Irrelevant.
A player snatching a card out of my hand in protest at the colour of it is walking every single time.
Middlesbrough v Brighton 07.05.16
- Thread starter Dirty Harry
- Start date
- Status
A player snatching a card out of my hand in protest at the colour of it is walking every single time.
RegalRef
Politically Incorrect
Is that what really happened though?
Looked to me like he was trying more to catch Dean's attention?
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
8
Debatable about it being the right decision.....he had an excellent view of the challenge and was clearly going caution until Ramirez showed him the injury.......that suggests that his view of the challenge was that it was a reckless one hence the yellow......the resultant injury doesn't change the actual challenge.....
Debatable about it being the right decision.....he had an excellent view of the challenge and was clearly going caution until Ramirez showed him the injury.......that suggests that his view of the challenge was that it was a reckless one hence the yellow......the resultant injury doesn't change the actual challenge.....
Charlie Jones
Work Until You Don't Have To Introduce Yourself
This is the only part of the statement with which I 100% disagree. The resultant injury is a consequence of the challenge; therefore irrefutable proof that the challenge posed a serious threat to his safety.
No question of force or intent or any of that palaver. Straight up - posed a serious risk, that was realised.
deusex
RefChat Addict
WHich he could have done by contact with his foot, leg, shorts, arm.
He pops up furious, clearly saw the card and wasn't happy with the colour and makes TWO attempts to knock it out of Dean's hand.
Red card for me
Often the consequence of a tackle can tell you what restart and card colour if necessary. I stopped play at the weekend for an injury but oyuldnt decide drop ball or free kick. Wasnt much wrong with the tackle but could have easily given and sold ever decision. Saw he waw quite badly hurt, FK and word with defender to go careful. It shows that the tackle was careless
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
And?
Was never going to overturn such a high profile decision regardless of whether it was wrong or not.
Can you imagine the media witch hunt that would occur? Even if a caution was the correct sanction......which MD thought it was based on the challenge.......only changed his mind when he saw the injury.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Sorry but that is utter rubbish.
Even the most innocuous of challenges can cause injuries so the idea that we referee to the consequences and not the actual challenge is absurd.
Likewise a dangerous challenge can cause no injury....so should we not penalise the challenge because the consequence was negligible?
I watched a Conference Premier game a few seasons ago where a player got fouled and ending up slamming into the metal advertising hoarding around the side of the pitch......resulted in the player being stretchered off in a neck brace with suspected neck injuries (following the game an air ambulance actually landed on the pitch to take the player to hospital such was the concern)......everyone was shouting for a red.....the challenge was no more than caution.....anywhere else on the pitch and its a nailed on caution.
The referee......did very well and cautioned the offender, much to the unhappiness of the fans and players on the injured players side......but he got it spot on.
Sanction the challenge, not the results.
Eh? Don't agree with any of this to be honest.
1. As Padfoot says, judge the challenge on the challenge and not the result, which can be misleading.
2. In your incident that you've described; if you're stopping play "for an injury" then you're doing just that. You didn't give a free kick but you decided the injury merited play being stopped. You can't then look at the player and decide it's a free kick with any credibility.
3. If a player is "quite badly hurt", how would that tell you the challenge was careless? How can you look at an injury and from that, differentiate between careless/reckless? Or even a fair challenge that caused the player to land awkwardly?
RegalRef
Politically Incorrect
Did MD actually know that though?
He wasn't watching and may well have thought it was just knocked out of his hand?
Do you not get bored of repeating yourself?
We know you thought he changed his mind after seeing the injury! Give it a bloody rest!
RegalRef
Politically Incorrect
And nothing. Just a bit of info as I was passing and it was under discussion.
Well how dare you!
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I have seen no direct evidence or confirmation that Mike Dean changed his mind as a result of seeing the injury. It is certainly a possibility but it has also been reported that he changed his mind after being informed by one of the AR's that the challenge was deserving of a red card. This was actually the version of events given by the Brighton manager Chris Hughton. Now, he may have only been guessing at this but seeing as the AR most likely to have given this advice (if it is indeed what happened) would have been the one on the halfway line right in front of the technical area there is also a chance that he may have overheard what the AR was saying to Mike Dean over the comms system.
That's sometimes shaky reasoning @Tealeaf. Players can get hurt or break bones in the most innocuous of challenges which don't deserve any sanction from the referee.
Sometimes.
Not in this case however; here the injury cannot have resulted from an innocuous challenge.
And as much as you've dangle it, however sublty I'm not going to bite at Martin Taylor & Eduardo
deusex
RefChat Addict
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I certainly have. All you can tell from them is that although he had a yellow card in his hand initially, he subsequently showed the player a red card. Unfortunately they don't reveal what thought processes were going on inside his mind, nor whether input from any of the other officials had any influence on his apparent change of mind.I assume you haven't watched the videos then?
Yes, he did see the extent of the player's injury and it is true that it was after seeing this that he issued the red card. However to conclude that he only changed the colour of the card because of seeing the injury is an example of the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc.
This fallacy comes about when a conclusion is based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might explain the events in question.
Last edited:
- Status