DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 21670--------------------------------------------------
Re: Jarred Gillett Coventry v Bournemouth 2-Oct-20
DIR By: LateTackle
Date: October 6, 2020, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DublinRef link ---
>
> [quote author=LateTackle link=topic=1815.msg21608#msg21608
date=1601828999]
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=1815.msg21573#msg21573
date=1601752607]
> On your point LateTackle - This may sound stupid - but I think
we all know that an act does not have to be violent for it to be
considered violent conduct.
>
> The red card is correct, hand to the face and you are always
in big trouble, nailed on red? No. Have we seen yellow given for
similar before? Probably. Incorrect red? Not a chance.
>
> The action by Cook looked to me to be a rough push to the
chest, yes with much more force than the "slap" that got red but
rightly or wrongly a push to the chest versus a hand to the face
will never be viewed the same.
>
> I totally agree with PhiltheRef, just because someone seems to
be facing towards an incident does not at all mean that they saw
it, its very difficult on TV to see where ones eyes are focused.
>
--- End Quote ---
I do take your point about what constitutes violent conduct but
what you say absolutely defines how ridiculous the game has
become. Hamer did nothing violent but gets a red for violent
conduct. Cook commits an obvious act of violence and stays on.
Absolutely ridiculous state of affairs! I would advocate that
a red card for violent conduct should be just that, not cobbled
together from the more and more farcical interpretations we are
seeing now. Just look at the handball situation.
I have long contended that making interpretations more arcane
and convoluted has the effect of allowing a decision at a given
situation justifiable, whichever way it is called. Football is
a simple game made complicated to protect the integrity and
credibility of referees. Another example is that of players
falling over to buy a penalty, usually with the slightest of
contact. Coaches 'expect' penalties when there is contact so
their players fall over at the slightest touch. An example was
Leicester's 3rd (!) penalty last week when Madison fell like a
hyperactive toddler at a mere touch. All pundits agree a
penalty is correct and he was 'entitled to go down'. (Madison
had a reputation for this at Coventry before he was 20.) It's
time that referees realised that football is a game of contact
and 'buying' penalties has no place in it.
Football loses credibility season by season, largely because of
the way referees are instructed to referee. They are like
robots, for which I don't hold them to blame. But I, like lots
of people I know, are done with the professional game now,
especially the sheer lunacy that is the Premier League.
As for what a referee can see, it is a reasonable assumption
that a professional referee can see what happens 5 yards in
front of his nose. If he didn't see it, what the hell was he
looking at? Maybe time for a career change. ;)
Rant over......for now! ::)
[/quote]
I very much take your point and agree with lots of what you say.
In my view I would question whether either player really needed
to be sent off, I think two yellow cards would have been fine -
I just don't think that would be allowed with the current
laws/interpretations.
I think the problem is lack of trust in the referees to deem
what is a fair sanction, everything is too heavily prescribed
and directed, its like for every situation the referee has to
fit it into a certain box or frame (even if it doesn't fit very
well) without being able to interpret it him/herself.
I think we need to go back to trusting referees to dish out a
fair sanction, the punishment should match the crime so to speak
and a red for Hamer was way too harsh imo - but totally correct
as the law currently stands.
[/quote]
Exactly my point and what I have been saying for a long time! I
could not have ever picked up a whistle under the current
farcical regime. When I refereed I feel I was capable of
judging what was violent and what wasn't, and I was certainly
capable of deciding whether there was intent in a handball
situation. There seems to be no room to apply common sense any
more. When I qualified as a referee we were taught that the
most important thing to learn was Law 18.
Referees have become robots, programmed by ever more restrictive
and meaningless interpretations by the hierarchy. It has ruined
the game as a spectacle at top level. I would also add that a
referee should never have to award penalties, red cards and so
on simply on the say-so of someone else sat in a portakabin
miles away. VAR has a place but it should be alerting referees
to take a look on a monitor. Whatever happened to a referee
being the sole arbiter?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page