Red Card?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

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

Which is why I claim the change is a bullshit change because there is only one loser twice over and in this case it was Leicester.

And is why I would still rather go with the ex professionals and especially ex referees (who are right up on the laws) in this particular case, red all day long, it was deliberate because it was rash, it was rash because once he launched himself at Vardy he had absolutely no idea how the attempted tackle would pan out, which then brings it into the dangerous category, let me try another analogy he was an amber gambler and sometimes you get away with it and sometimes it ends in tragedy.

Bottom line is another premiership cheat has blatantly gotten away with one, so our only hope for last weekend is Niasse for simulation, not holding one's breath.

[elhombrecito]

At full speed I didn't think it was a sending off. Stones (I think) was covering and he was miles from goal.

After looking at replays it was clear that it should have been red, but as the ref only gets to see it once, I'd be reluctant to criticise him.

[BRISTOL86]

15 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Which is why I claim the change is a bullshit change because there is only one loser twice over and in this case it was Leicester.

And is why I would still rather go with the ex professionals and especially ex referees (who are right up on the laws) in this particular case, red all day long, it was deliberate because it was rash, it was rash because once he launched himself at Vardy he had absolutely no idea how the attempted tackle would pan out, which then brings it into the dangerous category, let me try another analogy he was an amber gambler and sometimes you get away with it and sometimes it ends in tragedy.

Bottom line is another premiership cheat has blatantly gotten away with one, so our only hope for last weekend is Niasse for simulation, not holding one's breath.

Whether the ref made the right decision is up for debate, bit of a bold claim to brandish Kompany a cheat simply for committing a foul. At no point has he made any attempt to deceive the ref. 

I'm not saying the ref has got it right or wrong - but the rule change certainly turns something cut and dried into something that's more open to a referees interpretation of intention. As I say, an area where technology would make a massive difference, without unnecessarily delaying play. It's a big decision to send off a player, and with the pace of the game, it's pretty bizarre that the use of video isn't more widespread, where sports with considerably less money in the game have made it happen years ago.

[BRISTOL86]

4 minutes ago, El Hombrecito said:

At full speed I didn't think it was a sending off. Stones (I think) was covering and he was miles from goal.

After looking at replays it was clear that it should have been red, but as the ref only gets to see it once, I'd be reluctant to criticise him.

Exactly this. The ref's made a call based on seeing it ONCE, at full speed, from an unfavourable position (and bear in mind if he's got any doubt - he can't send him off). Since the law change he's now being asked to judge intent as well as outcome.

It's easy to lambast ref's - as pundits do - having seen it seventeen times, in slow motion, from multiple angles, close up. Reality is it's a VERY difficult thing to officiate, and it's unsurprising that occasionally a decision might be made incorrectly. Hence the argument for the assistance of technology.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

32 minutes ago, El Hombrecito said:

At full speed I didn't think it was a sending off. Stones (I think) was covering and he was miles from goal.

After looking at replays it was clear that it should have been red, but as the ref only gets to see it once, I'd be reluctant to criticise him.

Sorry but Stones was at least a yard behind and the wrong side of Vardy, Vardy would almost certainly have beaten Stones for pace making it even if he got close to Vardy even more dangerous to have attempted a tackle because that tackle would have been from behind and Vardy would probably have been in the area.

I would just like to add if Kompany had gotten any of the ball whatsoever I might have some sympathy for the view of @BRISTOL86 but he wasn't even close.

 

[elhombrecito]

31 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Sorry but Stones was at least a yard behind and the wrong side of Vardy, Vardy would almost certainly have beaten Stones for pace making it even if he got close to Vardy even more dangerous to have attempted a tackle because that tackle would have been from behind and Vardy would probably have been in the area.

But the point is, that the exact position of Stones only became clear after numerous replays. The ref never had that luxury. Look, I'm saying that it was a red card - but I can completely understand why the ref didn't send him off. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

34 minutes ago, El Hombrecito said:

But the point is, that the exact position of Stones only became clear after numerous replays. The ref never had that luxury. Look, I'm saying that it was a red card - but I can completely understand why the ref didn't send him off. 

