The Wade Elliott Red Card Analysis Thread

[Red Exile]

There's a lot of heat in this thread. People falling out with each other over an incident they've only seen on the edge of a video. At least a couple of us on OTIB were sitting in the Arkells Stand right in front of the incident.

 

As soon as it happened I was worried that he was in trouble. My immediate feeling was that so early in the match we really didn't need our captain giving the ref an opportunity to dismiss him. I wasn't that surprised with the red card.

 

Of course I'd love Wade not to get a ban, I'd love the appeal to succeed and I'm impressed with the passion Cotterill has displayed.

 

But on the basis of what I saw I'd be surprised.

[formerly known as ivan]

Looking at it again I have slightly changed my view and think it is harsh, although still not fully able to see it clearly.

However I think the 3 weak tackles in the box for their goal cost us the point more than the sending off.

The sending off gives us something to blame the lose on and although it wouldnt have helped, had it not happened we could have lost 5 0, we could have won 2 0. We will never know what might have been.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

There's a lot of heat in this thread. People falling out with each other over an incident they've only seen on the edge of a video. At least a couple of us on OTIB were sitting in the Arkells Stand right in front of the incident.

 

As soon as it happened I was worried that he was in trouble. My immediate feeling was that so early in the match we really didn't need our captain giving the ref an opportunity to dismiss him. I wasn't that surprised with the red card.

 

Of course I'd love Wade not to get a ban, I'd love the appeal to succeed and I'm impressed with the passion Cotterill has displayed.

 

But on the basis of what I saw I'd be surprised.

 

i'm interested to know exactly what you feel Stephens part in the incident played in the sending off, i'm talking about the over the top histrionics, claiming a butt to his face, which clearly could not have occurred given the height difference?.

[OneManMob]

I think the video just about shows him doing something but the Swindon player made a meal of whatever it was.

[Red Exile]

[Ben4BCFC]

Thought I'd stick my twopence in as everyone else has done so. I wasn't at the game so cannot comment on what it looked like at the time - although as some have stated, first impressions are generally correct in these situations.

 

Firstly, the video evidence is far from conclusive, no matter what sort of tinted glasses some fans are viewing it with. Having said that, there are some things that are for certain:

 

1) Stephens and Elliott clash before, arguably a foul to City, but the ref didn't blow (personally I'd like to see these challenges remain as 50-50s & not FKs).

2) Stephens then proceeds to attempt a limp kick/trip on Elliott - deliberate or not - but Wade evades the challenge.

3) Stephens then pulls back Elliott by the shoulder.

 

I think all fans, Swindon or City, can agree on these facts. But this is when it gets a bit muddier.

 

Now, first thing's first, Wade DOES move backwards and his head and arms DO move towards Stephens' head. If you pause the slo-mo just before they go off screen, this is clear. As Welcome To The Jungle stated earlier, Wade also bends his knees before straightening them as he backs into the defender. Whether this is holding his ground as Wilbs suggests or not, remains to be seen. Again, there is clear video evidence that shows this taking place. Stephens also, undoubtedly but as many footballers do nowadays, makes the most of the incident - and from an objective standpoint, I've seen City players do just as much over the years. His personal decision to do this is not always a reflection of the club he plays for.

 

What isn't clear, though, is whether or not this is a deliberate action by Elliott or a result of the tug made by Stephens. Unfortunately, it does LOOK as though it is deliberate, although from seeing Elliott play and with his experience, I fully believe it wasn't, and was actually an accidental physical response to being pulled backwards.

 

What is equally unfortunate, I think, is that unless there is other available video footage, the evidence is massively inconclusive from the highlights available. As a result, it is unlikely that on second viewing, the FA will overrule the referee - as doing so would immediately show their lack of trust in an official they actively chose to take charge of the match.

 

Do I think it was a red card? No.

Can I see why some people (i.e. Swindle fans) do? Yes.

Have there been red cards given for less than this? Yes. But there have been actions much much worse than this that have gone unpunished.

If it was the other way around, would I - or other City fans as a matter of fact - be this passionate about the decision? Not a chance.

 

Having said all of this, the red card is not what frustrates me most. What upsets me and most City fans I'm sure, are the actions of Jack Stephens, Harry Toffolo celebrating the sending off, and their supposed club captain and ambassador of the club Nathan Thompson goading City fans. Their post-match celebrations were over the top and deliberately inciting. The latter of which IS a reflection of the club - a man in his position cannot be seen as anything less.

 

I'm sure many disagree with me, but I'm trying to be as objective as I can. And although I don't think it was a sending off, I would be incredibly surprised if it gets rescinded. Far from enough concrete evidence to suggest otherwise.

[redfred]

Forgetting whatever the Swindon player did to Elliott, you can just see before the camera pans away that Elliott reacts by flicking his head back towards the cheating**** and unfortunately that is enough for him to get a red.

