|
Post by stokesaint1 on Sept 2, 2015 18:25:25 GMT
Do they make it up as they go along? That will be a yes. Both the Affalay reduction to two games and the Noble rescinding, then charging the team are examples of cover ups to compensate for p*ss poor refereeing in the first place. Something has to be done to address both refereeing standards and FA arse protection of referees
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2015 18:33:15 GMT
Do they make it up as they go along? Since when has it been 2 games for that? Very odd! I did post this possibility on another thread on this topic. It's a new option introduced this season. If a club appeals unsucessfully against a dismissal for violent conduct, it can, in the alternative, submit a claim that the standard penalty is clearly excessive in the particular circumstances of the case. That is what has happened here. We are probably the first club to benefit from this change.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2015 18:39:31 GMT
Do they make it up as they go along? That will be a yes. Both the Affalay reduction to two games and the Noble rescinding, then charging the team are examples of cover ups to compensate for p*ss poor refereeing in the first place. Something has to be done to address both refereeing standards and FA arse protection of referees No they don't. See my other post. Changing the rules and notifying all clubs of that fact is not the same as "making it up as you go along". In Affelay's case the referees decision has been upheld. In Noble's case it hasn't but that doesn't mean that the players can get away with a breach of the rules, which have in fact been tightened up on that issue - a club can now be charged if 2 or more players aggressively confront the referee (it was previously three).
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 2, 2015 18:40:37 GMT
Do they make it up as they go along? Since when has it been 2 games for that? Very odd! I did post this possibility on another thread on this topic. It's a new option introduced this season. If a club appeals unsucessfully against a dismissal for violent conduct, it can, in the alternative, submit a claim that the standard penalty is clearly excessive in the particular circumstances of the case. That is what has happened here. We are probably the first club to benefit from this change. Its pretty ridiculous though isn't it? Its either violent conduct and a 3 game ban or it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2015 18:41:34 GMT
Maybe offence downgraded from violent conduct No - see my other post
|
|
|
Post by barcaontrent on Sept 2, 2015 18:43:44 GMT
must be because he was provoked
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2015 18:49:52 GMT
I did post this possibility on another thread on this topic. It's a new option introduced this season. If a club appeals unsucessfully against a dismissal for violent conduct, it can, in the alternative, submit a claim that the standard penalty is clearly excessive in the particular circumstances of the case. That is what has happened here. We are probably the first club to benefit from this change. Its pretty ridiculous though isn't it? Its either violent conduct and a 3 game ban or it isn't. Personally, I don't agree. I have always thought that it's a pretty crude system which doesn't allow for any flexibility at all according to the context of the incident. Of course it does make it less simple, and introduces the judgement of the Regulatory Commission on the clearly excessive point, but I think that's justified. Incidentally, it is theoretically possible to have an extra game added because the appeal against the red card had no reasonable prospect of success and one taken off because the standard punishment is deemed to be clearly excessive, and end up where you started, although I think that's very unlikely to happen in practice
|
|
|
Post by stokesaint1 on Sept 2, 2015 18:55:06 GMT
That will be a yes. Both the Affalay reduction to two games and the Noble rescinding, then charging the team are examples of cover ups to compensate for p*ss poor refereeing in the first place. Something has to be done to address both refereeing standards and FA arse protection of referees No they don't. See my other post. Changing the rules and notifying all clubs of that fact is not the same as "making it up as you go along". In Affelay's case the referees decision has been upheld. In Noble's case it hasn't but that doesn't mean that the players can get away with a breach of the rules, which have in fact been tightened up on that issue - a club can now be charged if 2 or more players aggressively confront the referee (it was previously three). Malcolm, thanks for the clarification but my comments on p*ss poor refereeing standards and FA protection of these poor referees stands.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 2, 2015 19:15:07 GMT
That will be a yes. Both the Affalay reduction to two games and the Noble rescinding, then charging the team are examples of cover ups to compensate for p*ss poor refereeing in the first place. Something has to be done to address both refereeing standards and FA arse protection of referees No they don't. See my other post. Changing the rules and notifying all clubs of that fact is not the same as "making it up as you go along". In Affelay's case the referees decision has been upheld. In Noble's case it hasn't but that doesn't mean that the players can get away with a breach of the rules, which have in fact been tightened up on that issue - a club can now be charged if 2 or more players aggressively confront the referee (it was previously three). Let's be honest here Malcolm, what is really missing are refs who can properly control a game like a man instead of spoilt schoolboys