And you are correct but once more it is the bullshit laws that don't allow yellows to be upgraded to reds and also bullshit if the referee sees it as a foul which he did then it should be red and not yellow whatever the new bullshit law says.

I don't understand the point of the new law at all.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Sorry but Stones was at least a yard behind and the wrong side of Vardy, Vardy would almost certainly have beaten Stones for pace making it even if he got close to Vardy even more dangerous to have attempted a tackle because that tackle would have been from behind and Vardy would probably have been in the area.

I would just like to add if Kompany had gotten any where near of the ball whatsoever I might have some sympathy for the view of @BRISTOL86 but he wasn't even close.

 

More like it.

[BRISTOL86]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Sorry but Stones was at least a yard behind and the wrong side of Vardy, Vardy would almost certainly have beaten Stones for pace making it even if he got close to Vardy even more dangerous to have attempted a tackle because that tackle would have been from behind and Vardy would probably have been in the area.

I would just like to add if Kompany had gotten any of the ball whatsoever I might have some sympathy for the view of @BRISTOL86 but he wasn't even close.

 

My view is simply that the ref made a decision based on his perceived intent of Kompany - as the laws require him to do so - whether he got the ball is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not he actually had a reasonable chance of winning it (in effect what the law change now requires a ref to judge, in this situation)

At no point did I say the ref got it right. 

Also I’m pretty sure the pace difference between two players is irrelevant and not something that a referee is asked to take into account as to whether or not it’s a goalscoring opportunity. I believe for that purpose ‘all players are created equal’. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

39 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

My view is simply that the ref made a decision based on his perceived intent of Kompany - as the laws require him to do so - whether he got the ball is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not he actually had a reasonable chance of winning it (in effect what the law change now requires a ref to judge, in this situation)

At no point did I say the ref got it right. 

Also I’m pretty sure the pace difference between two players is irrelevant and not something that a referee is asked to take into account as to whether or not it’s a goalscoring opportunity. I believe for that purpose ‘all players are created equal’. 

One last point it is a joke for a referee to have to make a decision based on 'perceived' intent, especially given all of the split second/real time excuses already served up to add perceived intent into the mix is madness, the new law sucks and has made the whole thing more murky, whether it was a badly timed accident or a cynical foul it is easy after the event to deal with, badly time accident 3 game ban cynical foul 6 game ban.

I know it's different circumstances but it shows how stupid the laws, their interpretation and the punishments handed out are, 1 player prevents a possible goalscoring opportunity no ban, man gets pushed to the ground but hold his head 2 game ban, it's nonsense.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Another controversial decision tonight with Brighton not being given what appears to be a nailed on penalty when Shawcross takes out Murray.

[BRISTOL86]

16 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

One last point it is a joke for a referee to have to make a decision based on 'perceived' intent, especially given all of the split second/real time excuses already served up to add perceived intent into the mix is madness, the new law sucks and has made the whole thing more murky, whether it was a badly timed accident or a cynical foul it is easy after the event to deal with, badly time accident 3 game ban cynical foul 6 game ban.

I know it's different circumstances but it shows how stupid the laws, their interpretation and the punishments handed out are, 1 player prevents a possible goalscoring opportunity no ban, man gets pushed to the ground but hold his head 2 game ban, it's nonsense.

I think at a basic level the law change makes sense. You shouldn’t get a red card and suspension for a challenge that anywhere else on the pitch wouldn’t even get you sent off. 

The rule isn’t perfect but human error can’t ever be eradicated from a game where a human is required to rule on events as they’ve seen them. We’ve all seen incidents where a selection of ex players all come to different conclusions about an incident. Referees are human and in cases like this have a difficult job to do, based on a split second moment and one view of the incident. 

Bottom line is you can’t send a player off if you’re even 1% doubtful about whether or not they committed the offence you’re sending them off for. 