It was gamesmanship on the part of the Swindon player and he got the result he wanted.

[RedRock]

Where video footage is inconclusive, you surely ought to consider 'what is a probable occurrence'. I would also like to think the FA would need to prove beyond 'reasonable doubt' that a sending off offence occurred. That's how it should be. Knowing the FA, no doubt, it's the complete opposite.

Logic would dictate that video evidence ought to be afforded greater weight than someone's opinion stood 20 yards away, looking at the action in real time and, in all probability, not focusing on that particular event. No doubt the FA take an opposite view.

If an appeal is based on someone being 'innocent until proven guilty' and considerable weight is attached to video evidence in reaching a decision then, from that video footage at least, the red card must be rescinded.

Wade Is Innocent!

P.S to 'stray' on to another topic - the cat has proof read, proof-read and indeed, proofread this posting. Hope Kevin Mabbutt's Thatch approves. Save the Planet.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Forgetting whatever the Swindon player did to Elliott, you can just see before the camera pans away that Elliott reacts by flicking his head back towards the cheating **** and unfortunately that is enough for him to get a red.

It was gamesmanship on the part of the Swindon player and he got the result he wanted.

 

That is yet another problem, gamesmanship my arse, gamesmanship is taking the ball into the corner or take time over free kicks, corners and goal kicks, what Stephens did is a disgrace to the game of football, deliberately set out to get a fellow professional sent off, it has no place in the game and far too many players, pundits, fans and managers bat it away as gamesmanship/part of the game as if there were some element of skill involved.

 

and for what it's worth, I do not see his head going backwards.

[Ben4BCFC]

Where video footage is inconclusive, you surely ought to consider 'what is a probable occurrence'. I would also like to think the FA would need to prove beyond 'reasonable doubt' that a sending off offence occurred. That's how it should be. Knowing the FA, no doubt, it's the complete opposite.

Logic would dictate that video evidence ought to be afforded greater weight than someone's opinion stood 20 yards away, looking at the action in real time and, in all probability, not focusing on that particular event. No doubt the FA take an opposite view.

If an appeal is based on someone being 'innocent until proven guilty' and considerable weight is attached to video evidence in reaching a decision then, from that video footage at least, the red card must be rescinded.

Wade Is Innocent!

P.S to 'stray' on to another topic - the cat has proof read, proof-read and indeed, proofread this posting. Hope Kevin Mabbutt's Thatch approves. Save the Planet.

 

I've been looking online and can't find the actual laws to quote, but I would assume that once the decision has been made by the referee, that the FA will only overturn the decision if the evidence is conclusive that an offence did NOT take place. I would have thought that rather than viewing the event as an entirely new case, they are aiming to prove the referee wrong rather than see what the correct decision is. If that is the case, then they will be looking for conclusive evidence that Wade did not cause an offence.

 

For them to uphold some respect in their decisions and appointment of referees, they must back their own representatives if they cannot prove otherwise. Otherwise they immediately take away any grounds that referee has to stand on.

 

I may be wrong, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine that unless the video evidence is conclusive that the referee is wrong, then they will go with his original decision, rather than the other way around.

[Redbud]

Just seen the video clip ...... Take back all I said earlier ... Never a red card .. Apologies to Wade Elliott !

[downendcity]

I take it Jack Stephens was hospitalized after such a vicious assault by Wadey...

 

Hospitalized?

 

He's applied for a grant from Children in Need for post traumatic stress disorder and the effect the incident  has on his family and his chance of ever regaining his career ( Finance Director for Tesco and Tom Daley's partner - conman and diver).

[redfred]

That is yet another problem, gamesmanship my arse, gamesmanship is taking the ball into the corner or take time over free kicks, corners and goal kicks, what Stephens did is a disgrace to the game of football, deliberately set out to get a fellow professional sent off, it has no place in the game and far too many players, pundits, fans and managers bat it away as gamesmanship/part of the game as if there were some element of skill involved.

and for what it's worth, I do not see his head going backwards.

Unfortunately you're right: gamesmanship - or cheating, as it used to be known - has become the norm in the modern game and Elliott will become more of a villain for falling for it rather than Stephens for his disgraceful tactics.

It used to be the case that you go go straight through someone like Stephens after he behaveed like he did yesterday.

[CareyBCFC]

Look at this > Pathetic!

 

https://twitter.com/SamMorshead_/status/533651595700211714

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

Several people have commented that the linesman had a clear view- he didn't and was behind the players running upfield and the incident would have been shielded by a 6ft4 player directly behind Wade. I suspect he reacted to the manner in which the player hit the floor clutching his broken jawbone/nose/shattered teeth.

 

Just prior to the incident Wade says something to him- I wonder what?

 

As for whether it was a red card? Dunno- couldn't see it.

