South v Cleyhole

[Monkey Tennis]

Looks a decent penalty shout for Stranraer early on, to me.

Excellent highlights, as ever.

[Frankie S]

On the basis of those highlights, Conroy looked top quality. Obviously his set pieces are a huge bonus for us, but his passing was excellent too. One moment in the first half (in the build up to the penalty claim) when he pulled down a high ball effortlessly and released Lyle with a neat quick pass, was exquisite. In this respect at least, in a creative midfield role, it looks like we've replaced a departing player with better quality.

[Homer Thompson]

Looking at the highlights, neither are red cards. The Stranraer player is moving away from goal and theres already a defender between Conroy and the goal.

I thought it was a decent performance. None of the new players gave any cause for concern. I cant understand how anyone didnt see Hilsons quality

[SUPERSOUTH]

Didn't see much wrong with Hilson give him time, today he had good strength on the ball even retaining position when 3 opp players around him, a good 1st touch and ran his sox off for 90mins, he scored a good goal v Killie couple weeks ago give him & Del a few games together and am sure he could turn out to be a good signing.

Think youll find Hilson looks the part for me.

[kirkyblue2]

Looking at the highlights, neither are red cards. The Stranraer player is moving away from goal and theres already a defender between Conroy and the goal.

I thought it was a decent performance. None of the new players gave any cause for concern. I cant understand how anyone didnt see Hilsons quality

So one Stranraer defender made a difference but having all their defenders back didn't?

[Homer Thompson]

So one Stranraer defender made a difference but having all their defenders back didn't?

When did Stranraer have all their defenders back?

[kirkyblue2]

When did Stranraer have all their defenders back?

At the free kick. We had a clear goal scoring opportunity regardless of one defender being in the vicinity.

[Skyline Drifter]

Looks a decent penalty shout for Stranraer early on, to me. Excellent highlights, as ever.

Really? I think it looks far less of a foul than it did from the Main Stand side at the time. And whilst it's close, it seems to be just outside the area.

I thought at the time it could have been a red card but from that it's fairly apparent Malcolm is heading away from goal and running out wide if he gets onto the ball.

[Skyline Drifter]

At the free kick. We had a clear goal scoring opportunity regardless of one defender being in the vicinity.

Well if that's your criteria then any foul within 30 yards of goal is clear goalscoring opportunity then. Fact is no referee has ever given anyone a red card for a foul if there was another defender between that player and goal.

[kirkyblue2]

Well if that's your criteria then any foul within 30 yards of goal is clear goalscoring opportunity then. Fact is no referee has ever given anyone a red card for a foul if there was another defender between that player and goal.

Maybe they should review the rules then.

[Homer Thompson]

At the free kick. We had a clear goal scoring opportunity regardless of one defender being in the vicinity.

The foul for the free kick Conroy scored from, there was only the defender inside the penalty box and the one that fouled him within 40 yards of the ball. If Conroy isnt fouled, the defender in the box has a decent chance of putting in a tackle, or at least a block. Therefore, it isnt denying a clear goalscoring opportunity.

I still have no idea what you mean by Stranraer having "all their defenders back"

[kirkyblue2]

The foul for the free kick Conroy scored from, there was only the defender inside the penalty box and the one that fouled him within 40 yards of the ball. If Conroy isnt fouled, the defender in the box has a decent chance of putting in a tackle, or at least a block. Therefore, it isnt denying a clear goalscoring opportunity.

I still have no idea what you mean by Stranraer having "all their defenders back"

He was about to pull the trigger and the defender would not be able to stop the shot.

Why was he fouled if they didn't think he had a good chance of scoring?

Stranraer had everyone back for the free kick, couldn't stop Conroy then.

[Homer Thompson]

He was about to pull the trigger and the defender would not be able to stop the shot.

Why was he fouled if they didn't think he had a good chance of scoring?

Stranraer had everyone back for the free kick, couldn't stop Conroy then.

Ok, I get it.

He wasnt about to pull the trigger though. The pass from Hilson was a little short and ball was under Conroy feet when he was fouled. He would have had to take another touch before getting a shot away, which is why the defender would have had a chance at a block. If the pass had been better, or Conroys first touch had taken it out of his feet then you might have had a case.