hankering for some look at me publicity. What's wrong with the ref pulling two players together or an individual and giving them a stern talking to and a last warning. It doesn't seem to happen anymore but instead refs ruin games by using yellow and red cards as the first resort to stamp out handbags and other petty offences. Even Charlie's standing on the blokes leg could have been dealt with much differently but, unfortunately, his reputation precedes him. Yes there are times when cards should be used without warning for violent tackles and dangerous use of arm. Let's not forget the fans here who pay a kings ransom to watch games and refs must play a part in ensuring they get value for money. IMO the FA need to take a long hard look at the whole issue of red/yellow cards usage by refs and start issuing directives along the lines of allowing refs to use their discretion. Also from what you say one player can aggressively confront the ref without retribution......that's absurd.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 2, 2015 19:21:03 GMT
Its pretty ridiculous though isn't it? Its either violent conduct and a 3 game ban or it isn't. Personally, I don't agree. I have always thought that it's a pretty crude system which doesn't allow for any flexibility at all according to the context of the incident. Of course it does make it less simple, and introduces the judgement of the Regulatory Commission on the clearly excessive point, but I think that's justified. Incidentally, it is theoretically possible to have an extra game added because the appeal against the red card had no reasonable prospect of success and one taken off because the standard punishment is deemed to be clearly excessive, and end up where you started, although I think that's very unlikely to happen in practice To me its yet another thing that can be "abused" so as to help out or bow down to the bigger, more powerful clubs and was actually probably introduced because of the matic incident v Burnley.
|
|
|
Post by oatcakesteve on Sept 2, 2015 19:24:37 GMT
Only the oatcake can moan about the FA reducing our player's ban, christ alive Well it's like they are trying to right a wrong, and admitting that the officials got it wrong. It stinks, frankly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 19:30:02 GMT
Only the oatcake can moan about the FA reducing our player's ban, christ alive Well it's like they are trying to right a wrong, and admitting that the officials got it wrong. It stinks, frankly. What's wrong with that? They should be doing little things like this to right these wrongs imo. If it were up to me we'd have replays, similar to rugby but sadly it's not up to me! Little efforts by the FA like that will therefore, have to suffice!
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2015 19:33:31 GMT
Let's be honest here, what is really missing are refs who can properly control a game like a man instead of spoilt schoolboys hankering for some look at me publicity. What's wrong with the ref pulling two players together or an individual and giving them a stern talking to and a last warning. It doesn't seem to happen anymore but instead refs ruin games by using yellow and red cards as the first resort to stamp out handbags and other petty offences. Even Charlie's standing on the blokes leg could have been dealt with much differently but, unfortunately, his reputation precedes him. Yes there are times when cards should be used without warning for violent tackles and dangerous use of arm. Let's not forget the fans here who pay a kings ransom to watch games and refs must play a part in ensuring they get value for money. I think a lot of referees would agree with you and would like to return to the situation where they had greater discretion to manage the game as they see fit. The problem of course is that to the extent that such discretion is allowed, there will be criticism of inconsistency between referees, and similar incidents will receive different consequences to a much greater extent than now. Discretion and inconsistency are arguably two sides of the same coin. Gordon Hill, who was recognised as one of the best referees of his era, was proud of the fact that he never sent a player off. I remember an incident at Old Trafford when two players (can't remember who) started an off the ball boxing match. Hill came over, grabbed them both by the ear, literally, led them a few yards like naughty schoolboys, and gave them a very public dressing down, before letting them and everyone else get on with the game, to great applause from the crowd. It could never happen today.
|
|
|
Post by oatcakesteve on Sept 2, 2015 19:34:50 GMT
Well it's like they are trying to right a wrong, and admitting that the officials got it wrong. It stinks, frankly. What's wrong with that? They should be doing little things like this to right these wrongs imo. If it were up to me we'd have replays, similar to rugby but sadly it's not up to me! Little efforts by the FA like that will therefore, have to suffice! Nothing wrong with it per se, It's just that both players get a red or both stay on the pitch, they know it's a fuck up. And I'm with you on the replays, football is way behind the times in that respect.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 19:42:55 GMT
What's wrong with that? They should be doing little things like this to right these wrongs imo. If it were up to me we'd have replays, similar to rugby but sadly it's not up to me! Little efforts by the FA like that will therefore, have to suffice! Nothing wrong with it per se, It's just that both players get a red or both stay on the pitch, they know it's a fuck up. And I'm with you on the replays, football is way behind the times in that respect. Regrettably it is way behind in many respects!
