaps you could accept that it was a foul, or cite the part of the Laws of the Game which mean it wasn't a foul - if you can do the latter and it is clear I will gladly hold my hands up and say I was wrong.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

I think that Keane impeded the opponent with contact, in spite of it being an accidental slip, therefore, a free kick is awarded.
This is not listed as a cautionable offence, however, the referee's position was approximately 15 yards away and directly behind the incident, therefore, he has clearly seen that the ball was moving away from goal and there must have been doubt as to whether Bamford would reach it had he not been impeded.I don't think that there was anyone inside the ground that wasn't expecting a card one way or another and, although it could be argued that TLOG say it was not a cautionable offence, the referee's interpretation was that it warranted a caution.
Referees are taught to anticipate the situation by 'freeze framing' it in their mind and Atkinson is a very experienced official who has seen this sort of situation lots of times and always stay very calm in his decision making.
I was sat in amongst the 'lunatic' Middlesbrough fans who were adjacent to the Clarets fans and the majority were wantng red, however, they criticised every decision that went against them all afternoon so that was no surprise.

[thatdberight]

I still don't agree - because there is a disjoin between the Laws themselves and the appended Glossary.

The relevant part of the Law is, I agree, under a sub-heading relating to "Impeding without contact". However, the definition in that part is simply for "Impeding" - not limited to "without contact". The Glossary is useful but, of necessity, lacking detail. In the tone of IFAB guidance for refs, it's also clear that impeding is intended as a law to deal with what we all consider it normally to mean both in everyday language and in football; the deliberate movement into the way of an opponent to halt their progress. I still believe that, as the laws stand, an entirely accidental collision of the type yesterday where a player slips without being careless or reckless is not a foul. There is, as I read it, simply no law to make it a foul.

[thatdberight]

I think that Keane impeded the opponent with contact, in spite of it being an accidental slip, therefore, a free kick is awarded.
This is not listed as a cautionable offence, however, the referee's position was approximately 15 yards away and directly behind the incident, therefore, he has clearly seen that the ball was moving away from goal and there must have been doubt as to whether Bamford would reach it had he not been impeded.I don't think that there was anyone inside the ground that wasn't expecting a card one way or another and, although it could be argued that TLOG say it was not a cautionable offence, the referee's interpretation was that it warranted a caution.
Referees are taught to anticipate the situation by 'freeze framing' it in their mind and Atkinson is a very experienced official who has seen this sort of situation lots of times and always stay very calm in his decision making.
I was sat in amongst the 'lunatic' Middlesbrough fans who were adjacent to the Clarets fans and the majority were wantng red, however, they criticised every decision that went against them all afternoon so that was no surprise.

Thanks.

It's a new law this year isn't it, this "Impeding with Contact"? So last year, presumably, despite the "common sense" view - it wouldn't even have been a foul?

[taio]

I still don't agree - because there is a disjoin between the Laws themselves and the appended Glossary.

The relevant part of the Law is, I agree, under a sub-heading relating to "Impeding without contact". However, the definition in that part is simply for "Impeding" - not limited to "without contact". The Glossary is useful but, of necessity, lacking detail. In the tone of IFAB guidance for refs, it's also clear that impeding is intended as a law to deal with what we all consider it normally to mean both in everyday language and in football; the deliberate movement into the way of an opponent to halt their progress. I still believe that, as the laws stand, an entirely accidental collision of the type yesterday where a player slips without being careless or reckless is not a foul. There is, as I read it, simply no law to make it a foul.

As you say that part relates to impeding without contact, which was certainly not the case with Keane, therefore I would say that the section I copied is clear and prevails. It seems very few people think it wasn't a foul. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

The wording has changed slightly, however, although there is nothing in TLOG regarding accidental contact, the interpretation has always been that a player who accidentally slips and impedes the progress of an opponent can be deemed to have committed an offence. Nothing further to add to this debate.

[Diesel]

Who'd be a referee, hey? A thankless task, I just know that if our striker/player, whoever was bearing down on goal and was taken out, I wouldn't give a sh!7 if the defender slipped, I would want a hell of a lot more than a free kick and a yellow card for the offending player.

