DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103956--------------------------------------------------
Re: Anthony Backhouse - Norwich vs Ipswich
DIR By: Kerry Nash
Date: April 12, 2026, 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A very poor game from Backhouse, his reluctance to give red was
incredible…. Hence the 10 yellows in the game, had he had x2/3
off he would of only had 5/6 yellows imo or the players would
have got the understanding and maybe he would of only had 1 off
and 5/6 yellows.
In
His record on red cards over last 3 seasons might showcase why
he didn’t show red
23-24 season - 28 games - 2 reds
24-25 season - 33 games - 4 reds
25-26 season - 25 games - 0 reds
86 games to date over 3 seasons 6 reds ! Pretty low
#Post#: 103960--------------------------------------------------
Re: Anthony Backhouse - Norwich vs Ipswich
DIR By: TheThingFromLewes
Date: April 12, 2026, 11:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kerry Nash link ---
>
> A very poor game from Backhouse, his reluctance to give red
was incredible…. Hence the 10 yellows in the game, had he had
x2/3 off he would of only had 5/6 yellows imo or the players
would have got the understanding and maybe he would of only had
1 off and 5/6 yellows.
> In
> His record on red cards over last 3 seasons might showcase why
he didn’t show red
>
> 23-24 season - 28 games - 2 reds
> 24-25 season - 33 games - 4 reds
> 25-26 season - 25 games - 0 reds
>
> 86 games to date over 3 seasons 6 reds ! Pretty low
>
--- End Quote ---
A Grant Hegley regen?
#Post#: 103969--------------------------------------------------
Re: Anthony Backhouse - Norwich vs Ipswich
DIR By: RCG
Date: April 12, 2026, 1:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Not sure how it "has" to be a 2YC if you only deem it careless
though!"
As he had already committed 1 careless foul after the YC, a 2nd
careless tackle of that nature would get a YC on totting up -
hence, it HAD to be a YC
#Post#: 103973--------------------------------------------------
Re: Anthony Backhouse - Norwich vs Ipswich
DIR By: nemesis
Date: April 12, 2026, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RCG link ---
>
> "Not sure how it "has" to be a 2YC if you only deem it
careless though!"
>
> As he had already committed 1 careless foul after the YC, a
2nd careless tackle of that nature would get a YC on totting up
- hence, it HAD to be a YC
>
--- End Quote ---
Two is hardly persistent in terms of totting up.
Happily Norwich expended far more effort in trying to get
players sent off than they did in trying to get back into the
game !
#Post#: 103980--------------------------------------------------
Re: Anthony Backhouse - Norwich vs Ipswich
DIR By: rustyref
Date: April 12, 2026, 5:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RCG link ---
>
> "Not sure how it "has" to be a 2YC if you only deem it
careless though!"
>
> As he had already committed 1 careless foul after the YC, a
2nd careless tackle of that nature would get a YC on totting up
- hence, it HAD to be a YC
>
--- End Quote ---
That isn't even close to being right. It would only be a
caution if it was deemed to be reckless, SPA, or persistent
infringement. Not sure I could think of any referees that would
deem 2 fouls to be persistent infringement, and there is no such
offence as "totting up". To give a caution for PI, even more so
a second caution, the referee needs to have made it very clear
to the player that his next transgression would result in a
caution.
#Post#: 103982--------------------------------------------------
Re: Anthony Backhouse - Norwich vs Ipswich
DIR By: RCG
Date: April 13, 2026, 1:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am not suggesting 2 fouls is a YC - 2 fouls of the nature the
player committed certainly would have been in games I refereed -
the first, late, stupid having been booked; the second was
borderline YC anyway.
Whatever your view on the process it should have been a RC
#Post#: 104050--------------------------------------------------
Re: Anthony Backhouse - Norwich vs Ipswich
DIR By: Leggy
Date: April 13, 2026, 12:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> [quote author=RCG link=topic=7892.msg103969#msg103969
date=1776017668]
> "Not sure how it "has" to be a 2YC if you only deem it
careless though!"
>
> As he had already committed 1 careless foul after the YC, a
2nd careless tackle of that nature would get a YC on totting up
- hence, it HAD to be a YC
>
--- End Quote ---
That isn't even close to being right. It would only be a
caution if it was deemed to be reckless, SPA, or persistent
infringement. .
[/quote]
I have not seen this game, so my comment does not relate to any
specific incident. I think you are somewhat confusing what is
generally expected with what could happen. What you say ....
"Not sure I could think of any referees that would deem 2 fouls
to be persistent infringement."
.... is what we might expect. It is, however, perfectley
reasonable to deem two fouls as "persistent", especially if
there is a warning to that effect after the first one.
I used to sometimes mentally grade fouls in terms of driving
penalty points. Some fouls were two or three pointers, but some
could be seen as eleven point fouls (with 12 points leading to a
ban / caution). In those cases the player would be made aware
that it is not going to take a "big" foul to attract a caution
for persistant infringement. It is far from a perfect analogy,
but can work when deciding how to respond to a foul.
#Post#: 104053--------------------------------------------------
Re: Anthony Backhouse - Norwich vs Ipswich
DIR By: rustyref
Date: April 13, 2026, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=7892.msg103980#msg103980
date=1776032030]
> [quote author=RCG link=topic=7892.msg103969#msg103969
date=1776017668]
> "Not sure how it "has" to be a 2YC if you only deem it
careless though!"
>
> As he had already committed 1 careless foul after the YC, a
2nd careless tackle of that nature would get a YC on totting up
- hence, it HAD to be a YC
>
--- End Quote ---
That isn't even close to being right. It would only be a
caution if it was deemed to be reckless, SPA, or persistent
infringement. .
[/quote]
I have not seen this game, so my comment does not relate to any
specific incident. I think you are somewhat confusing what is
generally expected with what could happen. What you say ....
"Not sure I could think of any referees that would deem 2 fouls
to be persistent infringement."
.... is what we might expect. It is, however, perfectley
reasonable to deem two fouls as "persistent", especially if
there is a warning to that effect after the first one.
I used to sometimes mentally grade fouls in terms of driving
penalty points. Some fouls were two or three pointers, but some
could be seen as eleven point fouls (with 12 points leading to a
ban / caution). In those cases the player would be made aware
that it is not going to take a "big" foul to attract a caution
for persistant infringement. It is far from a perfect analogy,
but can work when deciding how to respond to a foul.
[/quote]
Which is why I caveated it by saying "the referee needs to have
made it very clear to the player that his next transgression
would result in a caution". If it has been set up that way then
there may be rare cases where two fouls could be considered as
persistent infringement, but without that setting up any referee
issuing a second caution for PI after just 2 fouls is going to
rightly get asked how 2 can be persistent.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page