Jump to content
IGNORED

Red Card?


Esmond Million's Bung

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Will they ****.

Apparently Carroll committed a foul with his elbow after 6 seconds today that could have been a red.

 

Company was nailed on, Carol's I'm not so sure. It could easily be seen as red, arms are raised as he runs and jumps for the ball, but he doesn't lead with an elbow . He does catch the guy with his forearm , but you can't jump with out leverage. That said, he does seem to do it a lot.
Back to Company I still can't see how the Ref didn't see it as red, however early in the game, that argument does not stack up, can you punch someone as long as it's in the first five minutes??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Company was nailed on, Carol's I'm not so sure. It could easily be seen as red, arms are raised as he runs and jumps for the ball, but he doesn't lead with an elbow . He does catch the guy with his forearm , but you can't jump with out leverage. That said, he does seem to do it a lot.
Back to Company I still can't see how the Ref didn't see it as red, however early in the game, that argument does not stack up, can you punch someone as long as it's in the first five minutes??

Well they have said it`s OK to run ten yards and shove someone over when the ball`s not in play so probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

People tend to forget that the red card rule was changed last season.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36047575

Personally I don’t think Kompany took Vardy out deliberately, so the referee was correct,  but we all see things differently!.

He appears to have no chance of getting the ball so the challenge was calculated to wipe out the striker if the tackle failed, so deliberate in my eyes.

The change to the red card rule was to avoid a player being over punished i.e. penalty and red card. This challenge was outside the penalty area , so no penalty kick resulting, but denied a clear goal scoring opportunity so would appear to be a fairly clear red card, even under the new rules.

What would have happened had the same offence happened at the there end of the pitch, i.e. had Wes Morgan taken Aguero out, in the same situation? Can only speculate, with no proof, but my thinking is that the ref  would more likely have red carded the defender, as there does seem to be a bias in favour of the "big" clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, bissellredhead said:

Am I right in saying it can't be changed to a red as the ref has already issued the yellow? Or have they changed that rule too? :dunno:

I don't think the rule has been changed.

The referee saw the offence and deemed a yellow card sufficient. A retrospective red card is only given if the referee did not see the offence so issued no card or, alternatively, issued a yellow having seen only part of the offence, e.g. saw the late tackle, but missed the intentional elbow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

People tend to forget that the red card rule was changed last season.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36047575

Personally I don’t think Kompany took Vardy out deliberately, so the referee was correct,  but we all see things differently!.

 

4 hours ago, hodge said:

To me it looked like Kompany did try to win the ball but failed, given how close another defender was and distance from goal I think a yellow is sufficient. 

I think you might be on yer own here boys, so far every ex referee and player who has scrutinised this has said blatant red

it was an incredibly late rash challenge, his chances of taking the ball were negligible at best, i'm sure he was hoping to win the ball but knew exactly what he was trying to achieve.

I suspect what might have saved him is Vardy unusually not making a meal of it and probably because he thought it was a red card all day long.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

 

I think you might be on yer own here boys, so far every ex referee and player who has scrutinised this has said blatant red

it was an incredibly late rash challenge, his chances of taking the ball were negligible at best, i'm sure he was hoping to win the ball but knew exactly what he was trying to achieve.

I suspect what might have saved him is Vardy unusually not making a meal of it and probably because he thought it was a red card all day long.

 

I'd say its difficult 30 yards out from goal, you can't say 100% the right back isn't getting to him. 5 yards closer and I'd be saying definite red, but it just feels a bit too far from goal with a defender that close. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hodge said:

I'd say its difficult 30 yards out from goal, you can't say 100% the right back isn't getting to him. 5 yards closer and I'd be saying definite red, but it just feels a bit too far from goal with a defender that close. 

If we are going to speculate I would say with the pace of Vardy and the full back being already behind him, the other outcome had the full back made a challenge a penalty and another red card.

