why wasn't USA ...

[ROWY]

... sent off

last man, prevented a goalscoring opportunity by bringing down the player

he should have gone

[URZZ]

... sent off

last man, prevented a goalscoring opportunity by bringing down the player

he should have gone

Err..... this board is for Reading fans, not Arsenal.

[cmonurz]

... sent off

last man, prevented a goalscoring opportunity by bringing down the player

he should have gone

Err..... this board is for Reading fans, not Arsenal.

Do we know he is an Arsenal fan?

And he's right, he should have gone, even if the player was going away from goal.

[M U R T Y]

Because he was going away from goal when fouled

[Platypuss]

If it wasn't already 0-3 he may well have done - Wiley probably felt sorry for us.

[ROWY]

should he or shouldn't he ?

lets be honest with ourselves ...

[FiNeRaIn]

Going away from goal, but was still a pen.

[Jerry St Clair]

Remember, Wiley was behind the play and would have not been able to judge the distance between the foul and the touchline (i.e. he could have concluded that the ball was going out of play, and thus it wasn't denial of a goalscoring opportunity.).

Marcus was very lucky not to go.

[ROWY]

definitely not an arsenal fan, admirer ... yes

royal since i can remember but still able to to look objectively at incidents

[Alan Partridge]

Could have done but going away from goal. Penalty was enough really but seen goalies go for less.

Inconsistency of refs again really. Thought Wiley had a good game today.

[RoyalBlue]

... sent off

last man, prevented a goalscoring opportunity by bringing down the player

he should have gone

I believe the spirit of the law was that there has to be some element of intent for it to count as a professional foul and merit a straight red. Perhaps could have been a yellow but, as has already been pointed out, the ball/player was running away from goal.

[TWRoyal]

Did he even get a yellow - can't remember. Should have had a card. I don't want all our good luck to come when we're 3-0 down thank you.

[Platypuss]

... sent off

last man, prevented a goalscoring opportunity by bringing down the player

he should have gone

I believe the spirit of the law was that there has to be some element of intent for it to count as a professional foul and merit a straight red. Perhaps could have been a yellow but, as has already been pointed out, the ball/player was running away from goal.

Er no - the fact that a penalty was awarded shows that the ref believed there was intent/recklessness.

The only way it couldn't have been a red was if Wiley didn't believe it was a clear goal-scoring chance.

Blind git.

[Legend]

Why do you have to be so obnoxious.

[Platypuss]

I was referring to Wiley

[Arch]

Er no - the fact that a penalty was awarded shows that the ref believed there was intent/recklessness.

Is that right? Surely this would mean that if you and I go for a 50/50 ball that we both have a right to, you through superior athleticism beat me to it and I clip you, it's not a foul? Or is this the Oliver Holt school of thought which says it was reckless because I should have known you were a superior player and just let you have the ball.

[Legend]

Er no - the fact that a penalty was awarded shows that the ref believed there was intent/recklessness.

Is that right? Surely this would mean that if you and I go for a 50/50 ball that we both have a right to, you through superior athleticism beat me to it and I clip you, it's not a foul? Or is this the Oliver Holt school of thought which says it was reckless because I should have known you were a superior player and just let you have the ball.

Don't argue with platypuss, if you do, he'll go running to hobnob and get you banned.

[Platypuss]

Er no - the fact that a penalty was awarded shows that the ref believed there was intent/recklessness.

Is that right? Surely this would mean that if you and I go for a 50/50 ball that we both have a right to, you through superior athleticism beat me to it and I clip you, it's not a foul? Or is this the Oliver Holt school of thought which says it was reckless because I should have known you were a superior player and just let you have the ball.

Eh? I have no idea at all what point you are trying to make here, to be honest.

Wiley gave a penalty - ergo he believed a foul was committed. Therefore he believed the challenge fell under one of these:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent

I don't know exactly how Wiley construed it - do you?

[ScottishRoyal]

It was a clear pen and if you're honest with yourselfs a red card as it was a clear goalscoring oppotunity. Fabregas wasn't going away from the goal at all but angling across it, so would've still had a relatively easy finish from the corner of the 6yd box. I think we got a bit lucky and had it been 0-0 the decision may have been different. I thought Wiley was very good today and let the game run.

[Arch]

Er no - the fact that a penalty was awarded shows that the ref believed there was intent/recklessness.

Is that right? Surely this would mean that if you and I go for a 50/50 ball that we both have a right to, you through superior athleticism beat me to it and I clip you, it's not a foul? Or is this the Oliver Holt school of thought which says it was reckless because I should have known you were a superior player and just let you have the ball.

Eh? I have no idea at all what point you are trying to make here, to be honest.

Wiley gave a penalty - ergo he believed a foul was committed. Therefore he believed the challenge fell under one of these:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent

I don't know exactly how Wiley construed it - do you?

The point I was trying to make is that referees frequently give direct freekicks when the actions of the player show neither intent nor recklessness. I was trying to describe such a case - no intent or recklessness but a foul anyway. Carelessness and excessive force hadn't entered the discussion. Perhaps the case I describe might fall under one of those or perhaps you think that according to the laws it wouldn't be a foul.