|
Post by Widget123 on Nov 29, 2018 11:54:07 GMT
However, the referee didn't blow and the linesman didn't flag which implies to me that they guessed what had occurred due to the reactions of the Derby players and subsequent scuffles. Though they got it spot on this time, this is a worrying precedent if they are indeed guessing which will no doubt lead to more gamesmanship further down the line. Yes agree completely with this, they had no VAR so couldn't replay the issue. I know the ref gets a bit a leeway to change their mind during the game but he seemed to give the red card on the say so of the lines man who hadn't flagged so that indicated that the ref hadn't seen the tackle clearly enough to make a red card judgement and the linesman didn't think it was a foul initially either. Both of which mean your analysis of them "guessing" that it was a red card offence after the event rather than using the evidence they'd witnessed. Thats very much "roll the dice" officiating rather than following the laws of the game. Yes it was a bad tackle but if they get decisions like that wrong by guessing then where does that leave the game? In addition if we take this analogy further and VAR was in place last night, both Etebo and Johnson would have been red carded and Allen yellow carded (or possibly red carded also) so that would have changed the game completely too but at least it would have been a sensible use of VAR rather that its current iteration which at the world cup saw the refs batting every decision to VAR rather than only those they had missed or were uncertain of. I still favour the idea that each team gets two VAR calls, the ref just refs as they've always done and the teams can use the VAR when they want - losing a call if the ref judges it to be frivolous and all calls if they use it for time wasting.
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Nov 29, 2018 12:02:38 GMT
Absolutely no doubting the fact it's a red, it's high, late and studs up. It doesn't matter if it was a follow through, the laws of the game make no accounting for intent or willingness to injure. A careless tackle is as bad as an intentional one. It was reckless and could have easily hurt Keogh seriously. However, the referee didn't blow and the linesman didn't flag which implies to me that they guessed what had occurred due to the reactions of the Derby players and subsequent scuffles. Though they got it spot on this time, this is a worrying precedent if they are indeed guessing which will no doubt lead to more gamesmanship further down the line. Yes, the decision looked odd but the Ref spent a long time talking to the assistant before the card came out so I guess one of them saw it. Don't think Ryan in the Refs ear helped much. It made Etebo look as guilty as hell. Don't think either of them saw it. The referee didn't blow for several seconds (and even then looked uncertain) and the assistant referee made no indication that he had seen it (and I am not sure that he could have seen it clearly from his position). If either of them had seen it, it wouldn't have taken anything like that length of time to make a decision. I know they won't admit it (because it is not supposed to happen) but I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it was the 4th official who was doing most of the talking having seen it on a replay. It doesn't bother me if that is what happened because it was the right decision. My only complaint is that the referee failed to take the appropriate action against Luis Suarez when he had a far clearer view of that incident.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 29, 2018 12:12:30 GMT
Just a point of order, a "reckless" challenge is a yellow card, not a red.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 12:20:21 GMT
Allen would have had a red also if VAR was in place. Why else do you think he's playing down the obvious bite?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 29, 2018 12:25:11 GMT
It was definitely reckless mate. I'm amazed so many Stoke fans are claiming it was 'accidental'. I think he knew exactly what it was doing. It had been a bit of a nasty game and he spotted an opportunity to leave one on the opposition player. He probably didn't mean to go in so heavily, but he did. The red card was correct. The referee was utter dogshit otherwise. I agree 100% it was red.To say it was intentional is unwarranted and unfair imo. Hence why I put "I think". It's only my opinion. I think he saw an opportunity to leave one in, and probably didn't expect it to quite end up the way it did. It looks awful and we would go fucking ballistic if that happened to a Stoke player.
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Nov 29, 2018 12:48:42 GMT
I’ve seen a lot worse go unpunished. If he hadn’t played the ball first it’s a red all day but he got the ball and caught him going through nothing more nothing less it wasn’t two footed or out of control it was just a heavy follow through.
