Why No Red Card at the Penalty?

I've read that some knuckle draggers are moaning about the 'Hanlon' hand ball & Scotty Allan's tackle (that was admittedly a bad one).
However, could someone clarify what the rule is on sending offs for a player denied a clear goal scoring opportunity please?

If the ref thinks that Jamie McLaren gets brought down in the box and deems it to be a penalty, why then is there no red card to follow?
I believe there is now no such thing as 'last man' but they change the terminology of the rules that often that I am confused as to what the rules are.
A straight rec card for being 'last man' and denying us a clear goal scoring opportunity would have meant that lot playing 80 minutes with 10 men, who knows what difference that might have made in the game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB62

I've read that some knuckle draggers are moaning about the 'Hanlon' hand ball & Scotty Allan's tackle (that was admittedly a bad one).
However, could someone clarify what the rule is on sending offs for a player denied a clear goal scoring opportunity please?

If the ref thinks that Jamie McLaren gets brought down in the box and deems it to be a penalty, why then is there no red card to follow?
I believe there is now no such thing as 'last man' but they change the terminology of the rules that often that I am confused as to what the rules are.
A straight rec card for being 'last man' and denying us a clear goal scoring opportunity would have meant that lot playing 80 minutes with 10 men, who knows what difference that might have made in the game?

---

If they have made a clear attempt to play the ball it is a yellow.

Clearly he didn't so should have seen red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB62

I've read that some knuckle draggers are moaning about the 'Hanlon' hand ball & Scotty Allan's tackle (that was admittedly a bad one).
However, could someone clarify what the rule is on sending offs for a player denied a clear goal scoring opportunity please?

If the ref thinks that Jamie McLaren gets brought down in the box and deems it to be a penalty, why then is there no red card to follow?
I believe there is now no such thing as 'last man' but they change the terminology of the rules that often that I am confused as to what the rules are.
A straight rec card for being 'last man' and denying us a clear goal scoring opportunity would have meant that lot playing 80 minutes with 10 men, who knows what difference that might have made in the game?

---

I think there is some sort of double jeapordy rule now where you don't get punished twice (pen & red card) Don't know why he didn't get a yellow card though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milkinho

If they have made a clear attempt to play the ball it is a yellow.

Clearly he didn't so should have seen red.

---

At the game I missed the reason for the penalty, but watching the highlights, Bates uses his elbow to block and knock down Jamie

By the way, how bad is Bates, just wish Rangers had offered him a better contract🤣
Won’t last long at Hamburg

I'm wondering if the referee was trying to use the new-ish double jeopardy rule (where you don't get carded at a penalty). I think it only applies, though, where the foul was deemed 'accidental'. There was nothing accidental about that, so he should have been off.

Good question.

From Law 12.3:

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

I can only presume Dallas did not consider it to be an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overdrive

I'm wondering if the referee was trying to use the new-ish double jeopardy rule (where you don't get carded at a penalty). I think it only applies, though, where the foul was deemed 'accidental'. There was nothing accidental about that, so he should have been off.

---

Think the term is along the lines of
“making an opportunity to play the ball”
Which obviously he wasn’t

To be fair I think Dallas is right..Jamie was getting nowhere near that cross (As Cliff Pike points out in the Hibs.net commentary) if you watch it again I can't see any way he would have got there before the goalie, so it was a foul in the box (non dangerous shove/push) that didn't deny a clear goal scoring chance, therefore a penalty, but not a card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by worcesterhibby

To be fair I think Dallas is right..Jamie was getting nowhere near that cross (As Cliff Pike points out in the Hibs.net commentary) if you watch it again I can't see any way he would have got there before the goalie, so it was a foul in the box (non dangerous shove/push) that didn't deny a clear goal scoring chance, therefore a penalty, but not a card.

---

That’s hardly easy to say when he’s running full pelt into the box and gets fouled on the 18 yard line. 10 yards is nothing to make up when already running at that pace. And if he didn’t think it was red, the very least is a yellow for intentionally impeding a player making his way into the box.

I actually though Dallas had a decent enough game yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleplum

Good question.

From Law 12.3:

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

I can only presume Dallas did not consider it to be an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

---

Thanks for that.
If Dallas did not consider it to be an obvious goal-scoring opportunity why did he award a penalty then?

Could have made a HUGE difference to the game, especially the way we started the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB62

Thanks for that.
If Dallas did not consider it to be an obvious goal-scoring opportunity why did he award a penalty then?

Could have made a HUGE difference to the game, especially the way we started the game.

