Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

John Stones

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was a red card - came round the back, made contact when the guy had a goalscoring opportunity. We could have had six on the goal line and it's still a red as it's preventing a shot on goal in the box and is classed as a professional foul.

No big deal, just a little bit of inexperience being caught out of position by a yard, but given this is pretty much the only major mistake I can think of from him in the last year then I'm not overly arsed!
 
PhilM said:
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.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't use the words "last man". But people do, fans and commentators constantly use the "He was/wasn't the last man" when talking about these red cards.

So ok, last man possibly has a very small part to do with whether its a red card or not, if the referee deems thats important.
 
Seamus Colemole said:
But it doesn't use the words "last man.
Click to expand...
Purely semantics. As you mention it doesn't use that exact wording, but that situation can be placed under the remit of the aforementioned.

As you rightly mentioned it can play a 'very small' part in a referees decision. However, it can also play a big part: that's for the referee to decide.

Unfortunately, people often get stuck into an inflexible position of what does deem to be a foul and a sending off.

He's the last man.... it must be a sending off, is just as naive and rigid as saying that it only plays a little part in a referee's decision.

In reality, it all depends on the situation of the individual foul and the referee has to take into consideration all the factors. Not all are the same.
 
another red card guilty of that stupid law that someone gets a red card for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, yet the result is .... a clear goalscoring opportunity. if they deny a clear goal, ala handball on the line, then that should be a red as well as a pen and i agree a red for a goalscoring opportunity if the foul is outside the box, but i will never understand this law tbh.

players miss sitters from 2 or 3 yards all the time, so it's not denying a clear goal. i don't understand how you can be done for denying a clear goalscoring when they're still given that opportunity. shows the modern day football player as well i might add, in the olden days the striker would have stayed on their feet regardless of the tiny tug and slotted home. these days they seem happier to get the oppo sent off and it was great to see him blaze the pen well over and secure the tie for us.
 
Caolam said:
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.
Click to expand...

It seems harsh, and hell maybe it is. BUT, you don't want players to ever think that manhandling a man who is clear of everyone is a viable option. The punitive nature of the red card should make those think twice.

Stones is aces, but he played bad Thursday. He was also a big part of what went wrong on the goal against and had a few other bad moments that we are not accustomed to seeing him make. He should be in the line up tomorrow, so we will see if he returns to form/.
 

PeterPrinciple said:
It seems harsh, and hell maybe it is. BUT, you don't want players to ever think that manhandling a man who is clear of everyone is a viable option. The punitive nature of the red card should make those think twice.

Stones is aces, but he played bad Thursday. He was also a big part of what went wrong on the goal against and had a few other bad moments that we are not accustomed to seeing him make. He should be in the line up tomorrow, so we will see if he returns to form/.
Click to expand...
His performance reminded me a bit of the pre-season games however hopefully it was just the pitch. The biggest problem with the sending off is that he won't have the return leg to get it out of his head. However he was awesome last year after having a 'mare at Anfield.
 
toffeejack said:
another red card guilty of that stupid law that someone gets a red card for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, yet the result is .... a clear goalscoring opportunity. if they deny a clear goal, ala handball on the line, then that should be a red as well as a pen and i agree a red for a goalscoring opportunity if the foul is outside the box, but i will never understand this law tbh.

players miss sitters from 2 or 3 yards all the time, so it's not denying a clear goal. i don't understand how you can be done for denying a clear goalscoring when they're still given that opportunity. shows the modern day football player as well i might add, in the olden days the striker would have stayed on their feet regardless of the tiny tug and slotted home. these days they seem happier to get the oppo sent off and it was great to see him blaze the pen well over and secure the tie for us.
Click to expand...
Good points there,hopefully we see a sending off or two after every wrestling match that takes place at every corner kick up and down the Premier lge each week.
 
I think this deserves a thread of it's own, but it annoys me when a player is fouled just inside the box, with his back to the goal and nowhere near in a scoring position and a penalty is given. I'm talking about a non-violent but technically foul tackle. If a goal from a penalty is likely to affect the result I think it should be ignored.
I know a lot won't agree with me and will stick to 'a foul is a foul', but I think refs should be given some flexibility in these situations and be
allowed to use their common sense - yes, I know - but you know what I mean.
 
toffeejack said:
another red card guilty of that stupid law that someone gets a red card for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, yet the result is .... a clear goalscoring opportunity. if they deny a clear goal, ala handball on the line, then that should be a red as well as a pen and i agree a red for a goalscoring opportunity if the foul is outside the box, but i will never understand this law tbh.

players miss sitters from 2 or 3 yards all the time, so it's not denying a clear goal. i don't understand how you can be done for denying a clear goalscoring when they're still given that opportunity. shows the modern day football player as well i might add, in the olden days the striker would have stayed on their feet regardless of the tiny tug and slotted home. these days they seem happier to get the oppo sent off and it was great to see him blaze the pen well over and secure the tie for us.
Click to expand...

Absolutely exactly this - it's a dreadful rule, I'm sure years ago this was never applied. It's the first thing I'd change about the game tbh.
 

Adversus said:
His performance reminded me a bit of the pre-season games however hopefully it was just the pitch. The biggest problem with the sending off is that he won't have the return leg to get it out of his head. However he was awesome last year after having a 'mare at Anfield.
Click to expand...
He really didn't though. He played well enough in a game where he looked uncomfortable in his position 90% of the time - he's just not an attacking full back and he was basically instructed to go up and down the line constantly, which has it's toll, and just made it clear that he's a CB not a RB. I believe it was exploited by the RS to an extent as well.

Plus our whole team sucked just as bad/worse in that game, not really one to judge.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register
Back
Top