I think I will stay firmly on the side of every single ex pro and referee for this one, red every second of every minute of a 90 minute game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can make a case either way. 

Most of the pundits who are outraged about this seem to have completely overlooked the rule change that states that it will only be a red if the referee deems it to be a deliberate attempt to foul and just talk as if the only factor to consider is whether he’s the last man or not. Really annoys me when well paid pundits seemingly can’t keep up with the rules of the game  

Only Kompany knows whether he genuinely thought he could get the ball (hence a mistimed challenge, not deliberate attempt to foul). You can only assume that the ref has deemed it a genuine - albeit unsuccessful - attempt to win the ball and if that’s the ref’s view then the punishment he levied was correct.

On the other hand I can see the argument for saying that Kompany never really had a chance at winning the ball and therefore by even attempting it, is essentially committing a deliberate foul. But even that is only true if Kompany knows he has no chance of winning the ball. 

A very tough call at full speed and without the aid of multi angle replays and slo no that the ‘experts’ on MOTD/SSN have. 

Incidents like this are exactly what video refereeing should be used for. Would have taken 60 secs max for the ref to review and make a call based on much better information, and could have completely changed the course of a game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

I think you can make a case either way. 

Most of the pundits who are outraged about this seem to have completely overlooked the rule change that states that it will only be a red if the referee deems it to be a deliberate attempt to foul and just talk as if the only factor to consider is whether he’s the last man or not. Really annoys me when well paid pundits seemingly can’t keep up with the rules of the game  

Only Kompany knows whether he genuinely thought he could get the ball (hence a mistimed challenge, not deliberate attempt to foul). You can only assume that the ref has deemed it a genuine - albeit unsuccessful - attempt to win the ball and if that’s the ref’s view then the punishment he levied was correct.

On the other hand I can see the argument for saying that Kompany never really had a chance at winning the ball and therefore by even attempting it, is essentially committing a deliberate foul. But even that is only true if Kompany knows he has no chance of winning the ball. 

A very tough call at full speed and without the aid of multi angle replays and slo no that the ‘experts’ on MOTD/SSN have. 

Incidents like this are exactly what video refereeing should be used for. Would have taken 60 secs max for the ref to review and make a call based on much better information, and could have completely changed the course of a game. 

So basically the rule change is bullshit?.

When will the technology be online for reading the mind of a player?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, hodge said:

I'd say its difficult 30 yards out from goal, you can't say 100% the right back isn't getting to him. 5 yards closer and I'd be saying definite red, but it just feels a bit too far from goal with a defender that close. 

Isn't the definition something along the lines of preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity?

If so, then for someone with Vardy's pace, having cleared the last defender even 30 yards from goal would be a clear goal scoring opportunity - the likelihood of the player scoring doesn;t come into the equation juts that he would have a had a clear opportunity to score.

Remember the uproar years ago when Martin Allen was clear through on goal even though well outside the box in the FA Cup Final against Man U when he was chopped down from behind in the classic "professional" foul.  It was exactly this type of offence that this punishment was devised to deter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

So basically the rule change is bullshit?.

When will the technology be online for reading the mind of a player?.

Eh?

The rule change makes pretty good sense - if it’s an honest challenge that the player just gets wrong as opposed to a premeditated attempt to foul and stop the opponent getting an opportunity it avoids a suspension for an offence that’s no worse than several others that wouldn’t be suspendable offences. 

The players intentions ultimately have to be ruled on by the referee, no different to any other kind of offence. Not sure what point you’re trying to make - there will always be a human factor even with technology.

Video technology in this case would have given the referee the opportunity to review the offence multiple times, from different angles, at slow speeds, in order to make a more informed decision on the offence.

He’d still have had a decision to make but the chance of getting it wrong diminishes massively with the aid of a video replay based system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Isn't the definition something along the lines of preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity?

If so, then for someone with Vardy's pace, having cleared the last defender even 30 yards from goal would be a clear goal scoring opportunity - the likelihood of the player scoring doesn;t come into the equation juts that he would have a had a clear opportunity to score.

