DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 26585--------------------------------------------------
Re: M DEAN - Fulham v West Ham
DIR By: LateTackle
Date: February 8, 2021, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> Red card rescinded.
>
> Will the "victim" now be charged with "successful deception of
a (VAR) match official"?? ;)
>
--- End Quote ---
Dean made an error. I feel he misinterpreted intent, probably
an example of knowing the rules but not the game. It is correct
that the red card was rescinded but it doesn't resolve the
matter. Dean's correct decision would have been to penalise
Mitrovic for an attempt to deceive him. The panel should have
had the authority to impose a 3 game ban on Mitrovic for his
cheating. He caused the whole charade and gets off scot free.
#Post#: 26587--------------------------------------------------
Re: M DEAN - Fulham v West Ham
DIR By: Beryl
Date: February 8, 2021, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: LateTackle link ---
>
> [quote author=Leggy link=topic=2148.msg26565#msg26565
date=1612786111]
> Red card rescinded.
>
> Will the "victim" now be charged with "successful deception of
a (VAR) match official"?? ;)
>
--- End Quote ---
Dean made an error. I feel he misinterpreted intent, probably
an example of knowing the rules but not the game. It is correct
that the red card was rescinded but it doesn't resolve the
matter. Dean's correct decision would have been to penalise
Mitrovic for an attempt to deceive him. The panel should have
had the authority to impose a 3 game ban on Mitrovic for his
cheating. He caused the whole charade and gets off scot free.
[/quote]
You must a different lotg book tp the rest of planet earth
Mine, on violent conduct, makes no reference to intent.
#Post#: 26590--------------------------------------------------
Re: M DEAN - Fulham v West Ham
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: February 8, 2021, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is indeed astonishing that a referee of Mike Dean's
experience and seniority, who is generally rightly regarded as
one of the best decision makers in the SG1 should, after
multiple viewings, see grounds for issuing a red card when,
quite frankly, no such grounds appear to exist. It is quite
correct that the red card has been rescinded.
I hazard the guess that there are very few of us, in our
professional careers, who have not on occasions made an absolute
howler of a mistake which our experience and track record would
imply that we should never make and in doing so to cause our
colleagues to gasp with incredulity and astonishment. Unless we
hear directly from Mike Dean ( which we are most unlikely to do
) about what he saw or thought he saw which led him to believe
that the conditions for awarding a red card were present, then
it can only be a matter of speculation on our part as to why he
made such an error. I hope those responsible for senior referee
coaching will help him come to understand how he got it wrong
and thereby learn from it. Dean has been around for a long, long
time and is a confident personality. I am sure he will learn and
move on a wiser referee. If it had happened to a much younger
referee just starting out on their SG1 career then I would be
more concerned for them ( A principal reason, as it happens,
that although I don't think he's an exceptionally fine referee,
I do have respect for Stuart Attwell who came back from much
worse than this having had much less experience and at a much
younger age )
#Post#: 26591--------------------------------------------------
Re: M DEAN - Fulham v West Ham
DIR By: Leggy
Date: February 8, 2021, 9:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Beryl link ---
>
> [quote author=LateTackle link=topic=2148.msg26585#msg26585
date=1612794595]
> [quote author=Leggy link=topic=2148.msg26565#msg26565
date=1612786111]
> Red card rescinded.
>
> Will the "victim" now be charged with "successful deception of
a (VAR) match official"?? ;)
>
--- End Quote ---
Dean made an error. I feel he misinterpreted intent, probably
an example of knowing the rules but not the game. It is correct
that the red card was rescinded but it doesn't resolve the
matter. Dean's correct decision would have been to penalise
Mitrovic for an attempt to deceive him. The panel should have
had the authority to impose a 3 game ban on Mitrovic for his
cheating. He caused the whole charade and gets off scot free.
[/quote]
You must a different lotg book tp the rest of planet earth
Mine, on violent conduct, makes no reference to intent.
[/quote]
You are 100% correct - it does not. But the very definition of
violent conduct clearly implies an intended act.
I also 100% agree with you that Dean is at fault. To have
mis-read the contact "live" would have been understandable -
especially given Mitrovic's despicable over-reaction. To do so
with the benefit of numerous replays is harder to justify.
#Post#: 26592--------------------------------------------------
Re: M DEAN - Fulham v West Ham
DIR By: Beryl
Date: February 8, 2021, 9:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> [quote author=Beryl link=topic=2148.msg26587#msg26587
date=1612795082]
> [quote author=LateTackle link=topic=2148.msg26585#msg26585
date=1612794595]
> [quote author=Leggy link=topic=2148.msg26565#msg26565
date=1612786111]
> Red card rescinded.
>
> Will the "victim" now be charged with "successful deception of
a (VAR) match official"?? ;)
>
--- End Quote ---
Dean made an error. I feel he misinterpreted intent, probably
an example of knowing the rules but not the game. It is correct
that the red card was rescinded but it doesn't resolve the
matter. Dean's correct decision would have been to penalise
Mitrovic for an attempt to deceive him. The panel should have
had the authority to impose a 3 game ban on Mitrovic for his
cheating. He caused the whole charade and gets off scot free.
