The Wade Elliott Red Card Analysis Thread

[ten minutes of rough]

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 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.

So there we are? 

 

If there was no proof as in a court of law as you put it.... why then should the Judge hang the accused?

[cityexile]

So there we are? 

 

If there was no proof as in a court of law as you put it.... why then should the Judge hang the accused?

 

 

Because the FA will back their officials 99% of the time. They made a call in real time. To get it overturned we need to prove the officials were wrong, in interpretation of the laws, or were dupped. Lets see, but I am not holding my breath.

 

Occassionally in football, crap happens. Lets appeal, plan for Preston, but the Swindon game is now a 'dead parrott'.

 

Watch the clip in slow mo. Tell yourself the Swindon player holds Wades Collar and deliberately pulls him back in to him. That is what it will look like.

 

Now watch it again, convinced that Wade puts on the breaks, and when they come together goes up to create a clash of heads. Equally, that is what you will see. As an aside, the only place Wade could have caught him, as his head after making contact with the chest is always moving forward, is with his chin, and their player when rolling around is holding his forehead.

 

To prove it is one of the other is almost impossible.

[bristolcitysweden]

You can spot Eliotts right arm all the time and it's moving forward. You can also spot Elliotts head all the time and it's not going backwards. No head butting!

[Fordy62]

Because the FA will back their officials 99% of the time. They made a call in real time. To get it overturned we need to prove the officials were wrong, in interpretation of the laws, or were dupped. Lets see, but I am not holding my breath.

Occassionally in football, crap happens. Lets appeal, plan for Preston, but the Swindon game is now a 'dead parrott'.

Watch the clip in slow mo. Tell yourself the Swindon player holds Wades Collar and deliberately pulls him back in to him. That is what it will look like.

Now watch it again, convinced that Wade puts on the breaks, and when they come together goes up to create a clash of heads. Equally, that is what you will see. As an aside, the only place Wade could have caught him, as his head after making contact with the chest is always moving forward, is with his chin, and their player when rolling around is holding his forehead.

To prove it is one of the other is almost impossible.

Just read three posts of yours. All entirely sensible. Good work.

[WolfOfWestStreet]

The mistake Wade made, was he didn't go down crying like a dying seal when he was smashed in the face my #5's forearm/elbow.

if we can't beat these cheats fairly, we should join them

[Andy082005]

So there we are? 

 

If there was no proof as in a court of law as you put it.... why then should the Judge hang the accused?

 

Firstly we are not in a court of a law.

 

Secondly, if you want to compare it to that, by being sent off....Wade Elliott has already been found 'Guilty'.

 

If someone is found guilty in a court of law, normally you appeal if there is fresh evidence or new information.....

 

....unless there is camera footage from a different angle. I think we are royally f**ed

[Red-Robbo]

Firstly we are not in a court of a law.

Secondly, if you want to compare it to that, by being sent off....Wade Elliott has already been found 'Guilty'.

If someone is found guilty in a court of law, normally you appeal if there is fresh evidence or new information.....

....unless there is camera footage from a different angle. I think we are royally f**ed

But Andy, although I agree you can't see the actual impact - assuming there even was any - you CAN see the pull backwards. Wade is beginning to pull away from Stephens, Stephens - not running - puts his hands on Elliott's shoulders and Elliott is pulled off balance backwards. You don't have to be Miss Marple to work out what might happen a fraction of a second later.

The Swinedon crowd react because they think their player's been poleaxed and the lino, who will have been watching the ball, not the whole incident, reacts to that reaction and alerts the ref to something he thought he saw.

The important thing is you can see the pull. Pull someone who's close to you unexpectedly backwards and they are likely to come into contact with you.

[chipdawg]

Am I the only person that thought the initial challenge by Stephens was a red card? Elliot was a little late but Stephens raises his forearm and moves it towards Wades head. It was never a red card in a million years, but as others have said- I think the official line will be that there's insufficient evidence to overturn the original decision unfortunately

[Andy082005]

But Andy, although I agree you can't see the actual impact - assuming there even was any - you CAN see the pull backwards. Wade is beginning to pull away from Stephens, Stephens - not running - puts his hands on Elliott's shoulders and Elliott is pulled off balance backwards. You don't have to be Miss Marple to work out what might happen a fraction of a second later.

The Swinedon crowd react because they think their player's been poleaxed and the lino, who will have been watching the ball, not the whole incident, reacts to that reaction and alerts the ref to something he thought he saw.

