Sendings off

[TW1Bee]

Who thinks that some of the recent red cards have been very harsh where a yellow would have been sufficient eg. Trotter yesterday, Lafferty toaday, Starosta (??). I feel that there has been a secret directive by the FA to refs to dish out reds for high tackles regardless of malicious intent or genuine tackles which certainly Trotter's and Lafferty's were in light of the recent highlighting of these types of tackles. Dangerous play such as this should in no way be condoned and should be sanctioned but the point being missed is the degree of these offences and the subsequent punishments. If you look at the examples above these players will get three match bans, exactly the same as some dirty b'stard who deliberately elbows someone in the face, trys to really hurt someone a la Poate of H&W and that ****** Tate who needlessly got involved and deserved what he got.

 

[Banana]

Who thinks that some of the recent red cards have been very harsh where a yellow would have been sufficient eg. Trotter yesterday, Lafferty toaday, Starosta (??). I feel that there has been a secret directive by the FA to refs to dish out reds for high tackles regardless of malicious intent or genuine tackles which certainly Trotter's and Lafferty's were in light of the recent highlighting of these types of tackles. Dangerous play such as this should in no way be condoned and should be sanctioned but the point being missed is the degree of these offences and the subsequent punishments. If you look at the examples above these players will get three match bans, exactly the same as some dirty b'stard who deliberately elbows someone in the face, trys to really hurt someone a la Poate of H&W and that ****** Tate who needlessly got involved and deserved what he got.

Intent has nothing to do with whether or not a foul has been committed. Not has it ever been I think.

 

[Edmundo]

It certainly used to be an issue in whether or not a caution or dismissal was warranted, though.

 

[Gazza Bee]

Trotters red card was extremely harsh and you could make a case for Lafferty as well. The problem is that you are treading a fine line if you leave the ground and dive in whether you play the ball or not, as they are potentially leg breaking tackles. I agree that there should be a situation where a club can appeal to reduce the subsequent ban or the FA could increase bans if there seems to be malicious intent (or in Tates case life bans for being a ****er).

 

[West Ealing Bee]

Trotter was unlucky but Lafferty was a nailed on red IMHO.

Over the ball, studs showing, straight into Gilberto's shin, if you aren't sending people off for that what are you sending them off for :scratch:

 

[Australian Bee]

Was at the ground for Poate and Tate and agree both got what they deserved.

For Laffertys I thought the right decision was made, dangerous tackles/lunges that go over the ball with studs up can ruin careers and shouldn't be in football, learn to tackle and they can stay on the pitch.

 

[TW1Bee]

There was a time some years back (1970's) when a committee somewhere in the inner sanctums of the FA who decided on the length of bans before the statutory one. two. three match bans were introduced. Who remembers John O'Mara getting sent off in a friendly at Hillingdon (retaliated after being kicked to sh*t the whole game) and got a six match ban because of quite a few previous cautions (no yellow cards in those days).
BTW Banana, showing intent is the same as actually committing the offence as I seem to remember a couple of occasions in the last two seasons. I can't remember the actual incident but a penalty was awarded in a high profile game despite there being no contact. The ref (I think it was Mike Dean) justified his decision by saying exactly that as it was within the laws of the game.
Don't get me wrong, reckless and dangerous tackles need to be dealt with, the point is the length of punishment. If you commit armed robbery then you get fifteen to twenty years, if you shoplift then you can expect three to six months in both cases it's stealing.

 

[Billy Hunt]

Football's getting gayer.

 

[Australian Bee]

I'm pretty sure the intent penalty was given for a tackle on Gerrard vs Sheffield Utd? Not 100% on the team but it was Gerrard.

 

[Chorlton Bee]

It was, first game of last season.

 

[TW1Bee]

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

 

[Gazza Bee]

Trotter was unlucky but Lafferty was a nailed on red IMHO.

Over the ball, studs showing, straight into Gilberto's shin, if you aren't sending people off for that what are you sending them off for :scratch:

Depends on your interpretation of over the ball really. If you watch the replay his foot bounces off the top of the ball and hits Gilberto in the shin whilst also moving the ball away. I don't blame the ref for giving a red in real time as he was well positioned and can't see the slo-mo replay but to me it wasn't a red.

 

[West Ealing Bee]

Depends on your interpretation of over the ball really. If you watch the replay his foot bounces off the top of the ball and hits Gilberto in the shin whilst also moving the ball away. I don't blame the ref for giving a red in real time as he was well positioned and can't see the slo-mo replay but to me it wasn't a red.

I didn't see that replay so can't comment on it directly, but I'm not disputing what you saw.

However even if he clipped the top of the ball his foot is at leats the diameter of the ball off the floor (16-18 inches) and couldn't have been in control of his body. Still a red in my book :shrug:

 

[Nada Bee]

I thought he was trying to trap the ball personally. Ive done that exact sort of tackle before with nothing but the intention of trying to trap it... Gilberto didnt help with his bullshit reactions.

 

[TW3Bee]

For Laffertys I thought the right decision was made, dangerous tackles/lunges that go over the ball with studs up can ruin careers and shouldn't be in football, learn to tackle and they can stay on the pitch.

The red card, which won't be appealed by Burnley, has earned him a four match ban, as it was his second sending off of the season.

