Martinelli’s red card

[hinsleburg]

I'm not sure what the rules are, but for me it's one of the best bits of refereeing for a long time.

Ultimately, both were yellow card offences, and I would say they wouldn't have been 'harsh' cautions either. 

One thing that happens regularly and annoys me is when a player who has been booked makes a foul, the referee's seem to always either give the free kick and second yellow but allow no advantage, or allow advantage but then not send the player off when they would book them in any other circumstance.  (Would love to see the reaction however if a player scored and then got a second yellow for a foul that happened 30-60 seconds earlier)

Seems like a gutsy bit of refereeing to me and I liked it.

[Fordy62]

19 minutes ago, elhombrecito said:

Does it matter? It's a bookable offence - how the other player reacts doesn't change that.

Yes it matters. You don’t ordinarily get booked for that level of contact, he was booked because of the dive.  To say it was a push is generous. It was much more preventing the quick break that you could argue, in which case it shouldn’t be given as a yellow card so the rules say. 

[grifty]

14 minutes ago, hinsleburg said:

I'm not sure what the rules are, but for me it's one of the best bits of refereeing for a long time.

Ultimately, both were yellow card offences, and I would say they wouldn't have been 'harsh' cautions either. 

One thing that happens regularly and annoys me is when a player who has been booked makes a foul, the referee's seem to always either give the free kick and second yellow but allow no advantage, or allow advantage but then not send the player off when they would book them in any other circumstance.  (Would love to see the reaction however if a player scored and then got a second yellow for a foul that happened 30-60 seconds earlier)

Seems like a gutsy bit of refereeing to me and I liked it.

I don't think you can play advantage if a player is going to be sent off, as that player could then influence the play but shouldn't actually be on the field.

[The turtle]

27 minutes ago, elhombrecito said:

Does it matter? It's a bookable offence - how the other player reacts doesn't change that.

Sure it happened in a N. Ireland game V the Swiss a few years back. 

[Roe]

Right decision for me.  Not sure what the argument against it is.  They're both clear bookings

[elhombrecito]

21 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Yes it matters. You don’t ordinarily get booked for that level of contact, he was booked because of the dive.  To say it was a push is generous. It was much more preventing the quick break that you could argue, in which case it shouldn’t be given as a yellow card so the rules say. 

He raised his hands. In the modern game, that's a yellow card at minimum. 

[Mad Cyril]

Martinelli was taking the classic 'free hit'. Knew he had a yellow so may as well second foul. This is wrong. Imagine a city player got hacked down by a Bamford, ref allows us the advantage, Bamford then pushes Scott off the ball as he is about to put Weimann in.

Fair play the ref, taking logical action to stamp out anti-football.

[JoeAman08]

1 hour ago, Fordy62 said:

Well the first one is a massive dive isn’t it?

Yes but Martinelli created that contact and had no business doing so. Also tried to slow down the counter. If you take that incident on its own and say the player just goes down and does not get the ball in play. Pretty good chance it is a booking. Either contact or stopping the counter or even combining them. 
 

The thing is, he created the situation himself. So I don’t really have sympathy for him. O can see the reason for debate, I just can’t come around to agreeing it should have been anything other than 2 bookings. 

[Fordy62]

Just now, JoeAman08 said:

Yes but Martinelli created that contact and had no business doing so. Also tried to slow down the counter. If you take that incident on its own and say the player just goes down and does not get the ball in play. Pretty good chance it is a booking. Either contact or stopping the counter or even combining them. 
 

The thing is, he created the situation himself. So I don’t really have sympathy for him. O can see the reason for debate, I just can’t come around to agreeing it should have been anything other than 2 bookings. 

I’m not 100% one way or another - other than I think the ref is a bit silly. 

But if he’s stopping the counter it shouldn’t be a yellow. And that’s what it is if you think it’s a dive by the Wolves player. 

[Monkeh]

32 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I’m not 100% one way or another - other than I think the ref is a bit silly. 

But if he’s stopping the counter it shouldn’t be a yellow. And that’s what it is if you think it’s a dive by the Wolves player. 

You seem to be in the minority on this one mate,

It was clearly 2 yellow cards it was a great bit of reffing 

[Fordy62]

6 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

You seem to be in the minority on this one mate,

It was clearly 2 yellow cards it was a great bit of reffing 

I don’t think it was great reffing, I think it was silly and not needed. That being said, I don’t necessarily think he was wrong within the rules if that makes any sense. 

I suppose being the age I am, I’ve always been a bit of an Arsenal sympathiser as back in the late 90’s they were the only ones capable of beating United. But I think I’d call it the same if it were any other team… barring United. Then it’s a definite red!

[Super]

1 minute ago, Fordy62 said:

I don’t think it was great reffing, I think it was silly and not needed. That being said, I don’t necessarily think he was wrong within the rules if that makes any sense. 

I suppose being the age I am, I’ve always been a bit of an Arsenal sympathiser as back in the late 90’s they were the only ones capable of beating United. But I think I’d call it the same if it were any other team… barring United. Then it’s a definite red!

Just out of interest which one of the 2 did you think wasn't a yellow?

[Fordy62]

1 minute ago, Super said:

Just out of interest which one of the 2 did you think wasn't a yellow?

Probably the first. I think it’s a dive. And then add in a bit of double jeopardy. 

[CHIPLEY RED]

Good referring he acknowledge the first foul and signalled play advantage then there is a second foul.

The ref thought both deserved yellow so a red follows.

