The Ref Stop

Man City vs Liverpool

Mooseybaby

Mooseybaby

Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Liverpool's Mane shown a straight red by referee John Moss after clattering City's keeper Ederson.

Some pundits agree with the decision, whilst others think it's a shocker.

Boot was very high and very close to Ederson's face. Endangering the safety of an opponent? Yes for me!
 
The Ref Stop
It wasn't close to his face, he made full on contact.

It's a nailed on red card. Whether accidental or not you simply cannot kick an opponent in the head and stay on the pitch. Did he endanger an opponent, well yes of course he did as he's put him in hospital. Did he use excessive force, yes as his foot shouldn't be up that high.
 
Yes I heard some of these arguments as he was trying to play the ball, he didn't mean to hurt him! Errmmmmm tough luck, he flattened the keeper out, full on contact with his face... straight and clear red, the fact that he only had eyes for the ball is irrelevant to endangering the safety.
 
I can't even being to see an argument AGAINST a red card here.
I don't think it was malicious - but it only needs to endanger the safety of an opponent. This did that. Yes, he was going for the ball - I don't think there was any malice in it whatsoever. But he was going for the ball extremely dangerously. Players have a responsibility to consider the opponents, and he failed to do so. Both players certainly had a right to go FOR the ball - except given the keeper got it first, even a collision without the foot would have been a foul against him.
Looking on social media it's disturbing how many idiots are calling it a horrendous decision - 'eyes for the ball!'. Yes, but so what?
A couple of really special little snowflakes don't even think it was a foul!!
This is the stupidity each of us has to deal with on the job.
Frustrates me no end how people are calling it a '50-50' ball.
Given the keeper got it first, by definition it wasn't 50-50, was it?
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I can't even being to see an argument AGAINST a red card here.
I don't think it was malicious - but it only needs to endanger the safety of an opponent. This did that. Yes, he was going for the ball - I don't think there was any malice in it whatsoever. But he was going for the ball extremely dangerously. Players have a responsibility to consider the opponents, and he failed to do so. Both players certainly had a right to go FOR the ball - except given the keeper got it first, even a collision without the foot would have been a foul against him.
Looking on social media it's disturbing how many idiots are calling it a horrendous decision - 'eyes for the ball!'. Yes, but so what?
A couple of really special little snowflakes don't even think it was a foul!!
This is the stupidity each of us has to deal with on the job.
Frustrates me no end how people are calling it a '50-50' ball.
Given the keeper got it first, by definition it wasn't 50-50, was it?
Click to expand...

What is most worrying of all is I've seen comments from referees, albeit not on here, say that it isn't a red card "because he had his eyes on the ball".
 
In case the YouTube link goes away:

https://imgtc.com/w/Sa2whPE

And yes. Easy SFP. What amazes me is the number of ex-World Cup referees out there stating that this is no more than IFK and YC for PIADM. Completely ignoring the fact that there was contact.
 
From the "high up" camera angle, I was shocked when the referee pulled the red card out - but as soon as you see if from the opposite angle (which to be fair to the ref, was the angle he'd managed to give himself), it's a clear red.
 
GraemeS said:
[...] as soon as you see if from the opposite angle (which to be fair to the ref, was the angle he'd managed to give himself), it's a clear red.
Click to expand...
I think that this is the big takeaway here...

Good positioning == better chance of making good calls.

Moss (the ref) gave himself the best possible opportunity to get the best possible view of the contact and thus make the correct call for the incident.
 
Gary lineker was tweeting about how it wasn't a red, and I believe Gary Neville said john moss ruined the game...

This is what makes our Sunday mornings so difficult. I wonder how many of these pundits would be happy for the same to have happened to their keeeper?
 
This is very genuinely nothing to do with me being a City fan, but I cannot see how there can be any argument against a red. His foot is high and very clearly endangers the safety of an opponent. Ticks all the boxes.

On a slight aside, thought John Moss was excellent today. Seems to have upped his game this season, and he got himself into a great position to see the red card challenge.
 
santa sangria said:
...it's just so daft that fans, commentators, coaches and players do not understand - or get explained - the basic 1-2-3 of careless-reckless-excessive force.
There are plenty of comments saying "it's reckless so it's a red" d'oh!
Click to expand...
That just means they don't know the laws. But the "1-2-3" of FK, YC, RC was an afterthought to the "careless, reckless, excessive force" wording - and if there had been some forethought, "reckless" might have been seen as more serious than "excessive force" (a phrase that begs the question about what is "just enough force"). Glad to see no-one on here dissents from the RC.
 
bloovee said:
That just means they don't know the laws. But the "1-2-3" of FK, YC, RC was an afterthought to the "careless, reckless, excessive force" wording - and if there had been some forethought, "reckless" might have been seen as more serious than "excessive force" (a phrase that begs the question about what is "just enough force"). Glad to see no-one on here dissents from the RC.
Click to expand...
I think reckless actually sums it up in a word manes actions. I don't think anyone seriously thinks he went for the man and the ball was an afterthought. Doesn't work in LotG terms so ye agree with your point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top