Dijksteel goal on Friday night

Stanny

Stanny

Member
Apologies if these has been discussed.

But just watching the Middlesbrough F.C. highlights posted from Boro Live.

If he doesn't score, surely we get a penalty and also get to play against 10 men for 70 odd mins. As clearly there was no attempt to get the ball. Or do people think it wasn't a foul?
 
It's not about whether it was a foul. It's about whether it would've been given. And in this league, that's never anything other than a 50/50 toss-up.
 
He should have been booked regardless, it warranted it despite the goal for the intent to foul. You rarely see that happen when a goal is scored though.
 
Yes clear foul, I think the ref was probably relieved he scored.

It looked like a foul in normal time and the replay confirmed it.

Imagine the moaning from our Burnley friends if he had been sent off..
 
Im situations where a penalty is given for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity haven't they changed the rules and a penalty and a yellow card not a red is issued?
 
Stanny said:
Apologies if these has been discussed.

But just watching the Middlesbrough F.C. highlights posted from Boro Live.

If he doesn't score, surely we get a penalty and also get to play against 10 men for 70 odd mins. As clearly there was no attempt to get the ball. Or do people think it wasn't a foul?
Click to expand...
Yes it was a clear foul and penalty
Not sure about the sending off as the keeper could have been judged to have a chance of reaching the bsll
 
Stanny said:
Apologies if these has been discussed.

But just watching the Middlesbrough F.C. highlights posted from Boro Live.

If he doesn't score, surely we get a penalty and also get to play against 10 men for 70 odd mins. As clearly there was no attempt to get the ball. Or do people think it wasn't a foul?
Click to expand...
Being a champ ref and the mind boggling decisions they give he would probably have sent steeldik off for a challenge on their keeper.
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
Im situations where a penalty is given for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity haven't they changed the rules and a penalty and a yellow card not a red is issued?
Click to expand...

Only if there is a genuine attempt to get the ball, a push in the back should still be a red card but often isnt
 
Did the push in the back accelerate Dijksteel and cause him to stub the ball over the keeper?🤪
 
It
Looks like we have a full back that can potentially score 3-6 goals in a season . If we are sat here in may feeling it’s job well done you can look at the difference dijksteel will of made . We’ve waited 5 yrs for it 👍
 
Priv said:
He should have been booked regardless, it warranted it despite the goal for the intent to foul. You rarely see that happen when a goal is scored though.
Click to expand...
There is no longer a booking for making a foul to break up play if advantage is played. You can only book if it is a bookable challenge in its own right. DOGSO would be one of those situations but the goal was scored so it didn't deny the goal scoring opportunity.

There's no guarantee of a penalty being scored so it's not a pick and choose situation. You would always take the guaranteed goal at 0-0.
 
Priv said:
Only if there is a genuine attempt to get the ball, a push in the back should still be a red card but often isnt
Click to expand...
That's no longer the law. It now says that it's a yellow card if there is either an attempt to play the ball (there is no mention of the word "genuine") or a challenge for the ball. And "challenge" is usually interpreted fairly liberally. For instance, even a push that could be seen as some kind of challenge for the ball, will now often result in just a yellow card (when the foul denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity and a penalty is given).
 
Liamo said:
That's no longer the law. It now says that it's a yellow card if there is either an attempt to play the ball (there is no mention of the word "genuine") or a challenge for the ball. And "challenge" is usually interpreted fairly liberally. For instance, even a push that could be seen as some kind of challenge for the ball, will now often result in just a yellow card (when the foul denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity and a penalty is given).
Click to expand...
A push is a foul though, isn’t it? So couldn’t be considered as an attempt to play the ball because it’s an illegal act according to the laws of the game.

It’s one thing to make an attempt at the ball with a part of the body that can legally play the ball but a push isn’t that.
 
Linny said:
A push is a foul though, isn’t it? So couldn’t be considered as an attempt to play the ball because it’s an illegal act according to the laws of the game.

It’s one thing to make an attempt at the ball with a part of the body that can legally play the ball but a push isn’t that.
Click to expand...
A push is indeed a foul, but as I say, I think you'll find that the term "challenge"is being interpreted very loosely and even some pushes are being considered as part of a challenge for the ball. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that that's the way it seems to be being applied.

And in any event, all actions that lead to a yellow or red card for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity (whether an attempt to play the ball, a challenge or a push etc) have to be a foul, otherwise they wouldn't be penalised in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Liamo said:
A push is indeed a foul, but as I say, I think you'll find that the term "challenge"is being interpreted very loosely and even some pushes are being considered as part of a challenge for the ball. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that that's the way it seems to be being applied.

And in any event, all actions that lead to a yellow or red card for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity (whether an attempt to play the ball, a challenge or a push etc) have to be a foul, otherwise they wouldn't be penalised in the first place.
Click to expand...
Yes but the difference being making a challenge which ‘could’ result in winning the ball (had it been timed right) and a challenge that would always be illegal (ie a push). That’s a clear distinction.

I can’t see that a ref would say a push could ever result in a legal challenge and therefore would be a red.

That’s how I’d read it at least.

If he gave the foul I think he’d have had to send him off.
 
Linny said:
Yes but the difference being making a challenge which ‘could’ result in winning the ball (had it been timed right) and a challenge that would always be illegal (ie a push). That’s a clear distinction.

I can’t see that a ref would say a push could ever result in a legal challenge and therefore would be a red.

That’s how I’d read it at least.

If he gave the foul I think he’d have had to send him off.
Click to expand...
That may be your view of how you'd implement the law (and it'd probably be mine too) but recent experience since the law change two years ago shows that it's not how many referees are choosing to implement it.

There have been numerous DOGSO fouls inside the penalty area in various high level games (including several in the Premier League) that I - and some other refs that I've discussed this with, thought should have been red cards even with the new wording, but that the referees in those games have penalised with only a caution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top