Republic of Ireland V Georgia - Sunday, 2nd June, 2013 - Friendly

[ArdeeBhoy]

That's a different link you're talking about.
On another thread...
;)

[BonnieShels]

I've heard this before, but have also heard it rubbished / disputed as myth based in fanciful notion. Does anyone here know for sure ?

They wear green as their away colours as green is the official colour of the DFB.

That away kit is a thing of beauty.

[ArdeeBhoy]

We know...

[geysir]

you'd need to read a few of the wing commander's reviews to get the joke. the character is a bit like David Brent in that respect
That's what I meant. :)

[SkStu]

I cant imagine any context in which that wsc piece is funny... :(

[geysir]

I cant imagine any context in which that wsc piece is funny... :(
The extent of your imagination could be validly questioned :)
Taste in humour is a very subjective matter, I didn't think it was funny but it raised a few chuckles and deserves marks for effort.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Agreed. It's more subtle than most of us can give credit for?
Though not as 'ribtickling'​ as some on the WSC board claim.

[DannyInvincible]

I presume international refs have some sort of assessment panel and I'd imagine even if it's a friendly you have to stick to the rules exactly as they are in competitive games or you'll be bumped off the, presumably fairly lucrative, international list. The lad was Romanian too, so I imagine he was making a better wedge than reffing Romanian league games (not to mention having to risk incurring the wrath of Gigi Becalli).

That would be my completely uninformed opinion.

I'm sure you're not far from the truth. It's a very good point; if the laws of the game were to be applied "more leniently" by referees in friendly fixtures - simply to maintain balance or an enhanced level of entertainment for fans or whatever - FIFA would subject friendly games to a different set of rules and regulation, but they don't, for the obvious reason that the one set of rules are to be applied as consistently as is humanly possible.

[tricky_colour]

Full match is available here
http://livefootballvideo.com/fullmatch/world/friendlies/ireland-republic-vs-georgia


Or perhaps here (not sure what that does).
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10hp12_%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B8 %D1%8F-%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%8F-1_sport

You can't download it I don't think, but if you want to put yourself through it again as an added bonus the commentary is in Russian, very useful if you are Aiden Mcgeady but otherwise not so much.

[tricky_colour]

I'm sure you're not far from the truth. It's a very good point; if the laws of the game were to be applied "more leniently" by referees in friendly fixtures - simply to maintain balance or an enhanced level of entertainment for fans or whatever - FIFA would subject friendly games to a different set of rules and regulation, but they don't, for the obvious reason that the one set of rules are to be applied as consistently as is humanly possible.

Point is though it was a meaningless sending off, it was not a dangerous tackle and all it did was punish Ireland
by having them play against 10 men something of little merit as a learning exercise.

I think Trap should have been consulted on whether he shoudl have been sent off or not.

Worse still there was no goal scoring opportunity so in that respect the ref was wrong to send him off (if
my understanding of the rule is correct, which is unlikely).

[Charlie Darwin]

I suppose the experience of trying to break down 10 men is a useful exercise in itself. You have to adapt and take what you can from the game.

[tricky_colour]

I suppose the experience of trying to break down 10 men is a useful exercise in itself. You have to adapt and take what you can from the game.


I don't know, I thought they looked pretty poor indeed I was feeling a bit sorry for them towards the end.
But it is hard to make an assessment from it, I didn't think we look particularly great either despite winning 4-0.
Maybe the lack of an atmosphere at the ground helped that.

Having said that, they rarely lose by more than one goal, Spain only beat them 1-0 would you believe!!! (and that was just the Euro's).

[Crosby87]

Let's not forget the backup keeper looked like he had just woken up from a siesta, possibly in a hayfield.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't know, I thought they looked pretty poor indeed I was feeling a bit sorry for them towards the end.
But it is hard to make an assessment from it, I didn't think we look particularly great either despite winning 4-0.
Maybe the lack of an atmosphere at the ground helped that.

Having said that, they rarely lose by more than one goal, Spain only beat them 1-0 would you believe!!! (and that was just the Euro's).
You have to view it in the context that we often have trouble putting away relatively minor teams - we only beat them 2-1 in our two previous fixtures. We will come up against teams who will just look to defend constantly, even if they have a man sent off, and we found a way to do that on Sunday. Like I said, you adapt to the circumstances and take the lessons where you can. It's not the referee's job to give us a good game and he had to send the guy off.

[tricky_colour]

You have to view it in the context that we often have trouble putting away relatively minor teams - we only beat them 2-1 in our two previous fixtures. We will come up against teams who will just look to defend constantly, even if they have a man sent off, and we found a way to do that on Sunday. Like I said, you adapt to the circumstances and take the lessons where you can. It's not the referee's job to give us a good game and he had to send the guy off.

