[Hopple]

Presumably you know what incident I'm referring to. Though the laws say (some room for argument though) there's no need for a card if a goal is scored anyway (i.e. a clear goalscoring opportunity hasn't been prevented), what should happen?

Whether or not Bale is present to score, Cech has committed the same foul on Adebayor. Why should Cech benefit from Spurs having committed extra players forward (and having the ability to score from the advantage)?

Any team reasonably confident in their penalty taker against at best a second choice opposition keeper could well prefer to have the decision be a red card and a penalty, do we want to encourage such teams to hang back and refuse the advantage?

[-Someone-Like-You-]

I think it should be like FIFA. Ref lets the play go on i.e. an advantage, like Rugby, and then comes back for the Penalty if nothing happens. Also, the booking is made as soon as the play is stopped or the ball goes out of play.

It's game over now anyway.

[the man from space]

I think the reason is that the goal is guaranteed and you could miss the penalty is the obvious answer

but its more about sportsmanship i think, its not acceptable to try to get someone sent off, it does happen sometimes but they get the usual treatment from the public e.g. Ronaldo in 2006 when he got Rooney sent off

[Unsworth]

I think you can argue that generally when players get red cards it is because they have intentionally tried to hurt a player or have made a very stupid dangerous tackle. Goalkeepers are unfortunate as they are the last man, and when Cech went down he was trying 100% to win the ball - not to dangerously tackle Adebayor.

I think a goal is enough when that happens, rather than send the keeper off and award a penalty. If spurs had scored but the referee brought play back and sent Cech off, but then Tottenham miss the penalty there would be uproar.

[sleep99]

(Original post by Hopple)
Presumably you know what incident I'm referring to. Though the laws say (some room for argument though) there's no need for a card if a goal is scored anyway (i.e. a clear goalscoring opportunity hasn't been prevented), what should happen?

Whether or not Bale is present to score, Cech has committed the same foul on Adebayor. Why should Cech benefit from Spurs having committed extra players forward (and having the ability to score from the advantage)?

Any team reasonably confident in their penalty taker against at best a second choice opposition keeper could well prefer to have the decision be a red card and a penalty, do we want to encourage such teams to hang back and refuse the advantage?

Cech should have received a yellow card, but the goal should still stand. There's always the chance that you miss the pen (and in this case be 2-0 down still). Also the fact that the team with 10 men may just sit back and hold on, making it harder to break them down and score.

Me personally, I've always thought that a red card & penalty is too much, it's 2 punishments in 1, but those are the rules...

[Hopple]

(Original post by Unsworth)
I think you can argue that generally when players get red cards it is because they have intentionally tried to hurt a player or have made a very stupid dangerous tackle. Goalkeepers are unfortunate as they are the last man, and when Cech went down he was trying 100% to win the ball - not to dangerously tackle Adebayor.

I think a goal is enough when that happens, rather than send the keeper off and award a penalty. If spurs had scored but the referee brought play back and sent Cech off, but then Tottenham miss the penalty there would be uproar.

Of the numerous occasions when a keeper has been sent off as last man, I can't think of any where they were trying to dangerously tackle the striker. In some cases, they might try to grab the striker's ankle, but generally the striker ends up tripping on their body.

What would you say to the goal standing and Cech being sent off?

[Unsworth]

(Original post by Hopple)
Of the numerous occasions when a keeper has been sent off as last man, I can't think of any where they were trying to dangerously tackle the striker. In some cases, they might try to grab the striker's ankle, but generally the striker ends up tripping on their body.

What would you say to the goal standing and Cech being sent off?

Yes exactly, I'm a goalkeeper myself and I would go crazy if I was sent off and the goal stood.

It would be an awful decision I think, yellow card would maybe even be pushing it as there is no intent at all. Referee got the decision spot on in my eyes.

[Hopple]

(Original post by sleep99)
Cech should have received a yellow card, but the goal should still stand. There's always the chance that you miss the pen (and in this case be 2-0 down still). Also the fact that the team with 10 men may just sit back and hold on, making it harder to break them down and score.

Me personally, I've always thought that a red card & penalty is too much, it's 2 punishments in 1, but those are the rules...

Yeah, I think it can be too harsh, especially when you see that the keeper can try to injure the striker at no further cost during the game (assuming they have a decent backup).

In rugby, you can be awarded penalty tries. Considering refs have to decide if it's a "clear goalscoring opportunity" anyway, what would you think of "penalty goals" being awarded instead of giving a penalty? It'd be a big change, but I think it would cut down on the number of players deliberately handballing on the line no matter how good a penalty stopper their keeper is, and you need not send off the goalkeeper for simply having their momentum carry them into a striker, but also be able to dish out extra punishment to players who commit more vicious last man fouls.

[Panthalic]

If he was sent off, it would've been for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity. Since they scored, he obviously didn't deny the opportunity did he?

[Hopple]

(Original post by Unsworth)
Yes exactly, I'm a goalkeeper myself and I would go crazy if I was sent off and the goal stood.