|
|
|
Post by luciani on Sept 2, 2015 19:44:55 GMT
Sorry but I just don't get this "both should have got a red" argument. Gardner tapped Afellay under the chin - Afellay slapped Gardner. No comparison.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Sept 2, 2015 19:46:35 GMT
Violent conduct - 3 games Bitch slapping - 2 games Mild goosing (absence of deep heat on goosing finger) - 1 game Simple really. lightly step 1 game step hard (but not quite a stamp) 2 games stamp with hint of twisting 3 games
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Sept 2, 2015 19:55:37 GMT
What's wrong with that? They should be doing little things like this to right these wrongs imo. If it were up to me we'd have replays, similar to rugby but sadly it's not up to me! Little efforts by the FA like that will therefore, have to suffice! Nothing wrong with it per se, It's just that both players get a red or both stay on the pitch, they know it's a fuck up. And I'm with you on the replays, football is way behind the times in that respect. I'm not in favour of over-officiating the game and handing decisions away from the ref by introducing more technology. Improvements are needed. Hopefully this decision will be explained and fed back to Oliver, fed up the line so he can learn from it and be part of a process of improvent. Hopefully. Better that there's been some action than it being accepted and brushed under the carpet.
|
|
|
Post by oatcakesteve on Sept 2, 2015 20:01:19 GMT
Nothing wrong with it per se, It's just that both players get a red or both stay on the pitch, they know it's a fuck up. And I'm with you on the replays, football is way behind the times in that respect. I'm not in favour of over-officiating the game and handing decisions away from the ref by introducing more technology. Improvements are needed. Hopefully this decision will be explained and fed back to Oliver, fed up the line so he can learn from it and be part of a process of improvent. Hopefully. Better that there's been some action than it being accepted and brushed under the carpet. It's got to come eventually, this is 2015 not 1975, and the sooner the better for me. How are those improvements coming otherwise? And how is it over officiating? All the right decisions will be made, every time.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Sept 2, 2015 20:11:15 GMT
Dear Stoke,
Now that you've lost the game (hurrah) we can afford to be magnanimous and reduce the ban to pretend we are even handed. We've employed this tactic several times with you in the past and are very pleased with it although we may need to do it more frequently in future in an attempt to get you relegated.
nb) Mr Gardners "suspension" remains at zero games. Mr Lovrens also. So for the four incidents so far this season we are happy to confirm that the score is a satisfactory 100% against Stoke.
zero regards, the F.A.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Sept 2, 2015 20:21:25 GMT
I'm not in favour of over-officiating the game and handing decisions away from the ref by introducing more technology. Improvements are needed. Hopefully this decision will be explained and fed back to Oliver, fed up the line so he can learn from it and be part of a process of improvent. Hopefully. Better that there's been some action than it being accepted and brushed under the carpet. It's got to come eventually, this is 2015 not 1975, and the sooner the better for me. How are those improvements coming otherwise? I'll go with whatever flow happens re technology. I don't have a lot of say in it. But I don't want it to be too obtrusive to the game, or it's flow. Is an observer of a screen and an earpiece going to add that much? The major problem is the ref keeping up with the game, and being fresh enough/composed enough to react rationally. I don't go with conspiracy theories that officialdom has a campaign against Stoke, and on the whole I'm not against the refs, they generally do the bread and butter stuff ok, it's marginal stuff that's the problem. I have seen some woeful displays. Weak reffing, weak and indecisive or over meddling linesmen {or whatever they're called}. My solution is controversial: another pair of eyes and some back-up/balance on the pitch would be better than more technology for me. A ref in each half, and the lino's do the lino-ing. I also like Danny Kelly's idea of subbing rather than being reduced to ten. If a player gets sent off for two yellows {non violent reds} they can be replaced. You've lost that player, and lost the use of a sub, but you've got a full team.