The important thing is you can see the pull. Pull someone who's close to you unexpectedly backwards and they are likely to come into contact with you.

 

....see, here you are assuming.

 

The linesman in his report, will put he 'saw' something, not he "thought he saw something". 

 

Listen, I agree with what everyone has said.  It should have been our free kick and , their player certainly faked injury.  That alone leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

 

I also agree, tug someone from behind, and the law of physics means that person will fall into you. 

 

What I amsaying is, the linesman is saying he has seen either a headbutt or elbow.  I just dont believe there is enough evidence in that video for any of us to say for certain "Wade did do it" or "Wade didnt do it".  This reason and this reason alone is why I dont think we will win the appeal.

 

I truely hope to be eating humble pie very soon.....

[Super]

....see, here you are assuming.

 

The linesman in his report, will put he 'saw' something, not he "thought he saw something". 

 

Listen, I agree with what everyone has said.  It should have been our free kick and , their player certainly faked injury.  That alone leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

 

I also agree, tug someone from behind, and the law of physics means that person will fall into you. 

 

What I amsaying is, the linesman is saying he has seen either a headbutt or elbow.  I just dont believe there is enough evidence in that video for any of us to say for certain "Wade did do it" or "Wade didnt do it".  This reason and this reason alone is why I dont think we will win the appeal.

 

I truely hope to be eating humble pie very soon.....

 

You are spot on. Can only be overturned with evidence and there is none. No chance of winning any appeal.

[The Original OTIB]

i have a still that shows Stephens head going towards Elliott. Not sure how to get in on here

[Redtucks]

i have a still that shows Stephens head going towards Elliott. Not sure how to get in on here

 

If it's a "still", how can you tell who's head is going in which direction?

[Pippintogg]

Even the still pics seem to have missed it. Funny how this guy has managed to get before and after. Wonder what he did with the automatic setting that would have picked up the lot!

 

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/search/2/image?artist=Martin+Willetts&family=editorial#

[CotswoldRed]

Just to put the feigning of injury (cheating) in context, my little lad (who is very weak) fell out of his wheelchair last week and landed dead-weight onto a hard, shiny floor.

 

Swindon players could learn from him - yes, he hurt himself, but just got on with it despite being in pain.

 

I'd like the Swindon players to meet him and he can explain what a bunch of cheats they really are.

[dezgimed]

Just to put the feigning of injury (cheating) in context, my little lad (who is very weak) fell out of his wheelchair last week and landed dead-weight onto a hard, shiny floor.

Swindon players could learn from him - yes, he hurt himself, but just got on with it despite being in pain.

I'd like the Swindon players to meet him and he can explain what a bunch of cheats they really are.

Or any footballer? Like our very own Elliott who went down like a sack of shit last season at home to Swindon. Not sure your personal analogy is appropriate here.

[CotswoldRed]

Or any footballer? Like our very own Elliott who went down like a sack of shit last season at home to Swindon. Not sure your personal analogy is appropriate here.

It absolutely is.

 

I'm saying a player's actions should be commensurate with the injury/pain.  That way we have an honest game and the ref has an easier job, and he's more likely to make the right decision.

 

Feigning is all about getting the opposition punished in a way that doesn't relate to the offence.

 

And yes, it applies to all clubs.

 

Cheating is the reason I can't stomach the Premier league and never watch it.  If it becomes standard fare for League 1 we really are in the shit.

 

I've never been a person who can say "well that's just the way it is, what else can we do?", though I appreciate most people are.  Its a shit example to set your kids though.

 

Fortunately, I've managed to get plenty of things changed for the better with this approach.  Am I going to change cheating in footy?  No I'm not, because I haven't the time or energy.  But maybe lily-livered fans can grow a pair and make it happen collectively, though I doubt it too.

[dezgimed]

It absolutely is.

I'm saying a player's actions should be commensurate with the injury/pain. That way we have an honest game and the ref has an easier job, and he's more likely to make the right decision.

Feigning is all about getting the opposition punished in a way that doesn't relate to the offence.

And yes, it applies to all clubs.

Cheating is the reason I can't stomach the Premier league and never watch it. If it becomes standard fare for League 1 we really are in the shit.

I've never been a person who can say "well that's just the way it is, what else can we do?", though I appreciate most people are. Its a shit example to set your kids though.