[/quote]
You must a different lotg book tp the rest of planet earth
Mine, on violent conduct, makes no reference to intent.
[/quote]
You are 100% correct - it does not. But the very definition of
violent conduct clearly implies an intended act.
I also 100% agree with you that Dean is at fault. To have
mis-read the contact "live" would have been understandable -
especially given Mitrovic's despicable over-reaction. To do so
with the benefit of numerous replays is harder to justify.
[/quote]
Agreed thanks and this is the astonishment. Without VAR, real
time, one look, we would accept the wrong dismissal, based
mostly on what we had perceived to have happened. It would
still be wrong, it would still be recinded, however at least we
could understand the devision
Without VAR and without a good look at it, a finger wagging to
each, OR even a yc each, hard to justify but, yellow each,
free kick comes in, is headed clear, full time whistle, nobody
would even remember the cards
Now, because of an inexplicable abomination of a call, we have
world wide coverage
Really cannot fathom out allowing him to referee midweek , for
his own benefit. His confidence must be shot, and just imagine
a third game in a row with a huge error?
We all want to get back out there after a poor showing, but the
eyes of the world and millions of £££ are not at stake in White
Swan v Sailors Arms
#Post#: 26593--------------------------------------------------
Re: M DEAN - Fulham v West Ham
DIR By: Ref Watcher
Date: February 8, 2021, 9:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps this would be a good point to reproduce the actual
wording of the Law with regards to violent conduct:
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use
excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not
challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official,
match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of
whether contact is made.
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball,
deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head
or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct
unless the force used was negligible.
My view is that paragraph one is not relevant in this incident -
excessive force or brutality was not used. For paragraph two to
apply, intent is required. My view is that the requirement for
this paragraph is not met as I am not satisfied that Mitrovic
was deliberately struck. It doesn't seem to me that Mr Dean had
no other option.
For what it's worth, Keith Hackett is of the same view in
today's Daily Telegraph. He also says, "The time is long
overdue for Mike Dean and Lee Mason to step down as referees
following their hapless double act when adjudicating on West Ham
United's Tomas Soucek," which seems a tad harsh and rather
smacks of someone with an agenda.
#Post#: 26594--------------------------------------------------
Re: M DEAN - Fulham v West Ham
DIR By: Beryl
Date: February 8, 2021, 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Watcher link ---
>
> Perhaps this would be a good point to reproduce the actual
wording of the Law with regards to violent conduct:
>
> Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use
excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not
challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official,
match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of
whether contact is made.
>
> In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball,
deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head
or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct
unless the force used was negligible.
>
> My view is that paragraph one is not relevant in this incident
- excessive force or brutality was not used. For paragraph two
to apply, intent is required. My view is that the requirement
for this paragraph is not met as I am not satisfied that
Mitrovic was deliberately struck. It doesn't seem to me that Mr
Dean had no other option.
>
> For what it's worth, Keith Hackett is of the same view in
today's Daily Telegraph. He also says, "The time is long
overdue for Mike Dean and Lee Mason to step down as referees
following their hapless double act when adjudicating on West Ham
United's Tomas Soucek," which seems a tad harsh and rather
smacks of someone with an agenda.
>
--- End Quote ---
Ironically, had Mason done a check on the incident and decided
there was nothing amiss, I would be praising him for good use of
technology.....
#Post#: 26596--------------------------------------------------
Re: M DEAN - Fulham v West Ham
DIR By: Matt1234
Date: February 8, 2021, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculous comment from Hackett. Have I missed something I
thought Graham Scott was the VAR at Old Trafford and Lee Mason
was fourth official. So unless this was changed it seems harsh
to split the duo of Dean and Mason up after one incorrect error
from them as a double team. I actually think Lee Mason is one
of the worst at being VAR but feel he shouldn't be blamed for
recommending a review of the Souchek challenge
#Post#: 26597--------------------------------------------------
Re: M DEAN - Fulham v West Ham
DIR By: bruntyboy
Date: February 8, 2021, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The powers that be could have made a stand on the play acting if
they had punished Lamela after he got Martial sent off at Old
Trafford earlier this season.
#Post#: 26599--------------------------------------------------
Re: M DEAN - Fulham v West Ham
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: February 8, 2021, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball,
deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head
or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct
unless the force used was negligible"
And in the Martial / Lamela incident, surely Anthony Taylor
could have taken the more common sense interpretation that the
force was negligible and dealt with the incident as 3 former
international referees suggested he should have done with a YC
to both players or even just a rollicking.
As said, in the Soucek incident, 'deliberately' is the get out
of jail free that Dean could have used.
You do wonder what instructions referees are under from PGMOL
and in particular Mike Riley.
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 10
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page