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Nov 29, 2018 13:01:09 GMT
Reminded me of the Ramsey incident. Definitely a red but if they were so fucking bothered about the tackle being so bad it would have been nice to see them check if Keogh was alright rather than trying to get Etebo sent off. Pricks. Nothing like Ramsey incident. Think you might have understood what I meant. More to do with the reaction of their players than the challenge itself. If your teammate is down hurt, go and see to him rather than trying to get the opposition man sent off.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 29, 2018 13:28:07 GMT
Just a point of order, a "reckless" challenge is a yellow card, not a red. Semantics innit. 'Excessive force' would cover it.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 29, 2018 13:28:49 GMT
I’ve seen a lot worse go unpunished. If he hadn’t played the ball first it’s a red all day but he got the ball and caught him going through nothing more nothing less it wasn’t two footed or out of control it was just a heavy follow through. Playing the ball makes no difference whatsoever. It's not a get out of jail card that makes any tackle ok.
|
|
|
Post by nenepotter on Nov 29, 2018 13:36:52 GMT
Yes a red card, but we've all seen a lot worse, i dont think it was intentional but could have been who knows. The worst are when it is clearly violent and intentional but this didn't fall into that category. Went for the ball, over aggressive follow through, very naughty if intentional.
|
|
|
Post by andylgr on Nov 29, 2018 14:06:18 GMT
Don't think either of them saw it. The referee didn't blow for several seconds (and even then looked uncertain) and the assistant referee made no indication that he had seen it (and I am not sure that he could have seen it clearly from his position). If either of them had seen it, it wouldn't have taken anything like that length of time to make a decision. Watched the replay when I got home and whilst it was a definite red I wasn't sure what took them so long to send him off. Maybe they wanted things to calm down a bit, but both of them saw it, they had great views of the indicent. ![](https://i.postimg.cc/YSkWbgnk/2574-AAC0-981-B-43-B6-BC55-22-E1828547-E6.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Nov 29, 2018 14:14:15 GMT
Didn’t the wankers also spend a lot of energy chasing down the ref waving their arms and imaginary cards trying to get Joe sent off.
Shower of fairy fannies
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 29, 2018 14:26:37 GMT
Just a point of order, a "reckless" challenge is a yellow card, not a red. Semantics innit. 'Excessive force' would cover it. Oh I think it was a red and I think people are kidding themselves if they think he didn’t mean it. Just saying “reckless” alone isn’t enough to warrant a red.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Nov 29, 2018 14:27:32 GMT
It was always going to be a straight red. Although Keogh must now be be deeply embarrassed that he pretended he was hurt particularly when you consider he started his career at Stoke and won our Young Player of the Year Award for the 2002–03 season and played a major role in our reserves winning the 2003–04 Pontins League Championship. Unfortunately it throws his entire manhood in to question. Definitely not his finest hour. The funniest bit was when he got booed and started to limp a bit when he remembered what a twat he'd been.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Nov 29, 2018 14:29:01 GMT
However, the referee didn't blow and the linesman didn't flag which implies to me that they guessed what had occurred due to the reactions of the Derby players and subsequent scuffles. Though they got it spot on this time, this is a worrying precedent if they are indeed guessing which will no doubt lead to more gamesmanship further down the line. Yes agree completely with this, they had no VAR so couldn't replay the issue. I know the ref gets a bit a leeway to change their mind during the game but he seemed to give the red card on the say so of the lines man who hadn't flagged so that indicated that the ref hadn't seen the tackle clearly enough to make a red card judgement and the linesman didn't think it was a foul initially either. Both of which mean your analysis of them "guessing" that it was a red card offence after the event rather than using the evidence they'd witnessed. Thats very much "roll the dice" officiating rather than following the laws of the game. Yes it was a bad tackle but if they get decisions like that wrong by guessing then where does that leave the game? In addition if we take this analogy further and VAR was in place last night, both Etebo and Johnson would have been red carded and Allen yellow carded (or possibly red carded also) so that would have changed the game completely too but at least it would have been a sensible use of VAR rather that its current iteration which at the world cup saw the refs batting every decision to VAR rather than only those they had missed or were uncertain of. I still favour the idea that each team gets two VAR calls, the ref just refs as they've always done and the teams can use the VAR when they want - losing a call if the ref judges it to be frivolous and all calls if they use it for time wasting. Wonder if the 4th official gave them the nod if he could see a screen.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Nov 29, 2018 14:31:03 GMT
