West Ham vs Arsenal
- Thread starter James P
- Start date
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Interestingly you could clearly see Mike Dean give the thumbs up to Bowen and say "Thanks, appreciate that" - I'm guessing Bowen 'owned up' to him in that case?
I'm much closers to Souness' position on this one - that's a clearly dangerous challenge and nowhere near the ball. You can also definitely make a case for DOGSO/SPA based purely on the "attempts to kick" section of the law and the fact that it's mainly the evasion of the kick that takes Bowen down.
Bowen on the other hand has taken evasive action, not appealed for a foul and the fact he chooses not to aim a barrage of abuse at Dean is taken as proof that he's guilty of diving! The counter to this argument is that a player who argues against a yellow card for simulation is probably innocent, which is clearly wrong - we shouldn't be conflating respect and general good behaviour with guilt.
The obvious conclusion of all this is that the "sensible" thing for Bowen to do would have been to not evade the challenge, get clattered, potentially seriously injured and therefore got the likely RC that would have come as a result. I don't feel like that's ideal from a refereeing perspective though, this is why we are supposed to penalise dangerous challenges regardless of contact and outcome.
Bowen on the other hand has taken evasive action, not appealed for a foul and the fact he chooses not to aim a barrage of abuse at Dean is taken as proof that he's guilty of diving! The counter to this argument is that a player who argues against a yellow card for simulation is probably innocent, which is clearly wrong - we shouldn't be conflating respect and general good behaviour with guilt.
The obvious conclusion of all this is that the "sensible" thing for Bowen to do would have been to not evade the challenge, get clattered, potentially seriously injured and therefore got the likely RC that would have come as a result. I don't feel like that's ideal from a refereeing perspective though, this is why we are supposed to penalise dangerous challenges regardless of contact and outcome.
I'm massively in the middle here. On one hand this tackle looks horrendous and could have had an oh so different outcome.
But on the other hand bowen is clearly guilt of simulation, he has tried to deceive the referee something has happened, which has not (sort of!)
I don't think bowen realises how serious a threat this challenge posed him, as I guess he would not have been so accepting of his caution.
But on the other hand bowen is clearly guilt of simulation, he has tried to deceive the referee something has happened, which has not (sort of!)
I don't think bowen realises how serious a threat this challenge posed him, as I guess he would not have been so accepting of his caution.
I'm not particularly commenting on the above case (others here are way more qualified to do that), or on your comment (you are definitely one of the ones more qualified to comment than me!), but more generally on the principle:
Clearly a 'foul challenge' and 'simulation' will generally be in some way related, but I don't think I see anything in law to make them mutually exclusive.
i.e. I think that it is perfectly possible (in principle at least) for a 'foul challenge' to be made (and also for it to be reckless / endangering the safety of an opponent), and for the challenged player to attempt to deceive the referee (for example as to how much if any contact there was, and/or how much force was used).
So in law it seems perfectly plausible to do both of the following in this case (should the referee feel that both offences have occurred).
However, would anyone be brave enough to actually do it?
- Caution / send off the goalkeeper for the 'foul challenge'.
- Caution the attacker for the simulation.
)?
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I cannot view the video but is this a candidate for IDFK and playing in a dangerous manner?
I know that's a very difficult sell... but if a player at lower levels has to take evasive action to avoid a slider it's easier to whistle IDFK...
I know that's a very difficult sell... but if a player at lower levels has to take evasive action to avoid a slider it's easier to whistle IDFK...
I would love for this to be normalised, however it's so far outside the current expectation that it's borderline against the (spirit of the) laws to do so at the moment. For this to be an option, it needs to be specifically laid out in the simulation section and that's a few lawbook changes away.I'm not particularly commenting on the above case (others here are way more qualified to do that), or on your comment (you are definitely one of the ones more qualified to comment than me!), but more generally on the principle:
Clearly a 'foul challenge' and 'simulation' will generally be in some way related, but I don't think I see anything in law to make them mutually exclusive.
i.e. I think that it is perfectly possible (in principle at least) for a 'foul challenge' to be made (and also for it to be reckless / endangering the safety of an opponent), and for the challenged player to attempt to deceive the referee (for example as to how much if any contact there was, and/or how much force was used).
So in law it seems perfectly plausible to do both of the following in this case (should the referee feel that both offences have occurred).
However, would anyone be brave enough to actually do it?
If they did, following the sanctioning of both players (and after everything calms down on the benches & in the crowd!), would the restart be a direct free kick / penalty to the attacking team (even if the simulation occurred just before the foul challenge
- Caution / send off the goalkeeper for the 'foul challenge'.
- Caution the attacker for the simulation.
At the top level there is not a single referee giving that as a foul and red card, for the simple reason it just isn't credible. No one expects a red card (Souness often deliberately takes the opposite view to others), there's no appeals, and basically you'd be surprising everyone by blowing here. At lower levels it may well be a different outcome, but that is not going to be a red card in the EPL.
In my opinion there are two offences here. Ramsdale was guilty of at the very least of playing in a dangerous manner with his boot raised and all six studs showing towards an opponent which is reckless. Contact and its a stone wall red card. It can also be challenging in a reckless manner
Bowen avoids him and then goes down which is simulation.
I recall Rooney making this type of challenge in a game v Portsmouth and Martin Aitkinson cautioned him
I think Mike Dean went with the simulation as the more obvious offence and Ramsdale got a free pass for his attempted reckless play. I also think that as Mike Dean has made his decision early based on the no contact that VAR was not going to get involved. At speed and during play the manner of the challenge can be difficult to observe clearly whereas the no contact would be more obvious which is what MD went with. I doubt Bowen was aware of how close he was to a leg breaking challenge and that he owned up to the dive. I know plenty of players who would have taken grave exception to the manner of the raised boot challenge by the goalkeeper.
Bowen avoids him and then goes down which is simulation.
I recall Rooney making this type of challenge in a game v Portsmouth and Martin Aitkinson cautioned him
I think Mike Dean went with the simulation as the more obvious offence and Ramsdale got a free pass for his attempted reckless play. I also think that as Mike Dean has made his decision early based on the no contact that VAR was not going to get involved. At speed and during play the manner of the challenge can be difficult to observe clearly whereas the no contact would be more obvious which is what MD went with. I doubt Bowen was aware of how close he was to a leg breaking challenge and that he owned up to the dive. I know plenty of players who would have taken grave exception to the manner of the raised boot challenge by the goalkeeper.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
If ever we needed confirmation of how difficult refereeing is, how subjective it can be and the impossibility of VAR delivering 'perfect' outcomes, this challenge was it.
Over the past few days I've had conversations with other officials where coherent cases were made for every decision ... from play on to red card but also including combinations of DFK, IFK and YC.
This thread pretty much reinforces the above. So, in reality, whilst we all might advocate a particular outcome (mine would be DFK & YC for Ramsdale for a reckless 'attempt to trip'), the incident is probably most useful as a clip to help IFAB clarify future expectations.
Over the past few days I've had conversations with other officials where coherent cases were made for every decision ... from play on to red card but also including combinations of DFK, IFK and YC.
This thread pretty much reinforces the above. So, in reality, whilst we all might advocate a particular outcome (mine would be DFK & YC for Ramsdale for a reckless 'attempt to trip'), the incident is probably most useful as a clip to help IFAB clarify future expectations.