It would be an awful decision I think, yellow card would maybe even be pushing it as there is no intent at all. Referee got the decision spot on in my eyes.

Do you think the goalie should be sent off at all? They receive so much protection otherwise, and generally they make a legitimate attempt to win the ball which is very unlikely to hurt the striker.

[The Rusty Spork]

I've never understood why goalkeepers, when fouling are seen as different to outfield players. Bringing a player down using your hands should be the same no matter who does it, same when a goalkeeper just charges a player

[Unsworth]

(Original post by Hopple)
Do you think the goalie should be sent off at all? They receive so much protection otherwise, and generally they make a legitimate attempt to win the ball which is very unlikely to hurt the striker.

Yes of course if they react or do something dangerous or take down a player when charging out the box or in the box and they don't score. But as long as the team scores within the following 3-5 seconds I would say no they shouldn't be sent off.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Unsworth)
Yes of course if they react or do something dangerous or take down a player when charging out the box or in the box and they don't score. But as long as the team scores within the following 3-5 seconds I would say no they shouldn't be sent off.

Say they don't score, and it's a penalty, should the keeper be sent off? Surely the keeper has performed the same actions either way?

Perhaps something else to consider as well, what if Bale had scuffed his shot and Chelsea managed to clear?

[hully03]

As Bale scored, Cech no longer denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and thus can't be sent off for that offence. He could have still been cautioned or indeed sent off if the foul itself (not the position of the foul) warranted it. You could argue it was a caution-able offence but never a red.

[kingsholmmad]

(Original post by Unsworth)
I think you can argue that generally when players get red cards it is because they have intentionally tried to hurt a player or have made a very stupid dangerous tackle. Goalkeepers are unfortunate as they are the last man, and when Cech went down he was trying 100% to win the ball - not to dangerously tackle Adebayor.

I think a goal is enough when that happens, rather than send the keeper off and award a penalty. If spurs had scored but the referee brought play back and sent Cech off, but then Tottenham miss the penalty there would be uproar.

This is precisely the sort of situation where pitch refs should play an advantage and where they should then have the option of going to a video ref. A halfway decent pitch ref wouldn't actually have needed a video ref for that incident; if the goal hadn't been scored, he would have given a penalty and a red card so that, even if the penalty had been missed, Spurs would still have been a man up.

Where a video ref would really have made a difference would have been with the second Chelsea goal. Again, an advantage could have been played until the ball went out of play and then the video ref could have decided goal / no goal.

[kingsholmmad]

(Original post by Hopple)
Yeah, I think it can be too harsh, especially when you see that the keeper can try to injure the striker at no further cost during the game (assuming they have a decent backup).

In rugby, you can be awarded penalty tries. Considering refs have to decide if it's a "clear goalscoring opportunity" anyway, what would you think of "penalty goals" being awarded instead of giving a penalty? It'd be a big change, but I think it would cut down on the number of players deliberately handballing on the line no matter how good a penalty stopper their keeper is, and you need not send off the goalkeeper for simply having their momentum carry them into a striker, but also be able to dish out extra punishment to players who commit more vicious last man fouls.

I desperately want to see video technology in football but I don't think penalty goals would work. The penalty try in rugby is awarded when the defending side repeatedly infringes in quick succession in a manner that would stop an almost certain try. That wouldn't happen in football because the infringement stopping a certain goal always happens in isolation. You never get a series of them happening in quick succession and the concept of a certain goal is so subjective that, even if they could, most refs wouldn't give penalty goals because it would just be too controversial.

[internet tough guy]

(Original post by Panthalic)
If he was sent off, it would've been for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity. Since they scored, he obviously didn't deny the opportunity did he?

I agree with you here. The referee was playing advantage and seeing what would come out of it. The logic from this is that he's effectively giving spurs two attempts at goal, 1) Bale's follow-through and 2) if Bale had missed, a penalty (presumbly a red card would then also be given).

[Unsworth]

(Original post by Hopple)
Say they don't score, and it's a penalty, should the keeper be sent off? Surely the keeper has performed the same actions either way?

Perhaps something else to consider as well, what if Bale had scuffed his shot and Chelsea managed to clear?

Yepp if Bale has scuffed his shot and missed then IMO ref brings back play, awards a penalty + sends off Cech. It is literally one of those where if the player scores the keeper gets off scotch free, whereas if the player doesn't score he gets sent off. Same foul yes but different situations following it lead to different measures to be taken.

[James A]

I remember in the Newcastle vs Chelsea match this season. David Luiz fouled one of our players and Luiz was clearly the last man and yet he only got a yellow card. absolute madness

[marcusmerehay]

Can I just bring another famous incident to everyone's attention?

Jens Lehmann's red card against Barcelona in the Champions League final, when he was sent off for bringing down Eto'o and play brought back despite Eto'o scoring?

Seems to be open to the referee's interpretation for me.