I am sure however Trap would have preferred to play against 11 though, I certainly would have were I manager.

[Charlie Darwin]

Of course, but you make the best of what you've got, which is why I think Trap was right to send Robbie on at half time. Put out a similar side to what will face the Faroes and see how they break down a stubborn and reluctant defence.

[tricky_colour]

Just been looking at some of the match in better quality than I had on the stream.
I think maybe Hoolahan helped give a more attack minded midfield which pressed the opposition more in the centre as opposed
to otherwise sitting back more. That I think lead to the mistake for the sending off. But generally on the piece I have just been watching
the whole team seemed to be working well together to close down the opposition, but then again it's a bit easier to do that
against teams such as Georgia. I guess a 10 man Georgia is a pretty good warm up for the Faroes though.

The match against Spain on the 11th June will be a far more reveal test of where we stand in world football!!

[pineapple stu]

Point is though it was a meaningless sending off, it was not a dangerous tackle
He wasn't sent off for it being a dangerous tackle though.


Worse still there was no goal scoring opportunity so in that respect the ref was wrong to send him off (if my understanding of the rule is correct, which is unlikely).
I'm not sure the keeper could have been sure that the ball had been knocked too far (if indeed it had). He came outside the box in a one-on-one situation, the ball was knocked past him and he just moved into Long's way. Really cynical, and a red card all day long for me.

[Stuttgart88]

Yes, a red card all day Long even if Long's touch was about as elegant as mine. There is a good case to be made for it being only a yellow because it was a friendly. Plenty of refs are lenient in that type of game.

The two footed tackle on the touchline was a shocker and should have been a red regardless of the circumstances.

[geysir]

Certainly the goalie did everything to make it look like a red card offence but there was no way Long was going to get that ball. The remotest of goal scoring opportunities was denied. There was plenty of doubt existing for the ref, to just show a yellow.

[DannyInvincible]

Just something to consider; the rule in question refers to the denial of an "obvious goalscoring opportunity" as being an offence punishable by a red card rather than the denial of a certain goal.

[tricky_colour]

But there was no goal scoring opportunity because all day Long Long had hit that ball too Long ;)

So if that is the rule then the goal keepers intent does not seem to matter, the keeper may have intended to deny him
a goal scoring opportunity but if they was never one there in the first place it should only be a yellow.

I would not see the tackle as particularly dangerous although these days refs seem to treat it as a none contact sport,
indeed you don't even have to make contact to get sent off!!! (as I understand it)

[pineapple stu]

Just something to consider; the rule in question refers to the denial of an "obvious goalscoring opportunity" as being an offence punishable by a red card rather than the denial of a certain goal.
From whose viewpoint though?

From the ref's, or the TV's, viewpoint, yeah, it looked like Long wasn't going to get to that ball.

Could the keeper know that though? If he'd known, surely he wouldn't have moved into Long's path? With his back to the ball, would he know how far it had been knocked ahead?

FWIW, I don't mind the idea of reducing non-dangerous red cards (like this) to yellows for friendlies. But I don't think there's any point blaming the ref for following the rules; it's what he's there to do.

Is there any FIFA guidance on refereeing friendly games?


I would not see the tackle as particularly dangerous although these days refs seem to treat it as a none contact sport,
But it's already been pointed out to you that the red wasn't for dangerous play. It wasn't a dangerous tackle; it was a cynical one, and that's what the red was for. Red cards are issued for more than just dangerous play.

[paul_oshea]

Don't know where else to put this but nice interview with Richard Keogh. Seems like a really nice guy. Always refreshing to read this stuff.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/international/2013/0604/454395-mcclean-promised-me-a-goal-reveals-keogh/

[jbyrne]

id say the ball was almost out of play before long hit the ground from the GK taking him down. nowhere near a clear goalscoring opportunity so a yellow card offence in my book. also, from where i was sitting right in line with the incident in the upper east stand I think Long went looking for the GK

[pineapple stu]

id say the ball was almost out of play before long hit the ground from the GK taking him down.`
Still in by a good ten yards.
LU8ZpisMolg


I think Long went looking for the GK
I don't think the video backs this up. It's the keeper who changes direction.

[DannyInvincible]

Here are the criteria to assist a referee in deciding when to penalise for the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity:


 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.


I found these on page 18 of the following document on 'Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct (Part 2 - Misconduct)': http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/7.%20law%2012_miscounduct_557.pdf

Not entirely sure if that is the most up-to-date copy of that document available, mind. It does have '2012' in the URL but the document itself also highlights FIFA's momentous 100th anniversary at the bottom-left of each of its pages. That was in 2004.

