Professional Foul

[NAE NOOKIE]

Villa v Blackburn was shaping up to be a classic last night when the whole match was ruined by the sending off of a Blackburn defended for a last man challenge in the box for which Villa were given a penalty.

Is it just me, or was the last man rule not introduced in order to prevent professional fouls outside of the box. The idea being that a free kick was not sufficient punishment for preventing a clear goalscoring opportunity outside the penalty area, whereas if the foul was committed inside the box a penalty was due and fair punishment.

The other thing that seems to have been lost in this blizzard of red cards is that a professional foul is when a player with no chance of winning the ball takes a swipe at the legs of the guy getting away from him.

In the case of the Blackburn lad it looked to me like a genuine attempt to tackle the Villa player, in which case it was not a professional foul and therefore not a red card and yet time and again refs get out the red card in these situations.

Anyway, just my opinion.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Villa v Blackburn was shaping up to be a classic last night when the whole match was ruined by the sending off of a Blackburn defended for a last man challenge in the box for which Villa were given a penalty.

Is it just me, or was the last man rule not introduced in order to prevent professional fouls outside of the box. The idea being that a free kick was not sufficient punishment for preventing a clear goalscoring opportunity outside the penalty area, whereas if the foul was committed inside the box a penalty was due and fair punishment.

The other thing that seems to have been lost in this blizzard of red cards is that a professional foul is when a player with no chance of winning the ball takes a swipe at the legs of the guy getting away from him.

In the case of the Blackburn lad it looked to me like a genuine attempt to tackle the Villa player, in which case it was not a professional foul and therefore not a red card and yet time and again refs get out the red card in these situations.

Anyway, just my opinion.

The rule doesn't say anything about "professional fouls" or "last man". It does, however, talk about "preventing a goalscoring opportunity". Last night's one was exactly that. Whether the defender made a genuine attempt to play the ball is irrelevant; he failed in his attempt through bad timing, incompetence or the skill of the attacker. It was therefore a foul and, within the rules, a red card.

[Hakim Sar]

How did it ruin the game though? it WAS a classic

lol

[aljo7-0]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How did it ruin the game though? it WAS a classic

lol

It will have if you were a Blackburn fan!

It was some game though. I went through to the kitchen to get a coffee during the second half. The score was 4 - 2 Villa and I thought all the entertainment was over. Couldn't believe it when I came back 3 minutes (at most) later and it was 5 - 3.

[NAE NOOKIE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The rule doesn't say anything about "professional fouls" or "last man". It does, however, talk about "preventing a goalscoring opportunity". Last night's one was exactly that. Whether the defender made a genuine attempt to play the ball is irrelevant; he failed in his attempt through bad timing, incompetence or the skill of the attacker. It was therefore a foul and, within the rules, a red card.

Your comment about the wording of the rule is correct, however I feel that it is the wording of the rule which is the problem.

I remember there was years of talk about this rule before it was ever introduced, the whole ethos behind it being to stop what at that time had become an epidemic in the game of defenders scything down attackers breaking clear on goal from outside the box, with the defender having no chance of, or intention of, winning the ball and the result being a booking for the defender and a 35 yard free kick with little or no chance of a goal resulting from it

I am pretty sure that the rule was never intended to double punish a team for a foul committed inside the box.

I am also sure that the rule was not intended to result in the sending off of a player for getting it wrong when making a fair and genuine attempt to win the ball, be it through the talent of his opponent. lack of skill, bad timing or whatever.

A red card and in particular a straight red card is supposed to be issued for what is judged by the referee to be deliberate and dangerous foul play and surely not for a genuine attempt to play the ball. This should be left to the judgement of the referee, but from what I can see more often than not the ref doesn't seem to use that judgement in those situations but goes straight for the red card.

As far as I can see this is a clear case of what should have been a good rule being used badly and over zealously in situations for which it was never ( or should never have been ) intended.

[Zondervan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your comment about the wording of the rule is correct, however I feel that it is the wording of the rule which is the problem.

I remember there was years of talk about this rule before it was ever introduced, the whole ethos behind it being to stop what at that time had become an epidemic in the game of defenders scything down attackers breaking clear on goal from outside the box, with the defender having no chance of, or intention of, winning the ball and the result being a booking for the defender and a 35 yard free kick with little or no chance of a goal resulting from it

I am pretty sure that the rule was never intended to double punish a team for a foul committed inside the box.

I am also sure that the rule was not intended to result in the sending off of a player for getting it wrong when making a fair and genuine attempt to win the ball, be it through the talent of his opponent. lack of skill, bad timing or whatever.