[Slack Bladder]

Surely to send someone off, you must be 100% certain your decision is correct.

 

I've watched the slow mo several times and I'm not 100% sure it's the right decision.

 

What I don't need a reply for though, is that it was a blatant foul on Elliott in the first place and should have been a free kick to us.

[RedRock]

I've been looking online and can't find the actual laws to quote, but I would assume that once the decision has been made by the referee, that the FA will only overturn the decision if the evidence is conclusive that an offence did NOT take place. I would have thought that rather than viewing the event as an entirely new case, they are aiming to prove the referee wrong rather than see what the correct decision is. If that is the case, then they will be looking for conclusive evidence that Wade did not cause an offence.

 

For them to uphold some respect in their decisions and appointment of referees, they must back their own representatives if they cannot prove otherwise. Otherwise they immediately take away any grounds that referee has to stand on.

 

I may be wrong, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine that unless the video evidence is conclusive that the referee is wrong, then they will go with his original decision, rather than the other way around.

Thanks for that.

I wonder, as in this case, if the referee didn't see it, the assistant referee had an obstructed view and it was the fourth official who allegedly spotted the 'offence', whether lesser weight is given to the official's evidence?

[cityexile]

OTIB and all team specific forums are built largely on tinted-myopia! In my opinion, the "kick/stamp" (as you call it) is about as newsworthy as Elliott's late-ish tack that riled Stephens in the first place. Apologies that I didn't include it originally...

 

I do not doubt you are looking at it impartially as you can, as I hope I am. I can only assume you honestly see a late-ish tackle. I equally honestly see Wade in the first instance following the ball, and pretty much being taken out by Stephens. If Elliot had stayed down at this stage, the result could have been very different. At 13 seconds, it looks like an elbow to me.

 

Later on, Wade does stop, and backs in to Stephens (or is pulled back). The critical second is lost. I am impressed so many Swindon fans clearly saw the head butt, rather than following the ball, as the camera does. The last I can see, wade is crouching. Wade seems to mutter something as he runs past, then Stephens puts his hand on or around Wades collar. It actually would be hard to continue to run, and the natural reaction is to stop.

 

Of course, the provocation is irrelevant to any discussion from a red card point of view as to the reaction from Wade. Best guess is he has decided to stand his ground - I cannot see his head being thrown back, but as I say, a critical second is lost. I knew he was in trouble when you look round, one of their players is down, and the lino is waving. That is rather different from saying I saw what had happened.

 

Personally, not a chance it will be over turned.

 

Its done. Its a discussion point, but we need to move on.

 

Preston.

[bristolcitysweden]

Although it's just off camera, you can see Wade being pulled backwards, although not any impact.

Does anyone run backwards to headbutt someone with the back of their head? I have to agree with Cotterill that it's clearly a wrong decision.

Have a look at the video again this timre in slow motion (down to the right on the left side of the you tube label you chose 0,25 in speed by clicking the "wheel") then click stop play stop etc. What you will see is that at the crucial time the cheaters head is actually in front of Elliott and you can follow Wades right arm. He then pulls Eliotts shirt and they clash body to body. You can follow Elliotts head and no way he is head butting. Cheater! 

[Rich-TWSC-]

I do not doubt you are looking at it impartially as you can, as I hope I am. I can only assume you honestly see a late-ish tackle. I equally honestly see Wade in the first instance following the ball, and pretty much being taken out by Stephens. If Elliot had stayed down at this stage, the result could have been very different. At 13 seconds, it looks like an elbow to me.

 

Later on, Wade does stop, and backs in to Stephens (or is pulled back). The critical second is lost. I am impressed so many Swindon fans clearly saw the head butt, rather than following the ball, as the camera does. The last I can see, wade is crouching.

 

Of course, the provocation is irrelevant to any discussion from a red card point of view as to the reaction from Wade. Best guess is he has decided to stand his ground - I cannot see his head being thrown back, but as I saw, a critical second is lost. I knew he was in trouble when you look round, one of their players is down, and the lino is waving. That is rather different from saying I saw what had happened.

 

Personally, not a chance it will be over turned.

 

Its done. Its a discussion point, but we need to move on.

 

Preston.

 

 

I think he's tracking the ball too but he is late-ish (my original post points this out). As we know, Stephens doesn't react well to it regardless.

[Guest]

Did I read that Mark Cooper heard the fourth official say " definite red card"?

Is the fourth official there to advise the referee?

It's a genuine question, because I thought their role was to deal with substitutes and patrol the technical areas, not tell the referee what to do.

[Andy082005]

Quite clearly, Wade Elliott is to blame for being hauled back by a player who then hurls himself to the ground. Wade, you cost us the game - you should be ashamed.

(That was sarcasm, for the hard of thinking among us)

Can you point us in the direction of the video evidence that shows Wade Elliotts innocence?