Didn’t the wankers also spend a lot of energy chasing down the ref waving their arms and imaginary cards trying to get Joe sent off. Shower of fairy fannies Yes, think the manager would have been telling them to go all out to get a second yellow. It was embarrassing to see them squeal when he kicked the ball away.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on Nov 29, 2018 14:32:44 GMT
Don't think either of them saw it. The referee didn't blow for several seconds (and even then looked uncertain) and the assistant referee made no indication that he had seen it (and I am not sure that he could have seen it clearly from his position). If either of them had seen it, it wouldn't have taken anything like that length of time to make a decision. Watched the replay when I got home and whilst it was a definite red I wasn't sure what took them so long to send him off. Maybe they wanted things to calm down a bit, but both of them saw it, they had great views of the indicent. ![](https://i.postimg.cc/YSkWbgnk/2574-AAC0-981-B-43-B6-BC55-22-E1828547-E6.jpg) They 100% didn’t see it. If that did they would have given it straight away and sent him off straight away, it was an obvious red card. From that angle it looks like the ref saw it but on another replay you can see both are looking away. Interesting to see the ref having words in his earpiece too. 4th official stepped in perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 29, 2018 14:42:22 GMT
Yes, the decision looked odd but the Ref spent a long time talking to the assistant before the card came out so I guess one of them saw it. Don't think Ryan in the Refs ear helped much. It made Etebo look as guilty as hell. Don't think either of them saw it. The referee didn't blow for several seconds (and even then looked uncertain) and the assistant referee made no indication that he had seen it (and I am not sure that he could have seen it clearly from his position). If either of them had seen it, it wouldn't have taken anything like that length of time to make a decision. I know they won't admit it (because it is not supposed to happen) but I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it was the 4th official who was doing most of the talking having seen it on a replay. It doesn't bother me if that is what happened because it was the right decision. My only complaint is that the referee failed to take the appropriate action against Luis Suarez when he had a far clearer view of that incident. Does the 4th official have a monitor with which he can replay the match?
|
|
|
Post by andylgr on Nov 29, 2018 14:57:27 GMT
Watched the replay when I got home and whilst it was a definite red I wasn't sure what took them so long to send him off. Maybe they wanted things to calm down a bit, but both of them saw it, they had great views of the indicent. ![](https://i.postimg.cc/YSkWbgnk/2574-AAC0-981-B-43-B6-BC55-22-E1828547-E6.jpg) They 100% didn’t see it. If that did they would have given it straight away and sent him off straight away, it was an obvious red card. From that angle it looks like the ref saw it but on another replay you can see both are looking away. Interesting to see the ref having words in his earpiece too. 4th official stepped in perhaps? They're both looking right at it. On the video you even see the linesman crane his neck to follow the ball and watch the challenge. But I don't think there was any way they were going to dish out a card straight away because they didn't get chance to once that kicked off afterwards, and most officials usually wait til things calm down beforehand anyway. Plus they've got to discuss not only the challenge but what was going on in the melee. They came to the right decision in the end regarding the red and did the right thing in waiting for things to settle a bit. The only think they got wrong was the biting.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on Nov 29, 2018 15:22:16 GMT
