|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 2, 2015 22:10:39 GMT
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 I don't agree with it. I was all for the Afellay was an idiot and shouldn't have done what he did because of the (what I believed) steadfast draconian approach. If you're admitting it's not that violent then I don't think it should be a red. It is or it isn't. And clearly wasn't! |
|
|
|
Post by oatcakesteve on Sept 2, 2015 22:16:02 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 ? It screams technology Malcolm. It will come one day, why not now? |
|
|
|
Post by spongebobflathead on Sept 2, 2015 22:16:05 GMT
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 The truth of the matter is there is no grey area , it's not ambiguous and it's not subjective the bottom line is the fa and it's boys club the pgmol haven't a fuckin scoot doo what they think or what they think they think ! Routledge somehow managed to get his red card turned over from violently kicking out last season (provoked to be fair ) the inconsistency is breathtaking and a farce ! |
|
|
|
Post by oatcakesteve on Sept 2, 2015 22:23:12 GMT
I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave above to Mr.Johnno The truth of the matter is there is no grey area , it's not ambiguous and it's not subjective the bottom line is the fa and it's boys club the pgmol haven't a fuckin scoot doo what they think or what they think they think ! Routledge somehow managed to get his red card turned over from violently kicking out last season (provoked to be fair ) the inconsistency is breathtaking and a farce ! This is why it's needed, there is no dispute then. I mean come on, do you really want to see players on the pitch that shouldn't be there? These guys go on to score match winners. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 3, 2015 10:21:12 GMT
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 ? It screams technology Malcolm. It will come one day, why not now? Personally I agree, but I wouldn't hold your breath ! |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 3, 2015 10:44:48 GMT
I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave above to Mr.Johnno I don't agree with it. I was all for the Afellay was an idiot and shouldn't have done what he did because of the (what I believed) steadfast draconian approach. If you're admitting it's not that violent then I don't think it should be a red. It is or it isn't. And clearly wasn't! We're in danger of just repeating ourselves here, with the possibility of some linguistic confusion. There's "violent" in everyday usage and there's how "violent conduct" in Law 12 is interpreted in football. If it had happened in the street, probably some people wouldn't describe it as "violent". But, as all football participants should know, deliberate contact with the face is interpreted as violent conduct under law 12. Whether it should be, is another question. The question of what the penalty for that should be is a separate question. I can see that the standard one size fits all penalty for all violent conduct dismissals has the merits of clarity and simplicity. But it still seems to me that inability to take any account of context is a somewhat crude system. I suppose it's analagous to the difference between fix penalty fines and the discretion judges and magistrates have to vary sentences within certain guidelines. There's no absolute right or wrong here. It's just a question of which approach you prefer. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 3, 2015 10:51:12 GMT
I don't agree with it. I was all for the Afellay was an idiot and shouldn't have done what he did because of the (what I believed) steadfast draconian approach. If you're admitting it's not that violent then I don't think it should be a red. It is or it isn't. And clearly wasn't! We're in danger of just repeating ourselves here, with the possibility of some linguistic confusion. There's "violent" in everyday usage and there's how "violent conduct" in Law 12 is interpreted in football. If it had happened in the street, probably some people wouldn't describe it as "violent". But, as all football participants should know, deliberate contact with the face is interpreted as violent conduct under law 12. Whether it should be, is another question. The question of what the penalty for that should be is a separate question. I can see that the standard one size fits all penalty for all violent conduct dismissals has the merits of clarity and simplicity. But it still seems to me that inability to take any account of context is a somewhat crude system. I suppose it's analagous to the difference between fix penalty fines and the discretion judges and magistrates have to vary sentences within certain guidelines. There's no absolute right or wrong here. It's just a question of which approach you prefer. This makes sense to me. I can't see how the punishment for what Affelay did should be the same as when somebody deliberately elbows somebody in the cheekbone with force. They're both red card offences but that doesn't mean they should both carry the same penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by spongebobflathead on Sept 3, 2015 12:38:05 GMT
We're in danger of just repeating ourselves here, with the possibility of some linguistic confusion. There's "violent" in everyday usage and there's how "violent conduct" in Law 12 is interpreted in football. If it had happened in the street, probably some people wouldn't describe it as "violent". But, as all football participants should know, deliberate contact with the face is interpreted as violent conduct under law 12. Whether it should be, is another question. The question of what the penalty for that should be is a separate question. I can see that the standard one size fits all penalty for all violent conduct dismissals has the merits of clarity and simplicity. But it still seems to me that inability to take any account of context is a somewhat crude system. I suppose it's analagous to the difference between fix penalty fines and the discretion judges and magistrates have to vary sentences within certain guidelines. There's no absolute right or wrong here. It's just a question of which approach you prefer. This makes sense to me. I can't see how the punishment for what Affelay did should be the same as when somebody deliberately elbows somebody in the cheekbone with force. They're both red card offences but that doesn't mean they should both carry the same penalty. Absolutely Paul spot on , the only slight problem is that the fa and their independent chums have shown an unbelievable lack of consistency to their review procedure it's beggars belief ! It always makes me smile when I see a club appeal cos trying to second guess the outcome is comical ! |
|
|
|
Post by spongebobflathead on Sept 3, 2015 13:25:22 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 ? So I take it Riley ,web and co will recommend a retrospective ban against the wba player , behave |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 3, 2015 15:24:24 GMT
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 ? So I take it Riley ,web and co will recommend a retrospective ban against the wba player , behave No, they won't because they don't have any authority to do that. Their role is the performance of referees. The FA could consider retrospective action but only if the referee says he didn't see it, which seems unlikely in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by spongebobflathead on Sept 3, 2015 16:45:02 GMT
So I take it Riley ,web and co will recommend a retrospective ban against the wba player , behave No, they won't because they don't have any authority to do that. Their role is the performance of referees. The FA could consider retrospective action but only if the referee says he didn't see it, which seems unlikely in this case. Seems unlikely that the referee didn't see it or seems unlikely that they would consider it regardless ? Whatever the outcome Malcolm me old mucker it's as clear as day that the fa have got double standards and are completely incapable of being fair and rational , the committee that sit on the review panel(no offence intended) have consistently shown that they are capable of the most bizzare fuckwittery imaginable ! |
|
