Connor Brown/Oxlade-Chamberlain

[the_mighty_bosh]

Just seen that both Gibbs and Oxlade-Chamberlain have been cleared after the mistaken identity shambles on Saturday.

 

Surely Oxlade-Chamberlain should take the punishment? Like when Brown got the 3 game ban at Pompey last year retrospectively after Byrne was sent off instead.

 

Inconsistency by FA at it's finest.

[jsslatic]

Oxlade-Chamberlain's not been banned because the ball was going wide. It shouldn't have been a red card in the first place. The error was compounded as the ref sent off the wrong bloke.

 

Brown should have been sent off. Hence the ban was upheld.

[RoytonLatics]

Just seen that both Gibbs and Oxlade-Chamberlain have been cleared after the mistaken identity shambles on Saturday.

 

Surely Oxlade-Chamberlain should take the punishment? Like when Brown got the 3 game ban at Pompey last year retrospectively after Byrne was sent off instead.

 

Inconsistency by FA at it's finest.

Sounds the the FA have crumbled under the pressure of the media spotlight

[dec666]

Oxlade-Chamberlain's not been banned because the ball was going wide. It shouldn't have been a red card in the first place. The error was compounded as the ref sent off the wrong bloke.

 

Brown should have been sent off. Hence the ban was upheld.

Are those the rules? Surely it should be a red card for even attempting to punch the ball off the line!

[Armchair]

As the rules are written, that isn't a red card as he hasn't denied a goal.

 

Personally I think it's a joke that it isn't a red card - I think it should be. But the FA have applied their own rules correctly.

 

http://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/laws-of-the-game/11-v-11/interpretation-of-laws---2013-14/law-12---interpretations-of-the-laws-of-the-game.ashx

[brierleys555]

personaly I though it was only a pen. no sending of.

[OneSizeFitz]

It's not often I say this, but in this instance, the FA has done exactly the right thing.

[iamjonesyyoafc]

I always thought deliberate handball was a straight red.

 

Apparently not and the FA have done the right thing.

[the_mighty_bosh]

Me too jonesy and I stand corrected!

Edited March 24, 2014 by the_mighty_bosh

[PlayItLivo]

Are those the rules? Surely it should be a red card for even attempting to punch the ball off the line!

Yep, it's about intent isn't it?

 

Strange decision.

[disjointed]

When I saw the thread headline I thought we were doing a straight swap.

[wogghead1]

Decent save though!!!!!

[oafcmetty]

Apparently the fact the ref made a "technical error" could be grounds for a replay to be ordered. Won't be though.

[IceStationLatic]

Not a red according to the rules.

 

Should be a red due to intent - he commited the foul thinking the shot was going in. Rules will have to be tweaked.

[opinions4u]

Why hasn't it been downgraded to a yellow?

[Microcuts]

Not a red according to the rules.

 

Should be a red due to intent - he commited the foul thinking the shot was going in. Rules will have to be tweaked.

I don't think this is correct. I stopped refereeing about five years ago, so I am happy to be corrected on this - but, it is only handball if it is deemed deliberate anywhere on the field of play, i.e. accidental handball is not an offence. Deliberate generally extends to having hands out, in the air etc. and not necessarily just the intent to handle the ball. So for example, if a player has his hands across his chest, and it hits his hand - it shouldn't be given as handball regardless of the situation in the game.

 

With regards to the red card - quite rightly, it should only be given if a goal (or an "obvious goalscoring opportunity") has been denied. The referee made the decision assuming the shot was on target. As replays have since shown that the shot was going wide, a goal has not been denied and a penalty should be awarded for deliberate handball with no further action required - as there wouldn't be anywhere else on the field if the ball was going out of play. A player can be cautioned if he "breaks up play" or otherwise with a handball, the same way he would be if he had committed a foul in the same situation. So there may be an argument for a yellow card, but only if the referee had thought the ball was going to hit the post and rebound out for example.

 

So as I say, unless something has changed, which it could have - I have vastly cooled my relationship with football in all regards - I often question where the notion of a caution for deliberate handball originated from. It is a particularly popular assertion among pundits, notably Souness. I do agree though that situations like this highlight the need for clarity where the referees judgement of goal scoring opportunity or not is the difference between a penalty and a red card, or just a penalty. It is the same judgement that is made when assessing whether to give a red card for denying an "obvious goalscoring opportunity" through a trip or push - or as I like to call it, the "last man" fallacy. Pundits; Souness, again.

[Hands on]

When I first saw the 'save' I thought penalty but not on target. When I had a closer look O-C has thrown himself head first at the ball in an attempt to save a goal but missed and it hits his hand - try doing what he did without moving your arms as he did. So does that not mean it wasn't deliberate and not even a foul because it was going to miss anyway?

[Microcuts]

When I first saw the 'save' I thought penalty but not on target. When I had a closer look O-C has thrown himself head first at the ball in an attempt to save a goal but missed and it hits his hand - try doing what he did without moving your arms as he did. So does that not mean it wasn't deliberate and not even a foul because it was going to miss anyway?

Well, in line with my interpretation at least, it would still be handball as his arm was out - even if it wasn't his primary intention to handle the ball, and unavoidable, arm out would still constitute deliberate handball. It's akin to sticking a foot out for the ball, knowing you might miss and instead commit a foul.