Fortunately, I've managed to get plenty of things changed for the better with this approach. Am I going to change cheating in footy? No I'm not, because I haven't the time or energy. But maybe lily-livered fans can grow a pair and make it happen collectively, though I doubt it too.

It's too big a beast to conquer made. Too subjective a lot of the time. Ending up with games paused for replays, panels retrospectively reviewing and still getting it wrong etc.

[CotswoldRed]

It's too big a beast to conquer made. Too subjective a lot of the time. Ending up with games paused for replays, panels retrospectively reviewing and still getting it wrong etc.

Hence my point.  You are one of the "it can't be done" brigade so you're happy to poo-poo anyone that might attempt to.  That's worse than doing nothing at all.

[dezgimed]

Hence my point. You are one of the "it can't be done" brigade so you're happy to poo-poo anyone that might attempt to. That's worse than doing nothing at all.

Ok you submit your little complaint I'm sure UEFA and FIFA can't wait to act on 17 complaints from Bristol City v Swindon Town (who??).

Some people just love a whinge. Typical English attutude I suppose.

[CotswoldRed]

Ok you submit your little complaint I'm sure UEFA and FIFA can't wait to act on 17 complaints from Bristol City v Swindon Town (who??).

Some people just love a whinge. Typical English attutude I suppose.

 

One assumes you've never tackled anything that requires more than a modicum of effort.  Don't worry, you're in with the majority there.

[dezgimed]

One assumes you've never tackled anything that requires more than a modicum of effort. Don't worry, you're in with the majority there.

Never assume. It makes an Ass out of you and...no just you.

;-)

[CotswoldRed]

Never assume. It makes an Ass out of you and...no just you.

;-)

Excellent, well done mate.

 

I'll leave it there. You can have the last word.

[dezgimed]

Excellent, well done mate.

I'll leave it there. You can have the last word.

Thank you.

Also perhaps refrain from assuming you know a person and what they've achieved in their lifetime in the heat of an argument, just makes you look silly.

[Gazred]

I see the Swindon chairman has now put his 2 pence worth in...

 

 "Great football team he's got there, but they've been battered and that's the end of it."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30081359

 

Roll on April....

[CotswoldRed]

I see the Swindon chairman has now put his 2 pence worth in...

 

 "Great football team he's got there, but they've been battered and that's the end of it."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30081359

 

Roll on April....

 

Might keep the bailiffs away a bit longer.

[samo II]

Cheated out of a fair game by a weak-kneed ref and a toe-rag play-actor; great.

Extra touch of class from that other cheat Thompson; guess that whole low-rent, backwater club have worked out how to scam the system, then compound that by adding provocation to the mix.

Sorry to the rare Swindon fan who posts here who isn't a total coma case, but your team lacks anything resembling class. Hope your season disintegrates.

[ateyomike]

what will swindles crowd be at the next home game - how many will come back ??????

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

 

The first offence, Swindon CB holding Elliot is clearly a free kick 

 

 

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

 

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:

 

• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick)

So the minimum is a yelow card. i also think their player launched himself to the floor, to avoid himself actually getting sent off. 

A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball 

 

Now Elliot was sent off for this aspect of the rules having been judged to have attacked the Swindon CB. It would seem to me that both should have been sent off if the offence is valid, though the correct decision would probably have been, in the context of the start of the game, a yellow card for both, to calm it down. As Elliot was running away, he was certainly not looking for confrontation, nor instigated it, or fighting for ball possession. 

 

?In any case poor refereeing 

 

?I know it counts for nothing now, but those sorts of decisions are big ones, and there was no need for the linesman or ref to make such a rash decision in the context of the game time, position of play, goal scoring potential and injury of any individual. The Swindon player got out of jail for losing his temper.

 

I thought the same myself,  if it was the case that both players had offended,  then both should have been sent off.  I wonder if that had happened,  what the result would have been?

[meltonmowbrayred]

So Wade is responsible for successful cheating by a Swindon player? Interesting ethics, that.

 

Not the successful cheat, but the victim, is responsible. H'mm.

 

Strikes me that you listen to too many Sky commentaries.

Doesn't matter what the ref/linesman missed, if Wade did head butt the guy (in the linesman's opinion) then he should be sent off. If this is upheld, then Wade is to a large degree responsible for the way the rest of the game went by his actions. Andy thinks there is a case to answer; that's his opinion and doesn't make him a moron. You spouting on about him belonging on the Gas forum is not really an opinion (just abuse) and makes you look like a moron; that my opinion.

[Super]

City have appealed.