Massive game for 'Boro, massive decision that I feel the referee got wrong, therefore:

Hilarious.

[Diesel]

[happyclaret17]

it was an honest too goodness slip...Keene then made sure his accidental slip stopped bamford in his tracks....in real time it looked a definite red...in hindsight the decision wasnt that far off the mark...wouldnt have complained if he got the red though.

[South West Claret.]

I only saw it on m.o.d last night but it was clearly accidental and not deliberate, perhaps if we have a qualified ref on here he or she maybe able to give their judgment on the issue?

Without the benefit of knowing the strick FA interpretation I would guess a yellow but I don't know for sure.

[Diesel]

I get that 'technically' it was, under these new rules, the correct decision...but not for me.

[dsr]

I only saw it on m.o.d last night but it was clearly accidental and not deliberate, perhaps if we have a qualified ref on here he or she maybe able to give their judgment on the issue?

Without the benefit of knowing the strick FA interpretation I would guess a yellow but I don't know for sure.

There's two separate questions here.

1. Was it a foul? To be a foul, Keane had to have acted carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force. My own view is that it was a pure accident and Keane was not careless. (I think we can all agree he wasn't reckless or using excessive force. He just fell over.) But the referee decided that it was a foul in accordance with the laws of the game.

2. If it was a foul, did it prevent an obvious goalscoring opportunity? The ref decided Keane got the benefit of the doubt.

"Impeding with contact" is a red herring, because Keane tripped Bamford. If an offence was committed, it was a trip - variations on the old obstruction law can be ignored.

The new rule about getting a yellow if your foul occurs while making a genuine attempt to get the ball, can also be ignored. That only applies in the penalty area.

Here's the rule about tripping being a foul:

1. Direct free kick
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

Then there's the rule about whether a foul should be a sending off 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)
• serious foul play
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• violent conduct
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

And the bit "as outlined below", which is the new rule:

Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a deliberate handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.
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.

The following must be considered:
• distance between the offence and the goal
• general direction of the play
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• location and number of defenders


The underlinings are mine to show the most relevant bits. Full rules here' law 12, pages 81, 86 and 87.

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

[taio]

1. Was it a foul? To be a foul, Keane had to have acted carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force. My own view is that it was a pure accident and Keane was not careless. (I think we can all agree he wasn't reckless or using excessive force. He just fell over.) But the referee decided that it was a foul in accordance with the laws of the game.

Dsr, I'm beginning to think I'm missing something, but it appears you are overlooking the fact that a free kick can be awarded in circumstances different to the above e.g. impeding an opponent with contact, which is certainly not a red herring in the case of this incident and when considering how they define impeding

[Rileybobs]

I'm pretty sure there's a law that states a free kick is awarded if a player is kicked or tripped.

[dsr]

Dsr, I'm beginning to think I'm missing something, but it appears you are overlooking the fact that a free kick can be awarded in circumstances different to the above e.g. impeding an opponent with contact, which is certainly not a red herring in the case of this incident and when considering how they define impeding

"Impeding an opponent" isn't a catch-all that means getting in his way; a fair tackle could count as impeding him if that was the case. It's a woolly attempt to redefine obstruction, that's made things worse. As far as I can see, impeding an opponent with contact isn't specifically defined, so it must (logically) be the same as impeding an opponent without contact except that you touch him. The only practical difference is that if you don't touch him, it's an indirect free kick; if you do touch him, it's direct.

Here's the definition:

Impeding the progress of an opponent without contact
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
It would be a stretch to define Keane's action as "moving into the opponent's path", and if it was an accident then he wasn't doing it to block him anyway. And Bamford was just playing the ball so it was in playing distance.

[pushpinpussy]

defo red. we got away with that one.

[taio]

I think impeding the progress of an opponent without contact is the redefining of what we used to know as obstruction. I therefore do not consider that definition to be relevant to impeding an opponent with contact. I feel it's more appropriate to consider how they have defined impede, not least because it absolutely fits with Keane's foul: 'to delay, block or prevent an opponent’s action or movement'. For me the red herring is the bit about being careless, reckless or using excessive force, as this is not relevant here.