 

[OneTeamInBristol]

Definitely both worthy of a yellow card no doubt about that but the second should never have occurred.

The play should have been halted when the throw in was impeded and Martinelli booked (or sent off?) and a free kick taken from there.

FA:

'An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour, and if the throw-in has been taken, an indirect free kick is awarded'

[Fordy62]

7 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

Definitely both worthy of a yellow card no doubt about that but the second should never have occurred.

The play should have been halted when the throw in was impeded and Martinelli booked (or sent off?) and a free kick taken from there.

FA:

'An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour, and if the throw-in has been taken, an indirect free kick is awarded'

Oh that’s an interesting development. 

[Roe]

1 hour ago, Fordy62 said:

Oh that’s an interesting development. 

Not really.  I don't think that rule means that advantage can't be given like it was.

[Engvall’s Splinter]

Instead of the shove which was a booking, let’s say it was a malicious elbow to the chops, would those stating it shouldn’t of been a second yellow think differently? Or are you allowed a “free” second one?

[Selred]

1 hour ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

Definitely both worthy of a yellow card no doubt about that but the second should never have occurred.

The play should have been halted when the throw in was impeded and Martinelli booked (or sent off?) and a free kick taken from there.

FA:

'An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour, and if the throw-in has been taken, an indirect free kick is awarded'

What about playing on?

[Eddie Notgetinya]

Ref watch on sky sports says referee was correct. This was based on playing an advantage after the first foul as the player had lots of space to run into. The second foul is the players decision and referees aren’t fortune tellers so there’s no way of knowing what could have happened when playing the advantage. 

[Tinmans Love Child]

If I was the player, maybe I wouldn’t have done the second challenge if I’d just received a yellow, but as he didn’t (at that time anyway) he probably thought he’d got away with the first challenge so had scope for another foul?

[Midred]

Could this referee hold a training course for some of our championship referees - Andy Davies to name but one?

[MarcusX]

8 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

Interesting…

I think that’s only relevant to the first yellow - eg you can’t book someone for cynically stopping a counter attack if you play advantage on from that foul.

There was no advantage after the second foul so that is definitely a yellow. First one is a bit soft? Seen nothing given for that before but also seen straight reds.

Probablt the right call but can’t say I’ve ever seen it before?

[Lrrr]

7 hours ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Playing devils advocate here, but if the offence at the throw in was a clear red card offence, ie a punch or shove to the face, would the ref have still waved play on, then red card him at the next stoppage, by which time the player could have had a hand in a goal for his own team. No, he would have stopped the game and issued the red, so why the difference in card colour. If Martinelli had known he was on a yellow, he wouldnt have committed the second foul.

Point is you don't play on when a red card or second yellow is issued unless there is an obvious chance to score, the red card is a game changing event so gets issued straight away, a first yellow card isn't so the game carries on, Oliver isn't to know he's going to commit another yellow card offence within seconds. Essentially this all comes down to how braindead Martinelli is to do two things in 30 seconds that are yellow card offences.

[MarcusX]

7 hours ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Playing devils advocate here, but if the offence at the throw in was a clear red card offence, ie a punch or shove to the face, would the ref have still waved play on, then red card him at the next stoppage, by which time the player could have had a hand in a goal for his own team. No, he would have stopped the game and issued the red, so why the difference in card colour. If Martinelli had known he was on a yellow, he wouldnt have committed the second foul.

That’s defined in the rules someone shared above, play must be stopped unless there’s a clear goal scoring opportunity. If play continues and the player about to be sent off touches the ball the game stops immediately 

[MarcusX]

6 hours ago, hinsleburg said:

I'm not sure what the rules are, but for me it's one of the best bits of refereeing for a long time.

Ultimately, both were yellow card offences, and I would say they wouldn't have been 'harsh' cautions either. 

One thing that happens regularly and annoys me is when a player who has been booked makes a foul, the referee's seem to always either give the free kick and second yellow but allow no advantage, or allow advantage but then not send the player off when they would book them in any other circumstance.  (Would love to see the reaction however if a player scored and then got a second yellow for a foul that happened 30-60 seconds earlier)

Seems like a gutsy bit of refereeing to me and I liked it.

Again it’s the rules / laws. Red card scenario play stops immediately - if advantage is played leading to a chance but not obvious goal scoring opportunity then it’s not a yellow

Your hypothetical situation at the end should never happen

Edited February 11, 2022 by MarcusX

[MarcusX]

 

 

2 hours ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Instead of the shove which was a booking, let’s say it was a malicious elbow to the chops, would those stating it shouldn’t of been a second yellow think differently? Or are you allowed a “free” second one?

Well no because that would be a straight red and no advantage played

[Engvall’s Splinter]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

 

 

Well no because that would be a straight red and no advantage played

So the second incident (“malicious elbow”) would be a straight red? So surely that would mean both incidents yesterday were yellows equalling a red. 
 

Ref got it spot on. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Engvall’s Splinter

[JoeAman08]

6 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

I’m not 100% one way or another - other than I think the ref is a bit silly. 

But if he’s stopping the counter it shouldn’t be a yellow. And that’s what it is if you think it’s a dive by the Wolves player. 

You see cynical fouls to stop counters when the ball is in play. I don’t think it should be any different trying to do the same on a throw in. 

[Fordy62]

6 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

You see cynical fouls to stop counters when the ball is in play. I don’t think it should be any different trying to do the same on a throw in. 

But then there’s a rule saying it’s not a yellow if the advantage is gained.