A red card and in particular a straight red card is supposed to be issued for what is judged by the referee to be deliberate and dangerous foul play and surely not for a genuine attempt to play the ball. This should be left to the judgement of the referee, but from what I can see more often than not the ref doesn't seem to use that judgement in those situations but goes straight for the red card.

As far as I can see this is a clear case of what should have been a good rule being used badly and over zealously in situations for which it was never ( or should never have been ) intended.

Agree with the sentiment, but the particular "law of the game" is black & white:

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits the following offence:

"denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick"

[NAE NOOKIE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How did it ruin the game though? it WAS a classic

lol

It was really good and entertaining, but not a classic for me. When Villa went 3 - 2 up on the night I just never felt Blackburn would ever be able to turn it around, given that they were then 4 - 2 down over the two legs and with 10 men.

The game lost its tension for me after that and so as a result fell short of a classic.

Some folk are just bloody hard to please I suppose

[Jonnyboy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It was really good and entertaining, but not a classic for me. When Villa went 3 - 2 up on the night I just never felt Blackburn would ever be able to turn it around, given that they were then 4 - 2 down over the two legs and with 10 men.

The game lost its tension for me after that and so as a result fell short of a classic.

Some folk are just bloody hard to please I suppose

Spot on. Another example is when the fifth goal went in at Tynie and hordes of Hearts fans took the decision that it wasn't worth hanging about for the rest of the game

[Hibs7]

It shows you the mentality of some of todays footballers, they should be smart enough to realise losing a goal and still having 11 on the park, is better than losing a man and a penalty, which 9 times out of 10 means a goal anyway.

[Green Mikey]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It shows you the mentality of some of todays footballers, they should be smart enough to realise losing a goal and still having 11 on the park, is better than losing a man and a penalty, which 9 times out of 10 means a goal anyway.

I don't it is today's footballers mentality that causes this issue it is the rules. Your post implies that today's footballers are less intelligent that previous generations, I don't think that is true.


I think it a positive that the defender went for the ball. If football turns into a game where players play the percentages and are preoccupied with not being sent off or conceding penalties then the games will lose it excitment and unpredictability that make it so great.

[Twa Cairpets]

A player, substitute or substituted player is dismissed from the field of play and shown the red card if he/she commits any of the following offences:

- Serious foul play
- Violent conduct
- Use of abusive language and/or gestures
- 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 inside his/her own penalty area)
- Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick (known as a professional foul)
- Receiving a second caution (yellow card) in the same match

The laws say nothing about where on the pitch it occurs. It could be anywhere. Note, its also nothing to do with "last man", thats bollox.

As an aside, an interesting one I've had in the past (yes, i'm a ref) is when a goalie has brought a player down as he is going through on goal and about to shoot, but a defender has "covered" on the line. Ive been surrounded by team mates saying "he's not last man, theres a man covering on the line, you're a useless fat ******* etc etc" (last one not strictly relevant to the point, but it adds colour). The point I've try to make is if it was a defender bringing him down and it was the goalie left to beat, they wouldnt have argued about the red card. In which circumstances is it more likely that the "last man" would prevent a goal?

(By the way they got booked for the useless fat ******* bit. I'm quite useful).

[Hakim Sar]

Reason for red card? Son, your name is michael Stewart

Go on! Gerroutta my pub...erm...I mean pitch

[Argylehibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A player, substitute or substituted player is dismissed from the field of play and shown the red card if he/she commits any of the following offences:

- Serious foul play
- Violent conduct
- Use of abusive language and/or gestures
- 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 inside his/her own penalty area) - Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick (known as a professional foul)
- Receiving a second caution (yellow card) in the same match

The laws say nothing about where on the pitch it occurs. It could be anywhere. Note, its also nothing to do with "last man", thats bollox.

As an aside, an interesting one I've had in the past (yes, i'm a ref) is when a goalie has brought a player down as he is going through on goal and about to shoot, but a defender has "covered" on the line. Ive been surrounded by team mates saying "he's not last man, theres a man covering on the line, you're a useless fat ******* etc etc" (last one not strictly relevant to the point, but it adds colour). The point I've try to make is if it was a defender bringing him down and it was the goalie left to beat, they wouldnt have argued about the red card. In which circumstances is it more likely that the "last man" would prevent a goal?

(By the way they got booked for the useless fat ******* bit. I'm quite useful).

Thats the one I find completely stupid. Defender passes back to keeper but its a poor pass and is heading into the net. Keeper dives and catches it as its going in. How more blatent can you be in stopping a goal scoring opportunity by using illegal means yet he stays on the park. Yet a centre half can trip a forward with the pace of Chris Boyd at the half way line and be sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity!