DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18205--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace
DIR By: Ashington46
Date: June 21, 2020, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ARF link ---
>
> [quote author=Ashington46 link=topic=1553.msg18201#msg18201
date=1592730177]
> [quote author=Acme Thunderer link=topic=1553.msg18199#msg18199
date=1592725731]
> I would agree with the above about rustiness in players and
referees. I think (TTFL) that is what might have saved Cahill
from a red card. Call me biased but I believe Cahill went for
and got the ball and it was the inevitable follow through that
caught King on the ankle. I would not blame VAR Hooper in this
instance for not intervening and in fairness to Simon, he took
his time before deciding not to intervene.
>
> I'd not seen any games before last night's. Are all the 4Os
wearing face masks during the games? I thought it was Coote on
4O duties at AFCB and it was only late in the game that the name
Tim Robinson was mentioned!
>
--- End Quote ---
I really wonder just where the game is going when a cracking
tackle, where a player wins the ball fair and square, is
considered that it might be a red card incident. There were a
couple of other tackles made that Stuart Attwell penalised when
the players had done nothing wrong.
We are seeing players cautioned for other tackles when they have
won the ball fairly and squarely but the opponent goes to the
deck crying out.
It seems more and more that those running the game want it to
become a non-contact sport. It is becoming very sterile, thank
goodness that the NRL is available to watch and that the ball
seems to be as important as it always was, unlike modern
football where the ball is no longer relevant, or so it would
appear.
[/quote]
Really? You think this tackle is ok because "he got the ball"?
[img]
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbBtndLWsAUWc8h?format=jpg&name=medium[/img]
[/quote]
Played over 1000 games at a decent level, have shins, ankles and
knees to prove it and that tackle would not even have got a
second glance when football was played as it should be. Yes, you
used to get knocks and injuries, however, I only missed one game
through ankle ligament damage which occurred on a Wednesday and
meant that it was too swollen to play on the Saturday.
As I have said, the ball is completely incidental in modern
football as long as the players are 'protected'
#Post#: 18208--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace
DIR By: Acme Thunderer
Date: June 21, 2020, 9:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry ARF but I do not believe that this picture proves the
case for a red card. The ball can be seen moving off to the
right which was where it was always going once Cahill played the
ball. The picture does not actually show Cahill making contact
with King's ankle, although I accept that contact was made.
King's ankle appears to be already bent which may help to answer
why he had to go off. I would accept that a caution was
justified, but not a red card. I will collect my tin hat for any
responses.
#Post#: 18211--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace
DIR By: PhiltheRef
Date: June 21, 2020, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oddly though, despite VAR prognosticating over whether it ought
to have been a Red Card NO card whatsoever appeared to have been
brandished.
This perception seems to have been supported later in the game
when the commentator's summary of cards made no mention of
Cahill whatsoever
#Post#: 18215--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace
DIR By: Ashington46
Date: June 21, 2020, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: PhiltheRef link ---
>
> Oddly though, despite VAR prognosticating over whether it
ought to have been a Red Card NO card whatsoever appeared to
have been brandished.
> This perception seems to have been supported later in the game
when the commentator's summary of cards made no mention of
Cahill whatsoever
>
--- End Quote ---
He did not receive a card of any description, however, why
should he be cautioned for what was a cracking tackle?
Dawson of Watford was cautioned earlier this season for a great
tackle when he took the ball fair and square and his opponent
went to ground needlessly. A free kick was awarded and to add
insult to injury a caution was administered.
#Post#: 18216--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace
DIR By: rustyref
Date: June 21, 2020, 12:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Winning the ball means very little these days, nor does the fact
that there was no intent. All that can be asked is did the
challenge use excessive force and / or did it endanger the
safety of an opponent. Clearly it did the latter and it looks
like it may have badly injured him, and for me the fact that it
is a straight leg, studs showing, and off the ground ticks the
excessive force box as well.
Same for Dawson's challenge, yes he won the ball but the
challenge was reckless and he also took out the opponent. You
might not like it but that is modern football, a straight leg
challenge that makes contact with an opponent, even before or
after winning the ball, will almost always result in a red card.
