|
Post by mcf1974 on Mar 1, 2022 11:54:45 GMT
Redapples is not wrong. By the laws of the game, a tackle where the offender places an opponent in danger because his tackle is not fully controlled is deemed as out of control. Under the current rules, that header by Ronaldo can also be deemed as a red card because, although he's attempting to win the ball, he's out of control and could easily have broken his opponent's neck, leaving him paralysed from the neck down. Another example of this ambiguous rule is when Huth was sent off after he went for the ball and because the ground was covered in snow, he was unable to halt his impetus, which meant he took out his opponent. It's the law that needs to be changed by adding 'It's a red card if the referee deems the tackle to be a deliberate attempt to harm an opponent even if he wins the ball.' I'm absolutely sure that neither Huth or Fox deliberately attempted to harm their opponent even though they were red carded. And another reason why the rule is so stupid is because in a contact sport, the outcome of a non-intention-to-harm tackle always carries the risk of harming an opponent. As for the tackle on Brown, like Redapples, I've yet to see it. But from what I can gather, it should have been a red card on its own merit. But that doesn't change a thing regarding this appeal for another incident. Let's face it, the ref was shit and chose to use selective bias against us by applying the rules in one incident and not applying the rules in another. And how many times has that happened to Stoke over the years! For me, bias is corruption and I'm in absolutely no doubt that many refs are corrupt in that way. OS. I don't think they are corrupt - just absolutely wank
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Mar 1, 2022 12:10:57 GMT
I'm trying to see this from both angles. As I've previously mentioned I saw the challenge live in proper speed and my initial reaction was that a red card was harsh. Having watched replays of the incident soon after and from various angles and speeds it's still my opinion that the red card was harsh. I'd of still thought a yellow was incorrect but on reflection would of taken that as an incident resolution.
As has been pointed out there was so certainly no malice intended and he certainly never intended to injure anyone.
Fox saw a ball that was there to be won and made a sliding challenge to win the ball which he won fair and square, in the process tangling with Billing who let's face it is like Bambi on ice at the best of times & it isn't going to take much to knock him off his legs.
Now having just watched it back again and having heard the argument that he was out of control and ultimately this is what the ref has red carded him for, I still don't agree that this was the case.
Watching it back, had Billing been stood in the path of where Fox was running and he took him clean out, yes the out of control bit could be applied. But he wasn't, Billing kind of makes an awkward half hearted step across the run of Fox and doesn't even look as though he's concerned about even winning the ball. So the law out of Control hasn't been interpreted correctly here.
Was Billing cute in knowing what he was doing, possibly so as it clearly worked and made the refs decision for him. But I still don't believe Fox was out of control under these circumstances. Ball to be won, he won it, Billing awkwardly stepped into his path.
Let's face it, any tackle on a football pitch could now be deemed that a player is out of control if someone runs across his path, no one would ever challenge for a free ball ever again if this threat was always hanging over them! Whilst concentrating on winning the ball there is only so much your proriforal vision can focus on at speed. If a players stood directly in the path of the sliding players tackle, easy decision. Where a 'fouled' player comes in from the side, yellow at most!
I know it matters for nothing now & the decisions been made and stands. But IMHO its still harsh and I can see why people are still viewing it as harsh despite the resulting sanctions and conversations around it.
But the club were definately correct to appeal it. It obviously wasn't deemed a frivolous appeal else they'd have slapped an extra game ban on him which they haven't done..
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Mar 1, 2022 13:15:20 GMT
The letter of the law argument is bollocks. By the letter of the law Mephsm should've been sent off from his studs first stamp on Brown as should the player who wiped him out in the second half.
All three decisions were the referee's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Mar 1, 2022 13:26:25 GMT
The letter of the law argument is bollocks. By the letter of the law Mephsm should've been sent off from his studs first stamp on Brown as should the player who wiped him out in the second half. All three decisions were the referee's opinion. Correct. The laws are there in black and white but it is for the referee's on the day to interpret whether the player's actions breach those laws. The referee interpreted the laws incorrectly over that and several other incidents during that game. And that is what I was trying to argue with WD about. With no success.