---

He gave a penalty because it was a foul in the box. The nature of the foul, and whether it prevented a goal scoring opportunity, only matters when deciding what card to show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB62

I've read that some knuckle draggers are moaning about the 'Hanlon' hand ball & Scotty Allan's tackle (that was admittedly a bad one).
However, could someone clarify what the rule is on sending offs for a player denied a clear goal scoring opportunity please?

If the ref thinks that Jamie McLaren gets brought down in the box and deems it to be a penalty, why then is there no red card to follow?
I believe there is now no such thing as 'last man' but they change the terminology of the rules that often that I am confused as to what the rules are.
A straight rec card for being 'last man' and denying us a clear goal scoring opportunity would have meant that lot playing 80 minutes with 10 men, who knows what difference that might have made in the game?

---

I asked this at the time. Don't think you could say for sure if he was out rant going to get the ball but it should have been a red imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB62

Thanks for that.
If Dallas did not consider it to be an obvious goal-scoring opportunity why did he award a penalty then?

Could have made a HUGE difference to the game, especially the way we started the game.

---

It doesn't need to be a goalscoring opportunity to be a penalty, any kind of foul in the box should result in a penalty being given.

It does need to be a goalscoring opportunity and no attempt made to play the ball, in order to be a red card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

It doesn't need to be a goalscoring opportunity to be a penalty, any kind of foul in the box should result in a penalty being given.

It does need to be a goalscoring opportunity and no attempt made to play the ball, in order to be a red card.

---

Or violent conduct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overdrive

I actually though Dallas had a decent enough game yesterday.

---

I'm not convinced. I think he probably should have sent off 2 more players than he did. Also allowed a lot of standing in front of the ball/booting it away etc before finally taking action against Holt.

He wasn't Thomson-like by any means, but not sure I'd call the performance decent at the same time :aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

I'm not convinced. I think he probably should have sent off 2 more players than he did. Also allowed a lot of standing in front of the ball/booting it away etc before finally taking action against Holt.

He wasn't Thomson-like by any means, but not sure I'd call the performance decent at the same time :aok:

---

At least he was consistent whether that was good, bad or average both team's were treated the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

At least he was consistent whether that was good, bad or average both team's were treated the same.

---

Yep no arguments there - I don't think he was ridiculously bad for us, given Allan stayed on the park (really bad challenge having rewatched on TV) and we got the big pen decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Yep no arguments there - I don't think he was ridiculously bad for us, given Allan stayed on the park (really bad challenge having rewatched on TV) and we got the big pen decision.

---

I think Allan got away with it because he's not caught the boy with his leading leg, when you watch it back, Allan's right foot goes past the player before the trailing leg wipes the boy out.

These are the categories for a red card (from Wikipedia):

Law 12 of the Laws of the Game lists the categories of misconduct for which a player may be sent off. These are:

Serious foul play

Violent conduct

Spitting at an opponent or any other person

Denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Deliberate fouls that deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal.

Using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures

Receiving a second caution in the same match

Serious foul play is a foul committed using excessive force (i.e., "the player...is in danger of injuring his opponent").

Violent conduct is distinct from serious foul play in that it may be committed by any player, substitute, or substituted player against any person, e.g., teammates, match officials, or spectators.

Everybody round me in the west was astounded that there was no card at all.

I thought a yellow was automatic for a 'professional foul', and red for being the last man. I don't know about red, but there's no excuse for not at least giving a yellow card.

I thought red at the game but seeong the replay I don't think Maclaren would've got to the ball.

Yellow would've been correct imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

I think Allan got away with it because he's not caught the boy with his leading leg, when you watch it back, Allan's right foot goes past the player before the trailing leg wipes the boy out.

These are the categories for a red card (from Wikipedia):

Law 12 of the Laws of the Game lists the categories of misconduct for which a player may be sent off. These are:

Serious foul play

Violent conduct

Spitting at an opponent or any other person

Denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Deliberate fouls that deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal.

Using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures

Receiving a second caution in the same match

Serious foul play is a foul committed using excessive force (i.e., "the player...is in danger of injuring his opponent").

Violent conduct is distinct from serious foul play in that it may be committed by any player, substitute, or substituted player against any person, e.g., teammates, match officials, or spectators.

---

I've just seen the tackle again and it's probably a red, to be honest :faf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

I've just seen the tackle again and it's probably a red, to be honest :faf:

---

Haha we definitely could have no complaints if he was shown a red. However I love Allan even more, if anything, for the tackle :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

I've just seen the tackle again and it's probably a red, to be honest :faf:

---

He wouldn't have gone in on him like that if Dallas had properly dealt with Rossiters bad challenge just 20 seconds before