05 Oct 2023 10:18:58
I've just been watching the begovic sending off again and in my humble opinion bam has every right to go down.
Begovic comes out of his area with a out of control high challenge. Bam knocks the ball over him but has to make avoiding manoeuvres to not get clattered. Bam couldn't get the ball after that so it was a foul. Whether a red or a yellow that was the ref's decision. Bam did not go down and hold his leg like he had been kicked. He just avoided a heavy challenge which given his injury record was a good thing.
05 Oct 2023 11:21:54
Makes sense.
05 Oct 2023 13:17:40
imo it was a reckless challenge and that is punishable under the rules of the game:
"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"
Take into account it was also a goal scoring opportunity that had to be abandoned and I don't think a red was unfair.
05 Oct 2023 13:17:44
Agree Ben. On review. Bamford had to get out the way to prevent Injury.
05 Oct 2023 13:38:26
Agree with that WB, think Bamford was avoiding getting clattered by Bergovic and sustaining a potentially heavy injury. I think he was explaining exactly that to the ref and Bergovic. Although he didn’t make contact with Bamford, the intent was there, that’s why the ref carded him.
05 Oct 2023 13:53:03
There is a still picture that confirms it, Bergovic is sliding in with his leg raised almost chest high showing his studs. I my mind there’s no way that decision will be rescinded.
05 Oct 2023 14:49:18
I watched the game on qprs ifollow channel and the qpr commentators were livid when their keeper was carded. Calling Bamford a cheat. Bit unfair but our fans would say the same.
Always run the risk of a sending off challenging for a bouncing ball like that.
05 Oct 2023 15:34:14
What OP said
And didn't a Leeds United player ( possibly Cooper) a few seasons ago get a VAR red card ( originally a yellow ) for studs up even though no contact.
05 Oct 2023 18:09:37
So watched it again, and this is were we get into the debate of what the LAW says and the interpretation of the LAW. here's a good article on it.
1) Was it a DOGSO? Firstly there is no such language that states 'last man' - the first thing we look at is the direction of play, was he going towards goal, or away. He was going towards. Secondly where was the ball, and where there other defenders that would get the ball - the ball was in possession of a defender. Thirdly, was there enough contact to stop the player - no there was not - so result should have been maybe a yellow but NO DOGSO
2) Now we look at the contact . Was there contact, did he move out of the way to avoid contact, or was he going around the keeper . So based upon the action and that the ref took a long time to talk to the AR, they both agreed there was contact, (which we can see from the replay, was wrong) . Was it violent, or reckless - if it was there would have been a bigger reaction from bamford . So a yellow at best
Now we have the luxury of watching the replay, were the officiating team didn't . This is were the rugby stile VAR would have come into play - show all the angles on the big screens so every one can see, turn the mic on so we can all hear the conversation . And we would have seen Bamford get the card he deserved for being a naughty boy.
05 Oct 2023 20:00:06
Ca. The fact that bam couldn't follow his flick because a 6'7" keeper was lunging at him makes it a foul. The keepers foot comes down to the turf and bam pulls his foot away at the last moment to avoid a collision.
In the box bam maybe of risked a clip off the keeper just to make sure of a pen. At no point did begovic pull out of the challenge and In my opinion there was no way bam was getting around begovic.
As I said it was the refs decision what colour the card was. There was no play acting like he'd been kicked so bam was not being naughty I think he was just being shrewd.