John Stones

[Christiffa25]

Obvs the professional foul rule was brought in with good intention. It was to stop the likes of the tackles where someone is clear through and the defender would hack him down from behind with no thought of winning the ball. Or to stop outfield players from turning into goalkeepers on the line.

Unfortunately is progressed to even genuine attempts to winter the ball are punished with a red, penalty and suspension. It's too harsh imo. And needs changing and putting into the refs hands to judge what type of foul its deemed as.

 

[tim cahill]

Obvs the professional foul rule was brought in with good intention. It was to stop the likes of the tackles where someone is clear through and the defender would hack him down from behind with no thought of winning the ball. Or to stop outfield players from turning into goalkeepers on the line.

Unfortunately is progressed to even genuine attempts to winter the ball are punished with a red, penalty and suspension. It's too harsh imo. And needs changing and putting into the refs hands to judge what type of foul its deemed as.

Agreed. What Stones did was clumsy but he was just trying to get to the ball. The penalty gave them a better chance of scoring than if no challenge was made. A sending off seemed harsh, and a suspension even more so.

 

[Jeff Jones]

Obvs the professional foul rule was brought in with good intention. It was to stop the likes of the tackles where someone is clear through and the defender would hack him down from behind with no thought of winning the ball. Or to stop outfield players from turning into goalkeepers on the line.

Unfortunately is progressed to even genuine attempts to winter the ball are punished with a red, penalty and suspension. It's too harsh imo. And needs changing and putting into the refs hands to judge what type of foul its deemed as.

Trouble is, Stones manhandled him and that's a penalty, imo. I say imo because younger fans have been seeing shirt pulling and arm pulling etc
largely ignored by match officials and they've become accustomed to, and accept it. I don't and would like to see it penalised consistently.

 

[tim cahill]

Trouble is, Stones manhandled him and that's a penalty, imo. I say imo because younger fans have been seeing shirt pulling and arm pulling etc
largely ignored by match officials and they've become accustomed to, and accept it. I don't and would like to see it penalised consistently.

I think it was a penalty, but a sending off and a suspension as well seems harsh don't you think?

 

[Jeff Jones]

I think it was a penalty, but a sending off and a suspension as well seems harsh don't you think?

I suppose you'd have to ask whether it was a likely goal scoring opportunity. I'd have to look at it again to decide. It certainly wasn't
violent, so, on balance I'd say the pen was enough.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Ref clearly gave the red cause of the position where the foul happened..last man..clear chance of scoring. What Stones did wasnt really that much. Stupid foul from him, but these things happend

 

[hetion]

The club confirmed on twitter it's a one match suspension.

 

[TheFinnFan]

The club confirmed on twitter it's a one match suspension.

Thank god

 

[hktoffee]

Ref clearly gave the red cause of the position where the foul happened..last man..clear chance of scoring. What Stones did wasnt really that much. Stupid foul from him, but these things happend

That is due to inexperience. Either get a straight red outside the area or conceding a penalty. Not doing both. Luckily their player missed the pen.

 

[TheFinnFan]

That is due to inexperience. Either get a straight red outside the area or conceding a penalty. Not doing both. Luckily their player missed the pen.

valuable lesson that

 

[PhilM]

Without a shadow of a doubt it was a penalty. Sending off? Some may argue it wasn't, however I think it was borderline: slightly harsh at most.

It's a clumsy and silly challenge over a number of seconds which denied a goal scoring opportunity.

Some may mention the last man, but would they have got a challenge in from their position? No. Easy decision for European referees.

 

[Caolam]

If he fouled the man outside the box and only conceded a free kick then I think a red card is the right sanction. That would be denying a goal scoring opportunity. When you take someone down in the box you give them a penalty. How can you say that a penalty is not a clear goal scoring opportunity. A booking and a penalty is sufficient punishment if the challenge is not violent. The difference between the two is cynicism.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Stop talking about last man ffs everyone.

Last man has absolutely nothing to do with it when deciding if it's a red card or not.

The striker had an obvious opportunity 6 yards out from our goal to score until he was fouled.

 

[maccavennie]

Stop talking about last man ffs everyone.

Last man has absolutely nothing to do with it when deciding if it's a red card or not.

The striker had an obvious opportunity 6 yards out from our goal to score until he was fouled.

Yeah but what about the last man mate?

 

[PhilM]

Stop talking about last man ffs everyone.

Last man has absolutely nothing to do with it when deciding if it's a red card or not.

The striker had an obvious opportunity 6 yards out from our goal to score until he was fouled.

I don't think the last man had much to do with the Stones incident as mentioned earlier, however it can play a part in a sending off decision.

FIFA rules state that the criteria for deciding how a referee should penalise a player for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity are:

The direction of play, where the foul occurs (location on pitch), the proximity of the player to the ball and the probability of controlling the ball.

Also, a referee must consider the location and number of opponents and finally the opportunity for the attempt on goal.

The words 'location and number of opponents' arguably can take into account whether the defender is the last man or how others can interact.

Stones was sent off for a number of other factors from that list, but it doesn't mean it cannot be a factor in other decisions.

I agree people are not using it correctly in this instance, however inferring that it isn't a potential factor is somewhat false.