He did have a good chance of scoring. That isnt, though, the same as denying a clear goal scoring opportunity.

[kirkyblue2]

Ok, I get it.

He wasnt about to pull the trigger though. The pass from Hilson was a little short and ball was under Conroy feet when he was fouled. He would have had to take another touch before getting a shot away, which is why the defender would have had a chance at a block. If the pass had been better, or Conroys first touch had taken it out of his feet then you might have had a case.

He did have a good chance of scoring. That isnt, though, the same as denying a clear goal scoring opportunity.

Depends how you view it, it's not denying a definite goal and a good chance of scoring fits the bill.

[Homer Thompson]

Depends how you view it, it's not denying a definite goal and a good chance of scoring fits the bill.

It has to be a clear goalscoring opportunity though. Denying a "good chance" is not a red card

For me, it comes down to whether or not Conroy is in the process of shooting when he's fouled. If he is, then you have an argument for a red card. If he's taking another touch then you dont.

After watching the highlights this morning I thought he was taking another touch, but having watched it again Im not so sure. To be fair, the referee couldnt have been in a better position to judge it.

[kirkyblue2]

It boils down to interpretation and I think some refs still have the last man rule which I was trying to debunk.

It's either a clear goal scoring opportunity or it's not whether there's defenders back or not.

I think he should have been sent off.

[Homer Thompson]

It boils down to interpretation and I think some refs still have the last man rule which I was trying to debunk.

It's either a clear goal scoring opportunity or it's not whether there's defenders back or not.

I think he should have been sent off.

Well, no. If there was no defender back, it wouldnt matter whether Conroy took another touch or not, he'd still have got a clear shot away.

The criteria to take into account when deciding a clear goal scoring opportunity are :

The direction of the play.

The location of the foul.

The proximity of the player to the ball.

The probability of controlling the ball.

The location and number of opponents.

The opportunity for the attempt on goal.

You're absolutely right that the "last man" rule, so often quoted, doesnt exist but the position of the defenders is still a factor

[kirkyblue2]

I was meaning in general terms about defenders.

I think he didn't get sent off because they had a defender back.

[Skyline Drifter]

It has to be a clear goalscoring opportunity though. Denying a "good chance" is not a red card

For me, it comes down to whether or not Conroy is in the process of shooting when he's fouled. If he is, then you have an argument for a red card. If he's taking another touch then you dont.

After watching the highlights this morning I thought he was taking another touch, but having watched it again Im not so sure. To be fair, the referee couldnt have been in a better position to judge it.

I don't see it as a red card whether he's shooting or not. Fact is there is a defender in the way apart from the one who fouled him as well as the goalkeeper. No matter what interpretation kirkyblue would like to put on the rules no referee would send a player off in those circumstances and in the unlikely event one did the player would win any appeal on that footage.

It boils down to interpretation and I think some refs still have the last man rule which I was trying to debunk.

It's either a clear goal scoring opportunity or it's not whether there's defenders back or not.

I think he should have been sent off.

There is no "last man rule" although it's commonly referred to as that. However, it's a well established fact that if there is another opponent who could be interpreted as between player and goal when a foul is committed then it's not a sending off. There's no way on earth that foul on Saturday was a red card under current guidance. You are of course free to think that current guidance is a nonsense if you like but that doesn't mean Bobby Madden made an error on Saturday. He got it spot on.

[kirkyblue2]

I don't see it as a red card whether he's shooting or not. Fact is there is a defender in the way apart from the one who fouled him as well as the goalkeeper. No matter what interpretation kirkyblue would like to put on the rules no referee would send a player off in those circumstances and in the unlikely event one did the player would win any appeal on that footage.

There is no "last man rule" although it's commonly referred to as that. However, it's a well established fact that if there is another opponent who could be interpreted as between player and goal when a foul is committed then it's not a sending off. There's no way on earth that foul on Saturday was a red card under current guidance. You are of course free to think that current guidance is a nonsense if you like but that doesn't mean Bobby Madden made an error on Saturday. He got it spot on.

If Conroy is about to shoot then he was denied a goal scoring opportunity, if he was trying to run into the box then the defender becomes relevant.