[Stuttgart88]

Just something to consider; the rule in question refers to the denial of an "obvious goalscoring opportunity" as being an offence punishable by a red card rather than the denial of a certain goal.Shane Long should have been sent off so. His first touch denied him an obvious goalscoring opportunity!

[pineapple stu]

Here are the criteria to assist a referee in deciding when to penalise for the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity:


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.


Thanks for that. So it seems this case met every criterion with the arguable exception of the fourth one (if we allow the third is met by virtue of Long being in possession at the time).

Just comes down to whether Long would have reached the ball or not. Ref must have decided he would have.

[geysir]

From whose viewpoint though?

From the ref's, or the TV's, viewpoint, yeah, it looked like Long wasn't going to get to that ball.
When the tackle was made it looked all over a red card, instinctively any ref would be blowing a whistle and after that (probably) considering why he shouldn't give a red card.


Could the keeper know that though? If he'd known, surely he wouldn't have moved into Long's path? With his back to the ball, would he know how far it had been knocked ahead?
I don't think it matters what the intention of the goalie was, what he knew or didn't know. He deliberately brought down Long outside the box, but that's not a red card offence in itself.


FWIW, I don't mind the idea of reducing non-dangerous red cards (like this) to yellows for friendlies. But I don't think there's any point blaming the ref for following the rules; it's what he's there to do.

Is there any FIFA guidance on refereeing friendly games?
But it's already been pointed out to you that the red wasn't for dangerous play. It wasn't a dangerous tackle; it was a cynical one, and that's what the red was for. Red cards are issued for more than just dangerous play
If one could be so certain that the ref gave the red card for a 'cynical' tackle then it was wrong decision by the ref.
The only valid justification a ref could use for the red card, was denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

On refs in friendlies, we have plenty of precedents of refs exercising obvious and blatant leniency in friendlies.

[jbyrne]

Still in by a good ten yards.
LU8ZpisMolg


I don't think the video backs this up. It's the keeper who changes direction.

still no way long was getting to that ball therefore not a goalscoring opportunity denied nevermind a clear one

[Stuttgart88]

I would not see the tackle as particularly dangerous although these days refs seem to treat it as a none contact sport,
indeed you don't even have to make contact to get sent off!!! (as I understand it)
No, refs do treat the game as a contact sport, albeit one where you've got to treat your opponent with a duty of care. I'm 100% with the modern refereeing climate on this one. The Hutton tackle on Shane Long last year was a great case-in-point. Won the ball but endangered his opponent in the process and nearly broke Long's ankle. It should have been a red all day long.

And yes, there doesn't have to be contact for it to be a foul. A player might evade a very dangerous tackle, but it'd still be a foul. Alternatively, the attempted tackle (usually in the case of a goalie coming out but being too late in a 1-on-1) might cause the attacker, by evading the tackle, to lose control of a ball he'd never have lost control of otherwise. That's also a foul in my view and if it denies a clear goalscoring opportunity then it would warrant a red.

Similarly an attempted tackle that missed the man altogether but which endangered an opponent and failed in the tackler's duty of care to the opponent would also potentially warrant a red in my book.

So, in my opinion, you can win the ball and still be penalised or sent off, and you can miss the man and still be penalised or sent off.

[DannyInvincible]

Still in by a good ten yards.
LU8ZpisMolg

It's by no means a certainty that Long would not have re-collected that ball had the keeper not impeded his run. In fact, I think he would have made it and, in doing so, would have set himself up for an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The situation was already an obvious goal-scoring opportunity besides, no? Long would not have had to chip the ball past Loria in the manner he did if it were not for Loria's poor positioning and impending or likely foul.

Just to have a closer look at the criteria with regard to Loria's foul:


The direction of play was towards the Georgian goal.
The location of the foul was right outside the Georgian box; not far from the Georgian goal.
The ball was still in play and no more than 10 or 12 feet from Long when he was impeded.
I also think the chances of him otherwise controlling the ball would have been high; he was running at speed and I feel his sudden halting makes the ball (already moving away from him, but not accelerating, importantly) look further away from him than had he been able to continue his run.
There were no other opponents, other than the keeper, who realistically could have gotten themselves into a position to prevent Long from creating an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Long was already out-pacing the trailing defender who tried to give chase.
The opportunity for the attempt on goal is pretty obvious; Long was clean through with just the keeper to beat.

[Stuttgart88]

Long would not have had to chip the ball past Loria in the manner he did if it were not for Loria's poor positioning and impending or likely foul.That's a point I was going to try and make but I coul;dn't think of how to configure the sentence. It's the old "how do you tell the dancer from the dance?" (or maybe not!). Was the foul the singular act of contact, or was it rushing out, getting in Long's way and then the contact? By itself rushing out and making Long play the ball around him wouldn't have been a foul but making the foul was part of the whole episode.