[bristolcitysweden]

Can you point us in the direction of the video evidence that shows Wade Elliotts innocence?

Have a look at the you tube video again this time in slow motion (down to the right on the left side of the you tube label you chose 0,25 in speed by clicking the "wheel") then click stop play stop etc. What you will see is that at the crucial time the cheaters head is actually in front of Elliott and you can follow Wades right arm. He then pulls Eliotts shirt and they clash body to body. You can follow Elliotts head and no way he is head butting. Cheater!

[RedRock]

And I also think the reaction of the Swindle player should be used as part of the evidence.

If your mate was supposedly seriously hurt by a nutting would you really have such a smile on your face and show such joy, as in saying to Wade 'yes, we've got you'?

Seems to me a clear case of maximum provocation and then play acting all of which was pre-planned. Provocation is no defence. Celebrating successful play acting in such a way is. The evidence is there for all to see.

[ashtonphil]

The sending off gives us something to blame the lose on and although it wouldnt have helped, had it not happened we could have lost 5 0, we could have won 2 0. We will never know what might have been. 

 

I agree, but wouldn't it have been nice to have been given the opportunity to find out.

 

The fourth official, I believe should have no influence on the decision making, if he did say "definite red card" maybe he was just expressing his thoughts aloud. 

 

What annoys me about the rescinding of any red card, is that whilst admitting the mistake, doesn't change the result, which can be promotion/relegation due to an officials incompetence.  Time for the fourth official to have a say with video evidence, maybe even a manager's appeal (as they do in the NFL!!)

[Northern Red]

Can you point us in the direction of the video evidence that shows Wade Elliotts innocence?

 

Agreed. For it to be overturned, we're going to have to find something that proves the decision was incorrect. I'm not sure that clip does, as the crucial moment when the contact takes place that results in the Swindon player hitting the deck isn't clearly shown.

 

If they can get something from the other angle then we might be in business.

[TheCulturalBomb]

You can see where the problem lies when Wade is thrust backwards his head certainly goes back strongly, and if the ref from his angle sees it, it would look bad because of the speed in which he is pulled back. And I can certainly agree with Steve, absolutely 2 fouls and a free kick to us. 

[ten minutes of rough]

I have waited to see the video and there is no way whatsoever that is a foul by Elliot, the Swindon player seemed to forearm Wade when he went into the tackle, it then appears Wade might have had a word, and the Swindon player grabbed wade from behind, thus lurching Wades head back, no way was it intent on Wade's part to butt the player.....and yet the ref saw all of this and ignored the forearm assault, this is a stitch up and is a disgraceful injustice to the City player club and most of all fans who coughed up to be treated like scum.

 

No wonder Cotts was fuming I believe he is an honest bloke,and those in the game know what happened, including Mark Cooper who must have thought Christmas had come early.

 

It's about time those that cheat in the game are brought to book, and that starts with the ref's, all those that advise them, it is souring the game and makes a mockery of many results that just should not stand.

 

Clearly Swindon went out with the intent to beat us whatever it took, and this was obvious from their Chairman's rallying call in the week that was highly provacative and not something that should be broadcast, in what anyway was going to be a volatile game.

 

Swindon are a shambles, that is evident, they I hope will be punished sooner or later for all their underhand ways they administrate that club, not as if it is a recent thing too, all the way back to when the got deducted points and were denied promotion, they are really as bad as Palace, yes that bad!!! 

[ten minutes of rough]

Can you point us in the direction of the video evidence that shows Wade Elliotts innocence?

Read my post.

[cityexile]

And I also think the reaction of the Swindle player should be used as part of the evidence.

If your mate was supposedly seriously hurt by a nutting would you really have such a smile on your face and show such joy, as in saying to Wade 'yes, we've got you'?

Seems to me a clear case of maximum provocation and then play acting all of which was pre-planned. Provocation is no defence. Celebrating successful play acting in such a way is. The evidence is there for all to see.

 

 

OK - did not release you could slow it down.

 

Almost frame by frame. Hand on Wades collar. Seems to be pulling Wades collar down, but not in truth not 100% clear, Wade puts on the brakes. If being held by the collar difficult to do much else. It is only at this stage that the red hand comes off. At the point of contact Wades is much lower then the red, and his head well forward.

 

Its just physics after this. Wades head must get thrown back. The reds must get thrown forward. Just as it goes off screen, I have to say it does look like the heads are coming together. Wades hand stays in shot the whole time which implies there was not much else to see.

 

The rest is supposition. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, Wade meant no more than to get rid of the hold, by stopping. If you are a Swindon fan you can say it does not rule out he meant it. If you are a City fan, if you want to see the red pulling Wade back to him, the video supports that to. If it was a court of law, you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt he meant it. Equally, in a FA court, you cannot prove the refs decision was perverse.

 

So there we are.