[KRBFC]

Imagine if it was roles reversed and Gray was running through and Gibson did what Keane did. The majority of posters on here who are claiming it was a yellow for Keane would be out in force baying for a red card for Gibson.

[Diesel]

Imagine if it was roles reversed and Gray was running through and Gibson did what Keane did. The majority of posters on here who are claiming it was a yellow for Keane would be out in force baying for a red card for Gibson.

That scenario has been covered, several times, keep up or keep out.

[KRBFC]

That scenario has been covered, several times, keep up or keep out.

Sorry Dad

[thatdberight]

Imagine if it was roles reversed and Gray was running through and Gibson did what Keane did. The majority of posters on here who are claiming it was a yellow for Keane would be out in force baying for a red card for Gibson.

Or just imagine for a minute that there are people who are football fans, not just Burnley fans, and who try to watch and understand the game, not just see everything in terms of how it suits BFC.

[KRBFC]

Or just imagine for a minute that there are people who are football fans, not just Burnley fans, and who try to watch and understand the game, not just see everything in terms of how it suits BFC.

I'm one of those people but many on this forum aren't.

[BennyD]

A yellow was the correct decision. I know I'm right because Keane wasn't sent off.

[Firthy]

Really don't understand those posters who say definitely a red. There was no malicious intent whatsoever, it was a pure slip. Ref got it spot on.

I couldn't argue if he had got a red as the slip might not have been obvious to the ref in real time. A ref actually get's something spot on for once and people on here still disagree with him, no pleasing some folk

[Spijed]

There was no malicious intent whatsoever, it was a pure slip. Ref got it spot on.

Completely irrelevant where red cards are concerned. Red cards can be issued regardless of whether there has been malicious intent or not. It's been like that for a few years.

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... misconduct" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Corky]

There are often debates in the media and rightly so, about the referee using common sense and exercising some discretion. On this occasion given his perfect positioning to see exactly what happened, he has.

As a consequence Keane was penalised with a yellow card.

Reading some of the above I wonder two things; do some of you actually support Burnley and do you actually read/mean what you say or are you just being deliberately obtuse.

I'm now off to take the dogs for a walk I find talking to them brings a little sanity back into my life.

[fatboy47]

No card for Keane, red yellow or any other colour.

Yellow for Bamford for having been a whinging scriking arse-wipe since he sat on his nanny's knee in the nursery at Bamford Towers.

[quoonbeatz]

interesting debate.

the award of the free kick was correct as keane impeded bamford with contact.

it was completely accidental though so definitely not a sending off. technically, he shouldn't even have been booked but i think atkinson knew he had to manage the situation.

i hear middlesbrough watered the pitch excessively anyway so its their own fault keane slipped.

[claretdom]

Atkinson has already explained his decision. He said had Bamford brought it down gone past Keane and then around Heaton to leave an unguarded goal he would still be hard pushed to call it a clear goal scoring opportunity for Patrick.

Nice to see Patrick has also apologised for his foul language aimed at the ref, he is reported to have said "bloody hell ref" on seeing the yellow card.

[Tall Paul]

interesting debate.

the award of the free kick was correct as keane impeded bamford with contact.

it was completely accidental though so definitely not a sending off. technically, he shouldn't even have been booked but i think atkinson knew he had to manage the situation.

i hear middlesbrough watered the pitch excessively anyway so its their own fault keane slipped.

The booking is fine, for unsporting behaviour:

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
- commits a foul or handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... misconduct" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[quoonbeatz]

fair enough, still open to interpretation though as accidentally falling over and stopping an attack isn't the same as committing a foul to stop an attack.

either way, i still think atkinson got it all spot on.

[jtv]

fair enough, still open to interpretation though as accidentally falling over and stopping an attack isn't the same as committing a foul to stop an attack.

Does it matter? Even if it should have been a red, it cancels out the injustice in the Spurs (away) game when a player who should have been sent off provided the assist for the winner in the very next action. Some fall for you.....some don't

[Wokingclaret]

Perhaps Boro should stop watering the pitch so much

Two slips in the last 2 games has cost them

[quoonbeatz]

Does it matter?

nothing matters.