|
|
|
Post by stantheman on Mar 1, 2022 15:12:48 GMT
We're too nice on the pitch. We need to be in the faces of the Officials when shite decisions are given against us. When Brown was smashed on the halfway line, we needed 6 players in the referees face. Instead, he gave a throw in and actually helped Brown off his feet. Brown should have stayed down and rolled around like their players would have done. The shithouse, who was lawfully tackled by Fox, was just getting to his feet when a team mate whispered in his ear to stay down as the referee was going to his pocket. You want us to be Arsenal? I want us to stop being an easy touch. No idea why you quote Arsenal, as Bournemouth are worse.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 1, 2022 16:17:53 GMT
The letter of the law argument is bollocks. By the letter of the law Mephsm should've been sent off from his studs first stamp on Brown as should the player who wiped him out in the second half. All three decisions were the referee's opinion. All decisions are a ref’s interpretation (opinion) of an incident within the laws. According to the law you can justify the decision the ref made, that’s really all that matters regarding that event. The inconsistency is another point entirely, one I agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 1, 2022 16:26:53 GMT
Until last summer I sat on FA Commissions hearing appeals against red cards ( and other things) - never involving Stoke of course. This is a long thread so apologies if someone has already made these points. The appeal commission is not asked to decide whether they think it was a red. They have to decide whether the ref. made a clear and obvious error in giving a red - which is a different test and a pretty high threshold (that said, it's still a bit vague - I sometimes struggled with deciding when an error becomes a "clear and obvious" error).
The thinking is that they want the howlers to be overturned but they don't want Commissions re-refereeing the game. It's sort of akin to the "umpire's call" in cricket. If it's marginal, stick with the on-field decision. On the foul ( or non-foul ! ) on Brown, although the FA can charge a player for something which the referee saw but didn't take action on, it's very rare that they do, and even rarer for a in-play incident ( as opposed to an off the ball incident) - for similar reasons.
The other point is that the laws of the game, and, most importantly, their interpretation is determined by IFAB - the International Board - not the FA. Referees are of course required to apply those interpretations. They don't make the laws or their interpretation. In short, don't blame referees for IFAB decisions.
The competence and standard of referees is a different matter. I have commented on that in the separate thread started by kustokie.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 1, 2022 16:38:08 GMT
Bent FA, what a surprise. Bent ref. It’s the ref that gets to have another look at it and decide whether to overturn. He should have had the similar foul on Brown (that he gave as a throw in to them) showed to him side by side and then asked to explain why the difference in his decision making. There are only two possibilities, incompetence or because he’s bent. If it was incompetence he surely would have changed his decision after watching it back. As he didn’t do that it must be because he’s bent. BM That was the old system Mick. The ref now has no role in deciding whether a red card is overturned. The FA Commission will have looked at the video and decided whether they think it was a clear error ( see my post above). Assessment of the referees competence is a separate matter decided at this level by a separate body - PGMOL - Professional Game Match Officials Ltd. They will see the referee's assessor report and the scores of the clubs involved. I know that they also review all controversial incidents. It is possible that they might ask Tim Robinson to do exactly what you suggested - but we will never know that, because those assessment actions are not in the public domain. Referees do sometimes get demoted for consistent poor performance. I was at the Carabao final at Wembley on Sunday where Stuart Atwell was the ref. I remember him being demoted years ago but he's been promoted again and seems to have come back the better for it.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Mar 1, 2022 16:49:38 GMT
Until last summer I sat on FA Commissions hearing appeals against red cards ( and other things) - never involving Stoke of course. This is a long thread so apologies if someone has already made these points. The appeal commission is not asked to decide whether they think it was a red. They have to decide whether the ref. made a clear and obvious error in giving a red - which is a different test and a pretty high threshold (that said, it's still a bit vague - I sometimes struggled with deciding when an error becomes a "clear and obvious" error). The thinking is that they want the howlers to be overturned but they don't want Commissions re-refereeing the game. It's sort of akin to the "umpire's call" in cricket. If it's marginal, stick with the on-field decision. On the foul ( or non-foul ! ) on Brown, although the FA can charge a player for something which the referee saw but didn't take action on, it's very rare that they do, and even rarer for a in-play incident ( as opposed to an off the ball incident) - for similar reasons. The other point is that the laws of the game, and, most importantly, their interpretation is determined by IFAB - the International Board - not the FA. Referees are of course required to apply those interpretations. They don't make the laws or their interpretation. In short, don't blame referees for IFAB decisions. The competence and standard of referees is a different matter. I have commented on that in the separate thread started by kustokie. And VAR is available to help them Less controversey We need it in the Championship, with so much at stake for all teams (financially)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2022 16:51:00 GMT
Redapples is not wrong. By the laws of the game, a tackle where the offender places an opponent in danger because his tackle is not fully controlled is deemed as out of control. Under the current rules, that header by Ronaldo can also be deemed as a red card because, although he's attempting to win the ball, he's out of control and could easily have broken his opponent's neck, leaving him paralysed from the neck down. Another example of this ambiguous rule is when Huth was sent off after he went for the ball and because the ground was covered in snow, he was unable to halt his impetus, which meant he took out his opponent. It's the law that needs to be changed by adding 'It's a red card if the referee deems the tackle to be a deliberate attempt to harm an opponent even if he wins the ball.' I'm absolutely sure that neither Huth or Fox deliberately attempted to harm their opponent even though they were red carded. And another reason why the rule is so stupid is because in a contact sport, the outcome of a non-intention-to-harm tackle always carries the risk of harming an opponent. As for the tackle on Brown, like Redapples, I've yet to see it. But from what I can gather, it should have been a red card on its own merit. But that doesn't change a thing regarding this appeal for another incident. Let's face it, the ref was shit and chose to use selective bias against us by applying the rules in one incident and not applying the rules in another. And how many times has that happened to Stoke over the years! For me, bias is corruption and I'm in absolutely no doubt that many refs are corrupt in that way. OS. Voice of reason. Hope you are well, M.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Mar 1, 2022 19:45:51 GMT
Lampard asks Mike Riley for an apology for recent decisions against Everton.
Mike Riley has now apologised to Lampard and Everton.
Have we asked for an apology yet, or is MON just accepting what we get?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 1, 2022 20:16:17 GMT
Lampard asks Mike Riley for an apology for recent decisions against Everton. Mike Riley has now apologised to Lampard and Everton. Have we asked for an apology yet, or is MON just accepting what we get? The Decision Has Been Upheld
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Mar 2, 2022 15:37:49 GMT
As Mike Rileys in an apologetic mood perhaps he could apologise for the lack of a red card being issued for the foul on Jacob Brown!
This apologising business isn't a wise move IMHO as it will create a culture where all the managers will go off bleating to Mike Rileys referee's group asking for an apology after all contentious decisions going forwards.
What would of been better would be for Riley to merely comment something similar to 'we're aware of the incident that occured in the Everton-Man City match & will be working to make sure that this type of error doesn't happen again'. So in doing so he's acknowledging a mistake had been made and is working to rectify it, without a direct apology, jobs a good'n!
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 4, 2022 7:46:34 GMT
Lampard asks Mike Riley for an apology for recent decisions against Everton. Mike Riley has now apologised to Lampard and Everton. Have we asked for an apology yet, or is MON just accepting what we get? The Decision Has Been Upheld This may sound like splitting hairs, Potterlog, but the appeal hasn't been upheld, which isn't quite the same as saying that the ref's decision has been upheld in the sense that the appeal panel necessarily think it was the right decision. They might do - or they might disagree with it but think that it wasn't a clear and obvious error, which is the high threshold they have to apply ( as I explained above).