They 100% didn’t see it. If that did they would have given it straight away and sent him off straight away, it was an obvious red card. From that angle it looks like the ref saw it but on another replay you can see both are looking away. Interesting to see the ref having words in his earpiece too. 4th official stepped in perhaps? They're both looking right at it. On the video you even see the linesman crane his neck to follow the ball and watch the challenge. But I don't think there was any way they were going to dish out a card straight away because they didn't get chance to once that kicked off afterwards, and most officials usually wait til things calm down beforehand anyway. Plus they've got to discuss not only the challenge but what was going on in the melee. They came to the right decision in the end regarding the red and did the right thing in waiting for things to settle a bit. The only think they got wrong was the biting. If they were both looking right at it, why did A. The ref let play go on and only blow for a foul when Derby players had a go and B. The lino not even give anything? Doesn’t add up to me either way. If they have indeed seen it then why not give anything for so long? And if they haven’t seen it they can’t guess and send him off. I agree they got it right in the end but the way it panned out just seemed odd.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on Nov 29, 2018 15:24:47 GMT
Don't think either of them saw it. The referee didn't blow for several seconds (and even then looked uncertain) and the assistant referee made no indication that he had seen it (and I am not sure that he could have seen it clearly from his position). If either of them had seen it, it wouldn't have taken anything like that length of time to make a decision. I know they won't admit it (because it is not supposed to happen) but I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it was the 4th official who was doing most of the talking having seen it on a replay. It doesn't bother me if that is what happened because it was the right decision. My only complaint is that the referee failed to take the appropriate action against Luis Suarez when he had a far clearer view of that incident. Does the 4th official have a monitor with which he can replay the match? That’s what I was insinuating in my post above. If the ref is next to the linesman and talking to somebody else in his earpiece, the logical person for that to be is the 4th official who was right over the other side of the pitch. What input could he possibly make?
|
|
|
Post by andylgr on Nov 29, 2018 15:31:35 GMT
If they were both looking right at it, why did A. The ref let play go on and only blow for a foul when Derby players had a go and B. The lino not even give anything? Doesn’t add up to me either way. If they have indeed seen it then why not give anything for so long? And if they haven’t seen it they can’t guess and send him off. I agree they got it right in the end but the way it panned out just seemed odd. I see what you're saying about the delay. But its not really that long. The ref glances to where the ball goes and turns back and gives it. A couple of seconds. No issue for me and I don't think the Derby players swayed him either. Maybe the liner didn't think it was a foul or had a good enough view, despite him looking straight at it? The 4th official isn't sitting watching the game on an ipad ready to shout up when something happens. Are we looking for something that isn't there?
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Nov 29, 2018 16:47:45 GMT
I’ve seen a lot worse go unpunished. If he hadn’t played the ball first it’s a red all day but he got the ball and caught him going through nothing more nothing less it wasn’t two footed or out of control it was just a heavy follow through. Playing the ball makes no difference whatsoever. It's not a get out of jail card that makes any tackle ok.
The most commonly perpetuated myth on here every single week after any match: "But he got to the ball first/won the ball/touched the ball first so it isn't a foul"
To be fair though, the fact that "winning the ball" is completely irrelevant to whether or not it's a foul is only a rule that's been around for absolutely bloody years, so you can't expect most on here to catch up that quickly ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif)
|
|
|
Post by kjpt140v on Nov 29, 2018 17:04:57 GMT
Nothing like Ramsey incident. Think you might have understood what I meant. More to do with the reaction of their players than the challenge itself. If your teammate is down hurt, go and see to him rather than trying to get the opposition man sent off. Apologies
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Nov 29, 2018 17:20:27 GMT
Didn’t the wankers also spend a lot of energy chasing down the ref waving their arms and imaginary cards trying to get Joe sent off. Shower of fairy fannies That’s what you get with the big player, big club thing which Lampard has brought to them. Gamesmanship that has been well practiced and executed so much that it’s bound to transmit to the players via the manager.