#Post#: 18219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace
DIR By: bmb
Date: June 21, 2020, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Acme Thunderer link ---
>
> Right result though and Eddie Howe clearly has problems.
>
--- End Quote ---
Agree
#Post#: 18221--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace
DIR By: DublinRef
Date: June 21, 2020, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion the tackle by Cahill is reckless and deserves a
yellow card. Do I personally agree with this? No, personally I
favor Ashinngton’s view but unfortunately I do not think it’s in
line with the current laws and interpretations. The clean manner
in which he plays the ball can be taken into account to an
extent but not enough to avoid yellow imo. As for a red?
Possibly, there is force and contact with the studs to the lower
shin, more yellow for me although had a red been given I don’t
think VAR should have interviewed the same for no action/ a
yellow. So in my opinion Simon Hooper was 100% correct not to
intervene, it’s not a clear and obvious error either way.
I should emphasize that these are my views based on how the
current law and interpretation should be applied, not my
personal view on what the law should be.
#Post#: 18222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace
DIR By: bmb
Date: June 21, 2020, 1:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bmb link ---
>
> [quote author=Acme Thunderer link=topic=1553.msg18194#msg18194
date=1592686733]
> Right result though and Eddie Howe clearly has problems.
>
--- End Quote ---
Agree
[/quote]
I will however add that there is no-one I would rather see in
charge at AFCB than Eddie & Jason. If we are relegated, and it
does look more likely than not, then I hope we can keep a hold
of them. I can't imagine life at Dean Court without them there.
#Post#: 18223--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace
DIR By: ARF
Date: June 21, 2020, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Acme Thunderer link ---
>
> I am sorry ARF but I do not believe that this picture proves
the case for a red card. The ball can be seen moving off to the
right which was where it was always going once Cahill played the
ball. The picture does not actually show Cahill making contact
with King's ankle, although I accept that contact was made.
King's ankle appears to be already bent which may help to answer
why he had to go off. I would accept that a caution was
justified, but not a red card. I will collect my tin hat for any
responses.
>
--- End Quote ---
Not going to criticise for thinking it's a caution rather than a
sending off (although I would argue in favour of the latter
rather than the former)! I do have an issue with Ashington46's
attitude of "back in my day" etc. etc. though. Football has
evolved from then (IMO in general for the better, but I'm sure
there are a lot of people who think differently) and judging
incidents in the modern game based on what was/wasn't
permissible in a bygone era simply can't be done. For me any
referee giving less than a caution for this is failing to
proficiently apply the Laws of the Game (as they now are), and
is neglecting the safety of the player on the receiving end of
the tackle, as well as any other players on the pitch, who could
subsequently be tackled in a similar manner without the offender
expecting/receiving any sanction.
#Post#: 18232--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace
DIR By: ajb95
Date: June 21, 2020, 4:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ARF link ---
>
> [quote author=Acme Thunderer link=topic=1553.msg18208#msg18208
date=1592749880]
> I am sorry ARF but I do not believe that this picture proves
the case for a red card. The ball can be seen moving off to the
right which was where it was always going once Cahill played the
ball. The picture does not actually show Cahill making contact
with King's ankle, although I accept that contact was made.
King's ankle appears to be already bent which may help to answer
why he had to go off. I would accept that a caution was
justified, but not a red card. I will collect my tin hat for any
responses.
>
--- End Quote ---
Not going to criticise for thinking it's a caution rather than a
sending off (although I would argue in favour of the latter
rather than the former)! I do have an issue with Ashington46's
attitude of "back in my day" etc. etc. though. Football has
evolved from then (IMO in general for the better, but I'm sure
there are a lot of people who think differently) and judging
incidents in the modern game based on what was/wasn't
permissible in a bygone era simply can't be done. For me any
referee giving less than a caution for this is failing to
proficiently apply the Laws of the Game (as they now are), and
is neglecting the safety of the player on the receiving end of
the tackle, as well as any other players on the pitch, who could
subsequently be tackled in a similar manner without the offender
expecting/receiving any sanction.
[/quote]
IMO it’s the laws that are wrong. They are constantly being
moved towards a non contact sport!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page