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 4, 2022 10:03:36 GMT
This may sound like splitting hairs, Potterlog, but the appeal hasn't been upheld, which isn't quite the same as saying that the ref's decision has been upheld in the sense that the appeal panel necessarily think it was the right decision. They might do - or they might disagree with it but think that it wasn't a clear and obvious error, which is the high threshold they have to apply ( as I explained above). You’re absolutely right Malcolm - that does sound like splitting hairs. 😉
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 8, 2022 9:17:59 GMT
This may sound like splitting hairs, Potterlog, but the appeal hasn't been upheld, which isn't quite the same as saying that the ref's decision has been upheld in the sense that the appeal panel necessarily think it was the right decision. They might do - or they might disagree with it but think that it wasn't a clear and obvious error, which is the high threshold they have to apply ( as I explained above). You’re absolutely right Malcolm - that does sound like splitting hairs. 😉 But that's the rule they have to operate to. VAR officials also operate to that standard which is interesting (if you are interested in this kind of thing, as I am : because a red card which has been upheld by the VAR official as not being a clear and obvious error can still be appealed to the FA. In theory such an appeal should never be upheld because both the Commission and the VAR official are operating to the same threshold. But it has happened, which shows that at the end of the day, there is always a degree of subjectivity and individual judgement in these things (unlike goal line technology or VAR offside decisions). FA Commissions always have an experienced former referee to remind them what the current rules and their interpretation say but they aren't allowed to participate in the decision (which must be frustrating for them). When I sat on commissions, after the decision had been made, the first thing I always did was to ask the referee adviser what decision he (and I think it was always a 'he') would have made, and when, as was usually the case, it was the same as mine, I always felt a degree of relief ! Of course it was most interesting if the Commission had been a 2-1 split decision, not unanimous.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 8, 2022 10:15:49 GMT
You’re absolutely right Malcolm - that does sound like splitting hairs. 😉 But that's the rule they have to operate to. VAR officials also operate to that standard which is interesting (if you are interested in this kind of thing, as I am : because a red card which has been upheld by the VAR official as not being a clear and obvious error can still be appealed to the FA. In theory such an appeal should never be upheld because both the Commission and the VAR official are operating to the same threshold. But it has happened, which shows that at the end of the day, there is always a degree of subjectivity and individual judgement in these things (unlike goal line technology or VAR offside decisions). FA Commissions always have an experienced former referee to remind them what the current rules and their interpretation say but they aren't allowed to participate in the decision (which must be frustrating for them). When I sat on commissions, after the decision had been made, the first thing I always did was to ask the referee adviser what decision he (and I think it was always a 'he') would have made, and when, as was usually the case, it was the same as mine, I always felt a degree of relief ! Of course it was most interesting if the Commission had been a 2-1 split decision, not unanimous. I know Malcolm I was just poking fun, I appreciate the clarification (I too am interested in these things 🤓 ). I have a decent understanding of how the process works, which is why I never thought the decision was worth appealing - It’s more or less what I was getting at with my first post in the thread: This is the problem though, you can’t “provide evidence” because at the end of the day “soft” is subjective. It’s about whether you can justify a decision according to the Laws of the Game. A red card only ever has a sniff of being overturned if it’s a clear and obvious error which is impossible to justify. The ref on Saturday deemed Fox to have “lunged” at the opponent, thereby endangering his safety. I think that’s an incredibly harsh evaluation of the event, but at the end of the day easily justifiable. Very harsh decision but not for a second worth appealing. Anyway the point I was making in the post you quoted was that expecting apologies or amend-making on the part of the authorities was a bit futile when our appeal to them has already been unsuccessful, meaning they feel no error was committed. I don’t think it’s a wild inaccuracy to describe the ref’s decision as “upheld” (in the sense that no clear error was made) rather than “overturned” in that context, even if the language was technically imprecise.
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Mar 8, 2022 11:50:02 GMT
On this subject, anyone see Harry Kanes almost similar tackle on Dele Alli in the Spurs-Everton game last night near the half-way line?!
Was very similar indeed and the co-commentator commended the challenge, Alli just got straight back up to his feet after being taken down, the ref never batted an eyelid and play continued! Exactly how it should be, and how it should of been in the Fox incident.
|
|
|
Post by polofrance on Mar 8, 2022 11:58:29 GMT
On this subject, anyone see Harry Kanes almost similar tackle on Dele Alli in the Spurs-Everton game last night near the half-way line?! Was very similar indeed and the co-commentator commended the challenge, Alli just got straight back up to his feet after being taken down, the ref never batted an eyelid and play continued! Exactly how it should be, and how it should of been in the Fox incident. One little difference, Alli didn't roll around on the floor and got up almost instantly. Unlike Billing who rolled around hiding his face with his hands until the red card was shown.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 8, 2022 12:29:57 GMT
I still don't think it was a foul.
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Mar 8, 2022 12:46:07 GMT
On this subject, anyone see Harry Kanes almost similar tackle on Dele Alli in the Spurs-Everton game last night near the half-way line?! Was very similar indeed and the co-commentator commended the challenge, Alli just got straight back up to his feet after being taken down, the ref never batted an eyelid and play continued! Exactly how it should be, and how it should of been in the Fox incident. One little difference, Alli didn't roll around on the floor and got up almost instantly. Unlike Billing who rolled around hiding his face with his hands until the red card was shown. One of his bastard team mates whispered in his ear after the red was flourished. Presumably to say he could stop screaming now.
|
|