A&H

WBA v Crystal Palace

L

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
I said to my Palace mate when Peirera, or however its spelt, went down he personally was in trouble. Saw the kick but wasn't sure the extent of it.
Even after replay it looked like it could still be red.
Good decision I feel. What about you guys who've seen it?
 
The Referee Store
Always going to be given as a red in this day and age. Very similar to the Son one against Chelsea last season
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
It feels so so so soft

It's barely violent conduct...But...he moves his foot towards the players chest.

Seen similar given (son v rudiger) and not given (Maguire on batshuiyi)
 
Stupid from him, but having given a yellow and there being very little 'brutality' etc I dont think theres enough to overturn that and then go for a red. Can see why he did change his mind of course but for me it was the wrong decision to donso
 
It's a red card. Whilst there is minimal contact, it's an attempt at brutality.
What I don't understand is what the caution was for? If he has seen it he should be reaching for red
 
JamesL said:
It's a red card. Whilst there is minimal contact, it's an attempt at brutality.
What I don't understand is what the caution was for? If he has seen it he should be reaching for red
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it was. It was more a token effort imo. Complete stupidity but no brutality for me.
 
JamesL said:
So you are saying, if he makes full contact, with the force used, you wouldn't send off?
Click to expand...

No. I think there was very little forced used. When we consider whether excessive force or brutality was used whilst not challenging for the ball i think that having given a yellow card for the initial offence i dont believe that it warranted overruling the original yellow card. Brutality is obviously subjective, but there was nothing brutal about that imo, or at least not brutal enough to overturn the original call.

I've watched it a number of times now and its hard to decide if it warrants a yellow or red. You could argue both ways. But having given the yellow I think it shouldve remained a yellow.
 
Ben448844 said:
No. I think there was very little forced used. When we consider whether excessive force or brutality was used whilst not challenging for the ball i think that having given a yellow card for the initial offence i dont believe that it warranted overruling the original yellow card. Brutality is obviously subjective, but there was nothing brutal about that imo, or at least not brutal enough to overturn the original call.

I've watched it a number of times now and its hard to decide if it warrants a yellow or red. You could argue both ways. But having given the yellow I think it shouldve remained a yellow.
Click to expand...
It's not about if EF or brutality was used. It's used or attempts to use. He has attempted to strike his opponent. We can't really classify it as anything other than attempted brutality imo. What else might be be seeking to do?
 
Brutality by definition of the laws of the game states ‘deliberately violent’. Is kicking someone in the stomach ‘deliberately violent’? Of course it is
 
onthebrink said:
Bilic seemed to accept decision.
Click to expand...

Not that the coach’s reaction is the only thing I consider on items like this, but seeing Bilic seem to accept this decision when WBA is in the relegation zone and his job is likely in jeopardy says a lot.
 
I couldn't see that much in it. But I hate "brutality" as a word in the laws. The Krays were brutal.
 
I think its a red for VC - or if you rather a yellow for AA and a second for the worst kick ever! ;) - but there are two things that are interesting to me:

1. What in God's name was the initial YC for? Given he didn't make the tackle it can only have been for the reaction - suggesting the referee saw the action but said it wasn't VC?
2. I can't remember if I read or heard a pundit say that the referee had 'spoiled the game' - I'm sure we've all had that said about us at some point. As a general question - I think I see that fitting into spirit of the game - have you ever felt 'the game would benefit from 11v11 here' or 'its a friendly so we'll sub him off rather than sending him off'?
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
I think its a red for VC - or if you rather a yellow for AA and a second for the worst kick ever! ;) - but there are two things that are interesting to me:

1. What in God's name was the initial YC for? Given he didn't make the tackle it can only have been for the reaction - suggesting the referee saw the action but said it wasn't VC?
2. I can't remember if I read or heard a pundit say that the referee had 'spoiled the game' - I'm sure we've all had that said about us at some point. As a general question - I think I see that fitting into spirit of the game - have you ever felt 'the game would benefit from 11v11 here' or 'its a friendly so we'll sub him off rather than sending him off'?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top