It wasn't dissimilar to the Armenia GK getting sent off. He ran out with his arms raised to prevent a lob. Even before he hit the ball with his arm / chest / shoulder (or whatever) he had pretty much made the decision to stop the goal at all costs.

Some indignant pious self-loathers in the Irish media actually saw fit to accuse Cox of being a cheat for simply appealing.

[pineapple stu]

Long would not have had to chip the ball past Loria in the manner he did if it were not for Loria's poor positioning and impending or likely foul.
Just on this - let's say the keeper didn't turn into Long as he went past, and let's say Long hadn't been able to keep the ball in play. That would have gone down as good goalkeeping in my book, not poor positioning. The keeper had to narrow the angle and make Long think quickly; had to try force a mistake. That he arguably did so is to his credit. That he then had a brain fart and turned into Long is a different matter.

Edit - interesting that my fellow keeper Stutts has a different opinion on this one!

[ArdeeBhoy]

Yellow, at worst. But with 'modern football', no surprise it was red.

[Stuttgart88]

I think if he had simply stood up and evaded Long it'd have been no foul and arguably he'd have been commended for his positioning - albeit goalies almost always seem to commit to the tackle in this situation (Szcezny of Arsenal is a serial offender). If he had attempted to play the ball and missed it, it could have been a foul. But by fouling him, the whole decision to come out to where he did and the way he did comes under doubt. The whole thing might have been a brain fart. In hindsight the right thing to do would have been to come out half-way and wait for Long's first touch before deciding what to do next. A keeper rushing out for a ball he's not going to get to first is asking for trouble, and he got it.

Many of these calls are marginal and to a large degree refs / fans / pundits have a template of what is and what isn't a red. It looked a red all day Long and I think that's what most of us would have demanded in a competitive game. At the very least, it wasn't a clear error by the ref.

[Stuttgart88]

Yellow, at worst. But with 'modern football', no surprise it was red.Would Hutton's tackle on Long last year have passed your "modern football" test?

[DannyInvincible]

That's a point I was going to try and make but I coul;dn't think of how to configure the sentence.

Had to have a bit of a think about it myself. Is it too much of a stretch?


Just on this - let's say the keeper didn't turn into Long as he went past, and let's say Long hadn't been able to keep the ball in play. That would have gone down as good goalkeeping in my book, not poor positioning. The keeper had to narrow the angle and make Long think quickly; had to try force a mistake. That he arguably did so is to his credit. That he then had a brain fart and turned into Long is a different matter.

Edit - interesting that my fellow keeper Stutts has a different opinion on this one!

True. By "poor positioning", I suppose what I meant was that his positioning and course of action made fouling Long, or physically impeding his run, an inevitability.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Would Hutton's tackle on Long last year have passed your "modern football" test?

Er, yes. But he's got :rolleyes: thuggish tendencies...and unsure why the comparison.

[paul_oshea]

I really don't get the point of these last 20+ posts.

[tetsujin1979]

if it was inside the area, would you have been happy with a penalty, and a yellow card?
as it was, the sending off ended the game as a competitive spectacle

[DannyInvincible]

It's not the referee's responsibility to ensure or maintain a competitive spectacle though. His sole responsibility is to oversee that the laws of the game are applied and executed correctly.

[pineapple stu]

Absolutely.

The goalkeeper ended the match as a spectacle by rushing outside the box and fouling Long. I hate this idea of blaming the ref for that.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Tbf, could have been a yellow.
Seen one given many times in those circumstances.

Foul, but Long made a meal of it IMO.

[pineapple stu]

That's nonsense. He was fairly clearly fouled. The only issue is whether he was going to get to the ball.

[DannyInvincible]

The only issue is whether he was going to get to the ball.

And the threshold to be satisfied is a mere "probability". What's that? A 50 per cent chance or more of getting the ball?

[Stuttgart88]

Er, yes. But he's got :rolleyes: thuggish tendencies...and unsure why the comparison.Simply because you implied that "modern football" is too soft with regard red cards, a view shared by people who wouldn't agree with what I said in post #182 above in response to tricky.


I really don't get the point of these last 20+ posts.It was an interesting incident in the Ireland v Georgia match and this is the Ireland v Georgia match thread.

[BonnieShels]

Anyone able to point me in the direction of full highlights?

[ArdeeBhoy]

That's nonsense. He was fairly clearly fouled. The only issue is whether he was going to get to the ball.

Whereas I would say it was 'nonsense', it was a red. And that he exaggerated his fall.

Sometimes wonder if any of you have even ever played the game...