A&H

Palace v Spurs

Anubis

Anubis

RefChat Addict
Valid point from Shearer?

Stonewall yellow for the Spurs player, stonewall yellow for AAA for the reaction by Palace player, but, grounds for second yellow for the Spurs player for his part in the flare up

by issuing a yc each, the Palace players part in the confrontatiom goes unpunished



edited as I wrongly typed second yc for Palace player....its clearly Spurs
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
The OP has misheard Shearer. He was actually advocating a second yellow for the Spurs player for his part in the afters. And I would agree. It is very unfair for both teams to come out of that with a yc each.

But I would go further. The assault by the Spurs player in the first place saw him launch himself at the Palace player with both arms outstreched, putting both of his hands, with force, into a player running at speed, with absolutely no attempt to play the ball. The fingers of both hands were in the opponent's face and could easily have caused a loss of an eye. This is more than SPA. This assault is both dangerous and serious foul play and should have been a red card.

Anyone agree or disagree?
 
Viking said:
The OP has misheard Shearer. He was actually advocating a second yellow for the Spurs player for his part in the afters. And I would agree. It is very unfair for both teams to come out of that with a yc each.

But I would go further. The assault by the Spurs player in the first place saw him launch himself at the Palace player with both arms outstreched, putting both of his hands, with force, into a player running at speed, with absolutely no attempt to play the ball. The fingers of both hands were in the opponent's face and could easily have caused a loss of an eye. This is more than SPA. This assault is both dangerous and serious foul play and should have been a red card.

Anyone agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

Sorry. i typed Palace.

i clearly meant Spurs.

i will edit, but thanks for pointing it out
 
Viking said:
The OP has misheard Shearer. He was actually advocating a second yellow for the Spurs player for his part in the afters. And I would agree. It is very unfair for both teams to come out of that with a yc each.

But I would go further. The assault by the Spurs player in the first place saw him launch himself at the Palace player with both arms outstreched, putting both of his hands, with force, into a player running at speed, with absolutely no attempt to play the ball. The fingers of both hands were in the opponent's face and could easily have caused a loss of an eye. This is more than SPA. This assault is both dangerous and serious foul play and should have been a red card.

Anyone agree or disagree?
Click to expand...


Certainly not SFP for me, can class it like the Italian one in the Euro final, you might want to give a red, but, its a yellow
There is no attempt to play the ball, only to halt his opponents progress by any means,
I dont see brutality or excessive force, and we cant go, " he could have lost an eye", as if you strip down any foul potentially any injury COULD occur
its untidy, deliberate, bit unethical, a mess. Its not brutal tho.

back to my op tho, yes, in black and white, both players have emerged with the same punishment even tho one has done twice the offence of the other.
 
It's a great shame, for me, that you can, quite legitimately, write a case for a challenge such as that, and come out of it with only a yc. The very fact that the player made absolute zero attempt to play the ball and instead put every ounce of his effort into lunging with his outstretched arms into the face of his opponent, says SFP/dangerous and is the equivalent of a two footed, studs showing, out of control 'challenge'. I will happily and justifiably red card any player who wishes to do that in one of my games.
 
Viking said:
It's a great shame, for me, that you can, quite legitimately, write a case for a challenge such as that, and come out of it with only a yc. The very fact that the player made absolute zero attempt to play the ball and instead put every ounce of his effort into lunging with his outstretched arms into the face of his opponent, says SFP/dangerous and is the equivalent of a two footed, studs showing, out of control 'challenge'. I will happily and justifiably red card any player who wishes to do that in one of my games.
Click to expand...

so, the same description as the Italian in the Euro final

zero attempt play ball, cynical, risked neck injury to the opponent, every ounce of his effort in halting his opponent by illegal and potentially dangerous means

clearest yc of all time, no matter how our internal personal justice system might wish to serve punishment
 
Anubis said:
so, the same description as the Italian in the Euro final

zero attempt play ball, cynical, risked neck injury to the opponent, every ounce of his effort in halting his opponent by illegal and potentially dangerous means

clearest yc of all time, no matter how our internal personal justice system might wish to serve punishment
Click to expand...
We've already got the clearest of yc. It's now a question of whether it turns red and, as you include the word dangerous, it turns red.
 
Viking said:
We've already got the clearest of yc. It's now a question of whether it turns red and, as you include the word dangerous, it turns red.
Click to expand...
i was referring to the yc in the Euro final

that aside if you are going red today in your game for yesterdays incident, thats your interpretation.

in my game, its a yellow

and, seemingly, the decision of elite referees, complete with freeze frame super duper rewind rewatch capabilities....

flicking someones ear? red card in case their eardrum falls out?
 
The way I saw it, there was contact with the hand, to the face of the opponent using way more than negligible force while not challenging for the ball.

That's a red card for me.

And no, I don't believe you can consider that as a challenge for the ball, even though Zaha had possession of the ball at the time. Tanganga pays no attention to the ball and makes no attempt to play it whatsoever.