This is where video technology can make the difference and reduce the incorrect calls. Until it’s more widely used, human error will continue (and even after it will still occur) 

[Guest]

Three choices for the ref (obviously):

No card - if he'd have done this, I suspect that Kompany would have been red carded after. Wouldn't have helped Leicester during the game but might have given a sense of moral justice?

Yellow card - best outcome for Kompany because he stays on the field and absolutely no justice for Leicester.

Red card - best outcome for Leicester and could have changed to outcome of the game.

My point? Maybe if the ref 'thinks' it might be a red card, then maybe do nothing (he's damned if does and he's damned if he doesn't) is the way forward in cases like this. Yes, it will cause outrage, but, I'd rather have some sense of justice, rather none at all.

But this is all hypothetical with the 20/20 hindsight, forensic video replays etc.

I suppose we could just accept that mistakes happen and hope that over a season things even out.

A rule change might also be an option i.e. a yellow can be turned to red - I suppose that this might be too much common sense?

[BRISTOL86]

Just caught up on the midweek MOTD and this issue brought up again with the Mignolet foul against Stoke. 

Incredible that pundits, ex players and even current managers still don’t know the rules, all saying it should have been a red and talking about ‘last man’.

Doesn’t give you a lot of faith in these panels, such as they who ruled on Bailey Wright when even the likes of Ian Wright and Mark Hughes don’t seem to know the laws of the game.  

[downendcity]

12 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Just caught up on the midweek MOTD and this issue brought up again with the Mignolet foul against Stoke. 

Incredible that pundits, ex players and even current managers still don’t know the rules, all saying it should have been a red and talking about ‘last man’.

Doesn’t give you a lot of faith in these panels, such as they who ruled on Bailey Wright when even the likes of Ian Wright and Mark Hughes don’t seem to know the laws of the game.  

Agree with you re pundits, as I have often heard the "last man" justification for a sending off, and also from a few commentators.

Mark Hughes definitely doesn't know the rules, as he thought Mignolet  should have been sent of because his job is on the line.

One of the issues nowadays is the number of "laws" that involve interpretation or a judgement being made. In the old days offside was pretty straightforward, other than the linesman being able to see if the attacker was beyond the last defender. Now it involves a judgement on whether a striker is "interfering with play" if in an offside position. Queue Cloughie's line "if he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?"

It's the same with Mignolet's challenge, as the referee has to judge whether the offence prevented a clear goalscoring opportunity. With some of our strikers the ball would have to be on the goal line , with no defenders within 20 yards , for it to be a clear goalscoring opportunity, but judging whether a defender would have been able to cover back , and to do so in a split second, can vary from referee to referee, leading to the sort of inconsistency that bedevils the modern game.

Now we have the retrospective punishment, and as we have seen, there his huge scope for widely differing interpretations of what is or isn't simulation. Interestingly, at the moment the punishment can only be dished out retrospectively when a penalty or red card has been awarded as a result of "simulation". I saw a comment from a  manager this week, arguing that  eradicate cheating from the game is to punish all simulation i.e. not just those involving penalties or red cards.

 

 

[Hittheginger]

31 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Just caught up on the midweek MOTD and this issue brought up again with the Mignolet foul against Stoke. 

Incredible that pundits, ex players and even current managers still don’t know the rules, all saying it should have been a red and talking about ‘last man’.

Doesn’t give you a lot of faith in these panels, such as they who ruled on Bailey Wright when even the likes of Ian Wright and Mark Hughes don’t seem to know the laws of the game.  

The rule change only applies to fouls in the box. You are still sent off for being the last man/denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity if you do it outside the box - Because you aren't being 'triple punished'.

[BRISTOL86]

9 hours ago, Hittheginger said:

The rule change only applies to fouls in the box. You are still sent off for being the last man/denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity if you do it outside the box - Because you aren't being 'triple punished'.

In that case I humbly offer my apologies to Messrs Hughes and Wright and will crawl back under my rock!