|
|
|
Post by oatcakesteve on Sept 2, 2015 20:22:42 GMT
Dear Stoke, Now that you've lost the game (hurrah) we can afford to be magnanimous and reduce the ban to pretend we are even handed. We've employed this tactic several times with you in the past and are very pleased with it although we may need to do it more frequently in future in an attempt to get you relegated. nb) Mr Gardners "suspension" remains at zero games. Mr Lovrens also. So for the four incidents so far this season we are happy to confirm that the score is a satisfactory 100% against Stoke. zero regards, the F.A. In my humble opinion, there is definite bias by the officials in this league, some may even have an agenda? Replays have to come for me, over officiating it is not, fair play is what it is. It'll stop teams like us getting screwed and stop the so called "big boys" getting away with murder every week.
|
|
|
Post by oatcakesteve on Sept 2, 2015 20:27:35 GMT
It's got to come eventually, this is 2015 not 1975, and the sooner the better for me. How are those improvements coming otherwise? I'll go with whatever flow happens re technology. I don't have a lot of say in it. But I don't want it to be too obtrusive to the game, or it's flow. Is an observer of a screen and an earpiece going to add that much? The major problem is the ref keeping up with the game, and being fresh enough/composed enough to react rationally. I don't go with conspiracy theories that officialdom has a campaign against Stoke, and on the whole I'm not against the refs, they generally do the bread and butter stuff ok, it's marginal stuff that's the problem. I have seen some woeful displays. Weak reffing, weak and indecisive or over meddling linesmen {or whatever they're called}. My solution is controversial: another pair of eyes and some back-up/balance on the pitch would be better than more technology for me. A ref in each half, and the lino's do the lino-ing. I also like Danny Kelly's idea of subbing rather than being reduced to ten. If a player gets sent off for two yellows {non violent reds} they can be replaced. You've lost that player, and lost the use of a sub, but you've got a full team. I understand where you are coming from mate, but we have to move with the times. If it stays like this, the sport will begin to look ancient.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2015 20:33:15 GMT
Nothing wrong with it per se, It's just that both players get a red or both stay on the pitch, they know it's a fuck up. And I'm with you on the replays, football is way behind the times in that respect. I'm not in favour of over-officiating the game and handing decisions away from the ref by introducing more technology. Improvements are needed. Hopefully this decision will be explained and fed back to Oliver, fed up the line so he can learn from it and be part of a process of improvent. Hopefully. Better that there's been some action than it being accepted and brushed under the carpet. I know that the PGMOL ( Mike Riley, Howard Webb and their crew) do extensive reviews of refs. performance and controversial decisions in each game and give rigorous feedback to the refs. Occasionally, officials do get suspended for very bad mistakes and sometimes get relegated from the top flight if their performance consistently falls below par. You can be certain that Oliver will have had feedback on all the controversial incidents from Saturday. It's just that we are not told what that feedback is. The FA regulatory commission has upheld the Affeley red card. The complaint seems to be more that the WBA player should also have had a red than that Affeley's was wrong. No doubt Riley, Webb and co will have taken a view on that. I don't think Stoke even appealed the Adam card did they ?
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 2, 2015 20:45:26 GMT
Let's be honest here, what is really missing are refs who can properly control a game like a man instead of spoilt schoolboys hankering for some look at me publicity. What's wrong with the ref pulling two players together or an individual and giving them a stern talking to and a last warning. It doesn't seem to happen anymore but instead refs ruin games by using yellow and red cards as the first resort to stamp out handbags and other petty offences. Even Charlie's standing on the blokes leg could have been dealt with much differently but, unfortunately, his reputation precedes him. Yes there are times when cards should be used without warning for violent tackles and dangerous use of arm. Let's not forget the fans here who pay a kings ransom to watch games and refs must play a part in ensuring they get value for money. I think a lot of referees would agree with you and would like to return to the situation where they had greater discretion to manage the game as they see fit. The problem of course is that to the extent that such discretion is allowed, there will be criticism of inconsistency between referees, and similar incidents will receive different consequences to a much greater extent than now. Discretion and inconsistency are arguably two sides of the same coin. Gordon Hill, who was recognised as one of the best referees of his era, was proud of the fact that he never sent a player off. I remember an incident at Old Trafford when two players (can't remember who) started an off the ball boxing match. Hill came over, grabbed them both by the ear, literally, led them a few yards like naughty schoolboys, and gave them a very public dressing down, before letting them and everyone else get on with the game, to great applause from the crowd. It could never happen today. I can see what you mean regarding inconsistencies. However inconsistencies will always happen because refs are human regardless of whether they are allowed to use their discretion or not. Inconsistencies are now exaggerated because when a ref brandishes a red or yellow card and another ref doesn't for the same offence then players, clubs and ultimately fans feel far more agrieved. Take the incident on Saturday with Affelay.....if the ref had taken him aside and given him a right bollocking then we wouldn't all be discussing now the rights and wrongs of Gardiner not being punished. Perhaps the FA should take a leaf out of Gordon Hill's book.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Sept 2, 2015 21:40:45 GMT