Even if you believe the first offence is only a yellow, I also thought there was more than enough for a second yellow in the subsequent "handbags."

Anubis said:
There is no attempt to play the ball, only to halt his opponents progress by any means
Click to expand...
Since you've just stipulated that this wasn't a challenge for the ball, why is it not VC due to the non-negligible hand to face contact?
 
The LOTG support two yellows for Tanganga there, but I don't think the game in the UK expects it. It would have been beyond surprising for Moss to flash the yellow twice. But, it's also why he immediately took the chance Tanganga gave him a couple minutes later on a tackle that wasn't really reckless.
 
Peter Grove said:
The way I saw it, there was contact with the hand, to the face of the opponent using way more than negligible force while not challenging for the ball.

That's a red card for me.

And no, I don't believe you can consider that as a challenge for the ball, even though Zaha had possession of the ball at the time. Tanganga pays no attention to the ball and makes no attempt to play it whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Is there a difference between "challenging for the ball" and "attempting to play the ball"? I think there is.

He wasn't attempting to play the ball, but he was challenging for the ball, albeit illegally.

To be clear, I have no issue with SFP here.
 
Peter Grove said:
The way I saw it, there was contact with the hand, to the face of the opponent using way more than negligible force while not challenging for the ball.

That's a red card for me.

And no, I don't believe you can consider that as a challenge for the ball, even though Zaha had possession of the ball at the time. Tanganga pays no attention to the ball and makes no attempt to play it whatsoever.

Even if you believe the first offence is only a yellow, I also thought there was more than enough for a second yellow in the subsequent "handbags."


Since you've just stipulated that this wasn't a challenge for the ball, why is it not VC due to the non-negligible hand to face contact?
Click to expand...

its not brutality, its not an act of violence

agree he should have seen two yellows
 
cwyeary said:
The LOTG support two yellows for Tanganga there, but I don't think the game in the UK expects it. It would have been beyond surprising for Moss to flash the yellow twice. But, it's also why he immediately took the chance Tanganga gave him a couple minutes later on a tackle that wasn't really reckless.
Click to expand...
Think the Spurs player farting would have been enough, he was going for whatever his next offence was
agree there was not going to be two yellows, on the flip side, he has been left off with the same offence the Palace player was cautioned for, not convinced we expect unfairness either
 
bloovee said:
Maybe Taganga was expecting a final warning then the ref to call his captain to give a final final warning.
Click to expand...
You know you’re able to comment on situations without referencing something which happened a month ago in a city game?
Anubis said:
Valid point from Shearer?

Stonewall yellow for the Spurs player, stonewall yellow for AAA for the reaction by Palace player, but, grounds for second yellow for the Spurs player for his part in the flare up

by issuing a yc each, the Palace players part in the confrontatiom goes unpunished



edited as I wrongly typed second yc for Palace player....its clearly Spurs
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this is fairly common when it comes to AA in football. If the player is booked for the challenge, you almost never see a double booking to include the aftermath. It’s a fair point to think it should be though
 
cwyeary said:
But, it's also why he immediately took the chance Tanganga gave him a couple minutes later on a tackle that wasn't really reckless.
Click to expand...
Or did he? JM was clearly looking for the palace advantage from the challenge, it was only when the palace player stopped the play and threw his arms up that he blew the whistle and booked him. As that wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity, it feels like he might have got away with the second booking if the palace player looked to move the ball forward
 
QuaverRef said:
You know you’re able to comment on situations without referencing something which happened a month ago in a city game?

Unfortunately this is fairly common when it comes to AA in football. If the player is booked for the challenge, you almost never see a double booking to include the aftermath. It’s a fair point to think it should be though
Click to expand...

I am perfectly ok with, fouled player getting up, having a pop at fouler, and fouler standing his ground
For the fouler tho to adopt the exact same characteristics as the fouled, it follows suit they should get the same sanction
Which would of course mean 2 to the Spurs player.

on flip side, cant recall seeing or doing it!


good clip tho
 
cwyeary said:
The LOTG support two yellows for Tanganga there, but I don't think the game in the UK expects it. It would have been beyond surprising for Moss to flash the yellow twice. But, it's also why he immediately took the chance Tanganga gave him a couple minutes later on a tackle that wasn't really reckless.
Click to expand...

The only time I seen a referee flash two yellows and then a red was in the Napoli Barca game shown to Vidal, the way Brych showed those cards also add a slightly comical aspect to it!

As you say, that is not likely to happen in this country but this is a case where it could of occurred. The downside to it though it could encourage more confrontations as you know if you react badly to a poor challenge, your opponant is likely to react and you could get him sent off that way.
 
I think the reason you don't see a player getting two cautions here is it is almost always the fouled player jump up and retaliate. There's an argument that Tanganga can't avoid getting involved as Zaha has grabbed hold of him, and I think pretty much everyone in football, except perhaps some referees, expects a yellow each there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top