 

[Jimbee]

I thought he was trying to trap the ball personally. Ive done that exact sort of tackle before with nothing but the intention of trying to trap it... Gilberto didnt help with his bullshit reactions.

Yes but, with all due respect, you are not a very good footballer.

 

[beeeehive]

Depends on your interpretation of over the ball really. If you watch the replay his foot bounces off the top of the ball and hits Gilberto in the shin whilst also moving the ball away. I don't blame the ref for giving a red in real time as he was well positioned and can't see the slo-mo replay but to me it wasn't a red.

It actually bounced quite a bit off the ball, technically he won the ball first. Lee Dixon thought it was very harsh, but he was a defender.

 

[simon_porter00]

Intent has nothing to do with whether or not a foul has been committed. Not has it ever been I think.

I haven't seen the FA rulebook this year, but in last year's book the referee has to make a decision: was the challenge careless? If so it would warrant a caution or a ticking off. If the referee sees the challenge as reckless then it is a red regardless of whether the player had 'intent' or not. So the decision - was it careless or reckless?

 

[WarrenBee]

Couldn't give a t055 about Chesea, but that sending off last night was a joke, even the Everton players looked sorry for him for being shown a red card.

 

[SmiffyBee]

Couldn't give a t055 about Chesea, but that sending off last night was a joke, even the Everton players looked sorry for him for being shown a red card.

but, Obi Mikel has got to be one of the most cocksure, hateful players in the league....always claiming innocence.....he had that unjust decision coming....

 

[Nada Bee]

Yes but, with all due respect, you are not a very good footballer.

About the same level as Lafferty by the looks of things

 

[Brain-dead Bee]

Couldn't give a t055 about Chesea, but that sending off last night was a joke, even the Everton players looked sorry for him for being shown a red card.

It was a little harsh, but the red card wasn't a surprise in the light of other recent dismissals. I noticed that Ipswich's Trotter lost his appeal against his red card, which was perhaps a similar incident.

The suspension won't affect Mikel anyway as he's off to the African Nations' Cup (I assume they don't defer the suspension until he's back)

 

[Nada Bee]

Its winding me up, everytime im watching a decent game, someone gets sent off, its going to turn into a non slide tackle game sooner or later.

 

[GP200]

Its winding me up, everytime im watching a decent game, someone gets sent off, its going to turn into a non slide tackle game sooner or later.

..................it will be a non contact sport soon....................

 

[Markybee]

but, Obi Mikel has got to be one of the most cocksure, hateful players in the league....always claiming innocence.....he had that unjust decision coming....

For once I agree with you Smiffy. He has an angelic face but is a spiteful ****. It was harsh last night but his reputation goes before him...

 

[beeeehive]

Its winding me up, everytime im watching a decent game, someone gets sent off, its going to turn into a non slide tackle game sooner or later.

Exactly my thoughts, I hate it in big games when a player gets sent off for such little things, it ruins it. For some sick reason I only like seeing Arsenal players sent off, mainly to hear what Wenger says.

It is a contact sport, the divers and cheaters are getting their way at the moment.

It could be the playoff final with Brentford 1-0 up and a slightly late sliding tackle that takes the foot will be a red card, crazy.

 

[Stanley]

Its winding me up, everytime im watching a decent game, someone gets sent off, its going to turn into a non slide tackle game sooner or later.

Agree, Mickel gains no sympathy with his attitude but it was a poor decision.

These types of decisions will always be justified technically ( his studs were x cms up in the air etc) but common sense should prevail, it was two players going for the ball in an honest tackle and he was later than the other guy. A yellow card at most.

People are paying good money to see games ruined by petty technical decisions.

I ahve also noticed a trend that these decisions are now never overturned in appeals...i.e. they are never wrong.

And quite how Neville wasn't sent off for a second bookable tackle was puzzling.

 

[Brain-dead Bee]

I ahve also noticed a trend that these decisions are now never overturned in appeals...i.e. they are never wrong.

Unless the ref himself admits afterwards that on reflection he was a bit harsh, I think red cards only get over-turned when there is a clear factual error (eg wrong player, ball hit chest not arm etc), most of which the ref would accept. The 2 I remember us getting over-turned were Masters last season (no contact) and Newman the previous season (jumped in air and happened to land on opponent by accident). I can't see the FA over-ruling a ref on a decision call of whether something was reckless or not

 

[TW1Bee]

The suspension won't affect Mikel anyway as he's off to the African Nations' Cup (I assume they don't defer the suspension until he's back)[/QUOTE]

Yes they do. Suspensions are deferred indefinitely.

 

[GP200]

The suspension won't affect Mikel anyway as he's off to the African Nations' Cup (I assume they don't defer the suspension until he's back)

Yes they do. Suspensions are deferred indefinitely.[/QUOTE]

.......also known as the Clean Kettle Syndrome....................

 

[murphalot]

I haven't seen the FA rulebook this year, but in last year's book the referee has to make a decision: was the challenge careless? If so it would warrant a caution or a ticking off. If the referee sees the challenge as reckless then it is a red regardless of whether the player had 'intent' or not. So the decision - was it careless or reckless?

No the guidelines are
Careless: Foul
Reckless: yellow
Dangerous or Using Excessive force: Red

 

[brentford bees]

refs are going over the top