A&H

WBA v Crystal Palace

JamesL said:
1. Totally with you
2. No. Spirit of the game is for things the law doesn't cover and then we look at what does football expect. The player has to take responsibility here. WBA were all over Palace, looked the most likely, Palace were getting frustrated and all my money was on a WBA win. All responsibility for the loss lies with the player.

The only other thing I couldn't put my finger on, and only explanation for initial yellow was player reaction. There was none at all. Usually somethibg like this triggers players but it just didn't. Was very bizarre incident.
Click to expand...

There was very little force behind the 'kick out' hence the player reaction. I think everyone was quite happy with the yellow initially. Not enough to overturn it for me but its a subjective call.

The player has to take full responsibility of course.
 
The Referee Store
bloovee said:
I couldn't see that much in it. But I hate "brutality" as a word in the laws. The Krays were brutal.
Click to expand...

It does seem a bizzare word to incorporate into the laws. Id be amazed if its still in the in 5 years time because it implies that the incident (attempted or actually VC) was incredibly dangerous. But thats the word that's in there so thats where the bar is
 
Ben448844 said:
It does seem a bizzare word to incorporate into the laws. Id be amazed if its still in the in 5 years time because it implies that the incident (attempted or actually VC) was incredibly dangerous. But thats the word that's in there so thats where the bar is
Click to expand...
It is defined in the laws as an act that is deliberately violent. Why they don't just use that language in the first place is beyond me.

Re clear and obvious error, the bit we are all missing is what the R and VAR discuss in the recommendation for review.
If R says he saw something different than actually happened then it is a clear and obvious error.

Once he does see it on the monitor he has nowhere to go.
 
This is something that I used to drum into my players when I managed, if you do something that lets the referee make a decision that sees you cautioned or sent off you have brought it upon yourself. If you don't take that action you don't give the referee a decision to make.

I agree that the contact was minimal, but at the end of the day he has still kicked out. As JamesL says it, once the referee sees it on the monitor he really has absolutely nowhere to go.
 
My interpretation was that the movement of the foot was a protective reflex
Absurd dismissal when we see what players get away with every game. I shall now expect to see any flick to an opponents face or any push as VC, simply because they involve a strike of some pathetic description
 
JamesL said:
It is defined in the laws as an act that is deliberately violent. Why they don't just use that language in the first place is beyond me.

Re clear and obvious error, the bit we are all missing is what the R and VAR discuss in the recommendation for review.
If R says he saw something different than actually happened then it is a clear and obvious error.

Once he does see it on the monitor he has nowhere to go.
Click to expand...

He must have seen the incident hence the yellow card though? I dint think it was an obvious error but obviously I can see the argument that it was.
 
RustyRef said:
This is something that I used to drum into my players when I managed, if you do something that lets the referee make a decision that sees you cautioned or sent off you have brought it upon yourself. If you don't take that action you don't give the referee a decision to make.

I agree that the contact was minimal, but at the end of the day he has still kicked out. As JamesL says it, once the referee sees it on the monitor he really has absolutely nowhere to go.
Click to expand...

Every manager i had was quite clear about just that. If you give the ref a decision to make then its your own stupid fault. Not that they wouldn't scream blue murder at the ref and blame him at the time to try and get him to even it up. But after the game I've seen some players given the hairdryer treatment that Fergie would be proud off. It was complete stupidity.
 
Ben448844 said:
He must have seen the incident hence the yellow card though? I dint think it was an obvious error but obviously I can see the argument that it was.
Click to expand...
Yes but he could have described seeing something else, making it a serious missed incident.
A serious missed incident does not have to be C&O.
 
Ben448844 said:
Of course but what else could he have seen? Seems incredibly unlikely.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he might have described a lesser severity.
Anyway as above, I edited, a serious missed incident doesn't have to be C&O.

"who may assist the referee only in the event of a
‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ in relation to:"
 
If the VAR asked the R what the call on the field was, and the R says "I only cautioned because there was no contact," that's a clear error. If the R instead said "I had a good look and only cautioned because the minimal contact didn't rise to the level of VC," then I would think it could not be clear error and should not have been sent down for an OFR.

(But there may well be instructions the PL refs have been given on what is expected on kick out incidents that could change that.)
 
JamesL said:
Yes but he could have described seeing something else, making it a serious missed incident.
A serious missed incident does not have to be C&O.
Click to expand...
Serious missed incidents are not meant to be used for incidents like this. They are meant for incidents behind play or if the referee is looking at a different direction. Otherwise C&O becomes redundant. Every KMI decision can be changed without being a C&O error and referees can get a second look at everything on the monitor.

I think this should have been red to start with. But once given yellow, no review.

I think we have had this discussion before.
 
Most people in the media, fans, etc. were incredulous that Fred wasn't sent off last week for PSG (in the first half!) even though there obviously wasn't much harm done to an opponent - is there much difference between the two, apart from Fred's was with the head and this was with the feet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top