DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 11614--------------------------------------------------
Re: Millwall v Leeds United
DIR By: RCG
Date: October 8, 2019, 3:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can be given as yellow if an attempt to play ball was made.
Argument here is that he caught the back of his heel.
I didnt think it was a penalty so am pleased the red was
overturned. I did think the Millwall player made a lot of it and
should have been charged
#Post#: 11615--------------------------------------------------
Re: Millwall v Leeds United
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: October 8, 2019, 3:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: exile link ---
>
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=1073.msg11610#msg11610
date=1570562384]
> [quote author=sastley link=topic=1073.msg11609#msg11609
date=1570561708]
> Now been stated by the panel that because there was contact
the Millwall player will not be cited. Which video did they
view? Long live diving.
>
--- End Quote ---
If they believe there was contact then I'm surprised Leeds won
the appeal. I know that not every piece of contact means it's a
foul but if they believe there was contact, can they
conclusively say that no foul was committed and therefore the
referee's original decision was wrong?
Whilst I'm not fully convinced that it was a foul, I think I
would have upheld the red card because I think there is enough
doubt that it can't be said the decision to give a foul was
conclusively wrong. As discussed, if giving the foul I think you
have to give a red card.
[/quote]
Personally I don't believe there was any contract at all, but
even if there was minimal contact I'm fascinated to know where
you saw a deliberate foul and therefore decide its a red card?
I could have sworn accidental fouls that deny a goalscoring
opportunity were now to be cautioned.
I certainly didn't see any "holding, pulling or pushing, not
playing the ball, serious foul play, violent conduct or
deliberate handball."
[/quote]
I don't see how you can regard it as 'playing the ball' because
the ball isn't there to be played at the moment that the 'foul'
occurs.
#Post#: 11617--------------------------------------------------
Re: Millwall v Leeds United
DIR By: exile
Date: October 8, 2019, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Readingfan link ---
>
> [quote author=exile link=topic=1073.msg11612#msg11612
date=1570565429]
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=1073.msg11610#msg11610
date=1570562384]
> [quote author=sastley link=topic=1073.msg11609#msg11609
date=1570561708]
> Now been stated by the panel that because there was contact
the Millwall player will not be cited. Which video did they
view? Long live diving.
>
--- End Quote ---
If they believe there was contact then I'm surprised Leeds won
the appeal. I know that not every piece of contact means it's a
foul but if they believe there was contact, can they
conclusively say that no foul was committed and therefore the
referee's original decision was wrong?
Whilst I'm not fully convinced that it was a foul, I think I
would have upheld the red card because I think there is enough
doubt that it can't be said the decision to give a foul was
conclusively wrong. As discussed, if giving the foul I think you
have to give a red card.
[/quote]
Personally I don't believe there was any contract at all, but
even if there was minimal contact I'm fascinated to know where
you saw a deliberate foul and therefore decide its a red card?
I could have sworn accidental fouls that deny a goalscoring
opportunity were now to be cautioned.
I certainly didn't see any "holding, pulling or pushing, not
playing the ball, serious foul play, violent conduct or
deliberate handball."
[/quote]
I don't see how you can regard it as 'playing the ball' because
the ball isn't there to be played at the moment that the 'foul'
occurs.
[/quote]
Where did I say he played the ball? I simply quoted the offences
that could incur a red card. He made no attempt to tackle
Bradshaw, play the ball or interfere with him in any way. That's
my point. IF and its a big if, he touched Bradshaw it was the
faintest of touches completely by accident. So as i said, I'm
fascinated to know how you justify a red card.
#Post#: 11620--------------------------------------------------
Re: Millwall v Leeds United
DIR By: Maltese Falcon
Date: October 8, 2019, 5:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Accidental or deliberate is irrelevant IF he made contact. Then
the question, when deciding the sanction, becomes 'was the
contact part of a legitimate attempt for the ball'. In this
case the answer was clearly no and therefore the DOGSO sanction
remains red, despite being in the area. Baffled by the result
of the appeal ....
#Post#: 11621--------------------------------------------------
Re: Millwall v Leeds United
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: October 8, 2019, 5:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: exile link ---
>
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=1073.msg11615#msg11615
date=1570567339]
> [quote author=exile link=topic=1073.msg11612#msg11612
date=1570565429]
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=1073.msg11610#msg11610
date=1570562384]
> [quote author=sastley link=topic=1073.msg11609#msg11609
date=1570561708]
> Now been stated by the panel that because there was contact
the Millwall player will not be cited. Which video did they
view? Long live diving.
>
--- End Quote ---
If they believe there was contact then I'm surprised Leeds won
the appeal. I know that not every piece of contact means it's a
foul but if they believe there was contact, can they
conclusively say that no foul was committed and therefore the
referee's original decision was wrong?
Whilst I'm not fully convinced that it was a foul, I think I
would have upheld the red card because I think there is enough
doubt that it can't be said the decision to give a foul was
conclusively wrong. As discussed, if giving the foul I think you
have to give a red card.
[/quote]
Personally I don't believe there was any contract at all, but
even if there was minimal contact I'm fascinated to know where
you saw a deliberate foul and therefore decide its a red card?
I could have sworn accidental fouls that deny a goalscoring
opportunity were now to be cautioned.
I certainly didn't see any "holding, pulling or pushing, not
playing the ball, serious foul play, violent conduct or
deliberate handball."
[/quote]
I don't see how you can regard it as 'playing the ball' because
the ball isn't there to be played at the moment that the 'foul'
occurs.