Remember the uproar years ago when Martin Allen was clear through on goal even though well outside the box in the FA Cup Final against Man U when he was chopped down from behind in the classic "professional" foul.  It was exactly this type of offence that this punishment was devised to deter.

 

 

The key factor is whether or not the referee deems it to be a deliberate attempt to prevent a goalscoring opportunity (ie no attempt to win the ball; motivated only to foul and stop the attack). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

The key factor is whether or not the referee deems it to be a deliberate attempt to prevent a goalscoring opportunity (ie no attempt to win the ball; motivated only to foul and stop the attack). 

Kompany came in from so far away and with the ball on Vardy's wrong side and going away from the defender that he had virtually no chance of collecting anything but the striker. 

I have little doubt that even though he would only have had a split second to decide, a defender of Kompany's experience knew exactly what he was doing and the risk ( red card) attached, but calculated that a player of Vardy's pace would otherwise be though on goal and more than likely to score, 

The classic "taking one for the team".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, downendcity said:

Kompany came in from so far away and with the ball on Vardy's wrong side and going away from the defender that he had virtually no chance of collecting anything but the striker. 

I have little doubt that even though he would only have had a split second to decide, a defender of Kompany's experience knew exactly what he was doing and the risk ( red card) attached, but calculated that a player of Vardy's pace would otherwise be though on goal and more than likely to score, 

The classic "taking one for the team".

 

And that’s exactly what the ref has to make a judgement on. All the pundits are like ‘he was the last man it’s got to be a red’....completely ignoring the rule change that means there’s now more to it than that.

It’s exactly situations like this where technology could and should be used. How can it be right that Matt Le Tissier can make a more informed decision than the referee at the time of the incident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching that video, I'd argue that Kompany was not attempting to play the ball, he was making sure he chopped down Vardy. The direction of his tackle wasn't even towards the ball and he lifted his foot as he made the tackle in order to ensure that he tripped him. Admittedly it would be harder for the ref to see all that in real time, but tackles like that should surely be a red card? I can't speak for whether the law says he should be sent off or not, but surely that's exactly the kind of cynical challenge that red cards are there to punish? Had that tackle been Maguire on Aguero, do we think the outcome would be the same? I'm not convinced

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Eh?

The rule change makes pretty good sense - if it’s an honest challenge that the player just gets wrong as opposed to a premeditated attempt to foul and stop the opponent getting an opportunity it avoids a suspension for an offence that’s no worse than several others that wouldn’t be suspendable offences. 

The players intentions ultimately have to be ruled on by the referee, no different to any other kind of offence. Not sure what point you’re trying to make - there will always be a human factor even with technology.

Video technology in this case would have given the referee the opportunity to review the offence multiple times, from different angles, at slow speeds, in order to make a more informed decision on the offence.

He’d still have had a decision to make but the chance of getting it wrong diminishes massively with the aid of a video replay based system. 

If it's honest challenge that the player just gets wrong but in the process prevents a goal scoring opportunity tough tit, I have witnessed people making an honest attempt to park their cars but just get it wrong it's still what it is a car accident, there is no relief from just getting it wrong.

Kompany made a lunge from distance at a very pacy player, i'm sure he would have liked to have won the ball, but he took a risk and got very lucky and achieved exactly what he set out to do and Leicester were punished twice because of the decision.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

If it's honest challenge that the player just gets wrong but in the process prevents a goal scoring opportunity tough tit, I have witnessed people making an honest attempt to park their cars but just get it wrong it's still what it is a car accident, there is no relief from just getting it wrong.

Kompany made a lunge from distance at a very pacy player, i'm sure he would have liked to have won the ball, but he took a risk and got very lucky and achieved exactly what he set out to do and Leicester were punished twice because of the decision.

 

That’s not the law though Es, it changed.  That’s the whole point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...