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Nov 29, 2018 17:25:13 GMT
I’ve seen a lot worse go unpunished. If he hadn’t played the ball first it’s a red all day but he got the ball and caught him going through nothing more nothing less it wasn’t two footed or out of control it was just a heavy follow through. Playing the ball makes no difference whatsoever. It's not a get out of jail card that makes any tackle ok. I agree it’s not but Maddison only got a booking later on in the game after making no attempt to get the ball and cleaning out his man. In my eyes that’s a deliberate foul endangering the player red card, way more than catching someone on the follow through. It was meaty and late by etebo but not the worst tackle ever like I’ve seen it made out to be. One of those mystical orange cards
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 29, 2018 17:29:06 GMT
They 100% didn’t see it. If that did they would have given it straight away and sent him off straight away, it was an obvious red card. From that angle it looks like the ref saw it but on another replay you can see both are looking away. Interesting to see the ref having words in his earpiece too. 4th official stepped in perhaps? They're both looking right at it. On the video you even see the linesman crane his neck to follow the ball and watch the challenge. But I don't think there was any way they were going to dish out a card straight away because they didn't get chance to once that kicked off afterwards, and most officials usually wait til things calm down beforehand anyway. Plus they've got to discuss not only the challenge but what was going on in the melee. They came to the right decision in the end regarding the red and did the right thing in waiting for things to settle a bit. The only think they got wrong was the biting. I think that's right. No ref at this level is ever going to give a straight red card for an incident which none of the officials saw, if only because they know it can be appealed when a commission can look at all the video evidence.
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Nov 29, 2018 17:29:54 GMT
Playing the ball makes no difference whatsoever. It's not a get out of jail card that makes any tackle ok. The most commonly perpetuated myth on here every single week after any match: "But he got to the ball first/won the ball/touched the ball first so it isn't a foul" To be fair though, the fact that "winning the ball" is completely irrelevant to whether or not it's a foul is only a rule that's been around for absolutely bloody years, so you can't expect most on here to catch up that quickly ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif) Look it’s difficult to explain in a few typed words, the point I’m trying to make is it was a genuine attempt for the ball which won it and took him into the opposite player. Not a two footed lunge knee height which is how shocking some have made it out to be, I do under stand the concept of why he was sent off and what for I’m just saying I’ve seen worse done worse and had worse done to me where fuck all happens
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Nov 29, 2018 18:39:54 GMT
The most commonly perpetuated myth on here every single week after any match: "But he got to the ball first/won the ball/touched the ball first so it isn't a foul" To be fair though, the fact that "winning the ball" is completely irrelevant to whether or not it's a foul is only a rule that's been around for absolutely bloody years, so you can't expect most on here to catch up that quickly ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif) Look it’s difficult to explain in a few typed words, the point I’m trying to make is it was a genuine attempt for the ball which won it and took him into the opposite player. Not a two footed lunge knee height which is how shocking some have made it out to be, I do under stand the concept of why he was sent off and what for I’m just saying I’ve seen worse done worse and had worse done to me where fuck all happens To be fair mate, i think you summed it up pretty well in your last post to rob re: the orange card. I can see what you're saying in that post to be honest. I agree the ref's are inconsistent when it comes to"meaty" challenges but that's because of the quality of refs and you can't blame 1 ref for getting it right (which he did last night) because of other refs who got it wrong in other games. For what it's worth, i don't think there was too much intent of injuring anyone etc. Think it was more a case of the old fashioned "let the player know you're there wink wink" which players get away with week in, week out...but they get away with it because their studs don't land up near the opposition player's knee cap when they do it. Old fashioned hard challenge but just excuted very badly and when your studs are that high up anyone's leg, you don't really have any defence.
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Nov 29, 2018 18:44:32 GMT
Look it’s difficult to explain in a few typed words, the point I’m trying to make is it was a genuine attempt for the ball which won it and took him into the opposite player. Not a two footed lunge knee height which is how shocking some have made it out to be, I do under stand the concept of why he was sent off and what for I’m just saying I’ve seen worse done worse and had worse done to me where fuck all happens To be fair mate, i think you summed it up pretty well in your last post to rob re: the orange card. I can see what you're saying in that post to be honest. I agree the ref's are inconsistent when it comes to"meaty" challenges but that's because of the quality of refs and you can't blame 1 ref for getting it right (which he did last night) because of other refs who got it wrong in other games. For what it's worth, i don't think there was too much intent of injuring anyone etc. Think it was more a case of the old fashioned "let the player know you're there wink wink" which players get away with week in, week out...but they get away with it because their studs don't land up near the opposition player's knee cap when they do it. Old fashioned hard challenge but just excuted very badly and when your studs are that high up anyone's leg, you don't really have any defence. 👍
|
|