[/quote]
Where did I say he played the ball? I simply quoted the offences
that could incur a red card. He made no attempt to tackle
Bradshaw, play the ball or interfere with him in any way. That's
my point. IF and its a big if, he touched Bradshaw it was the
faintest of touches completely by accident. So as i said, I'm
fascinated to know how you justify a red card.
[/quote]
You say yourself that he made no attempt to play the ball - I
was referencing the 'not playing the ball' part that you
referred to.
As stated in Law 12 of the FA's website, 'Where a player commits
an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area
which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and
the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is
cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball'.
I do not believe that the above applied - as you seem to agree
with - and therefore if it was a foul (whether 'accidental' or
'deliberate') then it should be a red card if deemed to be
DOGSO.
I feel you are debating the wrong part. To me, the question is
'Was it a foul?' rather than 'How on earth can it be a red card
if it is a foul?'
#Post#: 11625--------------------------------------------------
Re: Millwall v Leeds United
DIR By: nemesis
Date: October 9, 2019, 4:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Maltese Falcon link ---
>
> Accidental or deliberate is irrelevant IF he made contact.
Then the question, when deciding the sanction, becomes 'was the
contact part of a legitimate attempt for the ball'. In this
case the answer was clearly no and therefore the DOGSO sanction
remains red, despite being in the area. Baffled by the result
of the appeal ....
>
--- End Quote ---
I care little for Leeds but .........
in my opinion you should be more concerned as to why referees
regularly give penalties (and cards) for such trivial matters
and why people witter on about "contact" which isn't, and never
has been, an offence. Also why the powers that be, whilst justly
removing an undeserved suspension, don't make a meaningful
effort to stop simulation.
#Post#: 11630--------------------------------------------------
Re: Millwall v Leeds United
DIR By: TVOS
Date: October 9, 2019, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: nemesis link ---
>
> [quote author=Maltese Falcon link=topic=1073.msg11620#msg11620
date=1570573839]
> Accidental or deliberate is irrelevant IF he made contact.
Then the question, when deciding the sanction, becomes 'was the
contact part of a legitimate attempt for the ball'. In this
case the answer was clearly no and therefore the DOGSO sanction
remains red, despite being in the area. Baffled by the result
of the appeal ....
>
--- End Quote ---
I care little for Leeds but .........
in my opinion you should be more concerned as to why referees
regularly give penalties (and cards) for such trivial matters
and why people witter on about "contact" which isn't, and never
has been, an offence. Also why the powers that be, whilst justly
removing an undeserved suspension, don't make a meaningful
effort to stop simulation.
[/quote]
Absolutely. I was at a game the other week where Darren Handley
made a point of telling players not to hold each other at a
corner, only to then completely ignore his own instructions when
the corner came over.
#Post#: 11640--------------------------------------------------
Re: Millwall v Leeds United
DIR By: Maltese Falcon
Date: October 9, 2019, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: nemesis link ---
>
> [quote author=Maltese Falcon link=topic=1073.msg11620#msg11620
date=1570573839]
> Accidental or deliberate is irrelevant IF he made contact.
Then the question, when deciding the sanction, becomes 'was the
contact part of a legitimate attempt for the ball'. In this
case the answer was clearly no and therefore the DOGSO sanction
remains red, despite being in the area. Baffled by the result
of the appeal ....
>
--- End Quote ---
I care little for Leeds but .........
in my opinion you should be more concerned as to why referees
regularly give penalties (and cards) for such trivial matters
and why people witter on about "contact" which isn't, and never
has been, an offence. Also why the powers that be, whilst justly
removing an undeserved suspension, don't make a meaningful
effort to stop simulation.
[/quote]
I stand corrected. In my haste to clarify why a red card was
the correct sanction IF it was foul, I confused matters by
mentioning contact. You are completely right that overly 'soft'
FKs and PKs from trifling contact are unhelpful and can
certainly encourage unwanted simulation
#Post#: 11642--------------------------------------------------
Re: Millwall v Leeds United
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: October 9, 2019, 3:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Maltese Falcon link ---
>
> [quote author=nemesis link=topic=1073.msg11625#msg11625
date=1570611922]
> [quote author=Maltese Falcon link=topic=1073.msg11620#msg11620
date=1570573839]
> Accidental or deliberate is irrelevant IF he made contact.
Then the question, when deciding the sanction, becomes 'was the
contact part of a legitimate attempt for the ball'. In this
case the answer was clearly no and therefore the DOGSO sanction
remains red, despite being in the area. Baffled by the result
of the appeal ....
>
--- End Quote ---
I care little for Leeds but .........
in my opinion you should be more concerned as to why referees
regularly give penalties (and cards) for such trivial matters
and why people witter on about "contact" which isn't, and never
has been, an offence. Also why the powers that be, whilst justly
removing an undeserved suspension, don't make a meaningful
effort to stop simulation.
[/quote]
I stand corrected. In my haste to clarify why a red card was
the correct sanction IF it was foul, I confused matters by
mentioning contact. You are completely right that overly 'soft'
FKs and PKs from trifling contact are unhelpful and can
certainly encourage unwanted simulation
[/quote]
I agree with you. However, whilst not all contact is a foul, I
think that a clip to the ankles (even if accidental) in a
situation where the attacker is in front of the defender and
running at pace probably could be considered sufficient to
regard as a foul.
In this instance, I think there is enough doubt about whether
the striker simulated that it was right not to bring a charge
for that offence.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page