no such rule though. see 'Raising Your Hands' and other misconceptions There are numerous misconceptions about the laws of the game and it is only fair to point these out here. 1) “If you raise your hands, you’re going to get sent off” This is simply not a rule. If you ‘raise your hand’ and punch someone it is going to be considered violent conduct and you will be sent off. If you ‘raise your hand’ to appeal for offside you have not committed an offense and no action will be taken. It may sound petty but the fact is, no-one is sent off for raising their hands; they are sent off for violent conduct. The upshot being that if you push someone or put your hand on their face it may not necessarily be a red card although many commentators will say it should be, repeating the above phrase. The determining factor is whether the referee considers the conduct to be violent. flawsofthegame.blogspot.co.uk/p/raising-your-hands-and-other.htmlIt has to be deemed "violent" Sending-off offencesA player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences: •serious foul play •violent conduct •spitting at an opponent or any other person •denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area) •denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick •using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures •receiving a second caution in the same match www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct.aspxSo to go back to the Adam incident, I assume he was sent off for violent conduct on the say-so of the linesman. Whether you believe what he did was deliberate or not, it wasn't really violent conduct was it? I think there's a rule that says "If you're 'that kind of player' then all bets are off". Similarly if you're 'not that kind of player' or play for a big club you can basically butt fuck someone and the most you'll get is a yellow.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Sept 2, 2015 21:42:57 GMT
Sorry but I just don't get this "both should have got a red" argument. Gardner tapped Afellay under the chin - Afellay slapped Gardner. No comparison. Both are raised hands. Neither hurt the other. What's the difference?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 2, 2015 21:51:50 GMT
Do they make it up as they go along? Since when has it been 2 games for that? Very odd! I did post this possibility on another thread on this topic. It's a new option introduced this season. If a club appeals unsucessfully against a dismissal for violent conduct, it can, in the alternative, submit a claim that the standard penalty is clearly excessive in the particular circumstances of the case. That is what has happened here. We are probably the first club to benefit from this change. Seems like a load of old bollocks to me that Malcolm. Surely it's violent or not? And if it isn't, it's not a red. Why grey they issue?
|
|
|
Post by spongebobflathead on Sept 2, 2015 21:58:00 GMT
I'm not in favour of over-officiating the game and handing decisions away from the ref by introducing more technology. Improvements are needed. Hopefully this decision will be explained and fed back to Oliver, fed up the line so he can learn from it and be part of a process of improvent. Hopefully. Better that there's been some action than it being accepted and brushed under the carpet. I know that the PGMOL ( Mike Riley, Howard Webb and their crew) do extensive reviews of refs. performance and controversial decisions in each game and give rigorous feedback to the refs. Occasionally, officials do get suspended for very bad mistakes and sometimes get relegated from the top flight if their performance consistently falls below par. You can be certain that Oliver will have had feedback on all the controversial incidents from Saturday. It's just that we are not told what that feedback is. The FA regulatory commission has upheld the Affeley red card. The complaint seems to be more that the WBA player should also have had a red than that Affeley's was wrong. No doubt Riley, Webb and co will have taken a view on that. I don't think Stoke even appealed the Adam card did they ? Pgmol , what a fuckin joke
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2015 22:05:36 GMT
I did post this possibility on another thread on this topic. It's a new option introduced this season. If a club appeals unsucessfully against a dismissal for violent conduct, it can, in the alternative, submit a claim that the standard penalty is clearly excessive in the particular circumstances of the case. That is what has happened here. We are probably the first club to benefit from this change. Seems like a load of old bollocks to me that Malcolm. Surely it's violent or not? And if it isn't, it's not a red. Why grey they issue? I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave above to Mr.Johnno
|
|