|
|
Post by carolinastokie on Feb 4, 2009 1:12:55 GMT
I'm confused about this.
There is a clash involving Lampard which the ref sees and decides to issue a red card. The incident is open for review and the red card is rescinded, in my view correctly.
Boswinga sticks his boot into Benayoun's back, which the ref sees and decides to take no action. The incident is not open for review and so no action is taken against Boswinga, in my view incorrectly.
Seems like the rule here is that if the ref sees the incident and decides to take action the decision is reviewable. If the ref sees the incident and decides not to take any action the decision is not reviewable.
This doesn't seem logical to me, as the ref actually claims to have made a conscious decision in both cases. For me the FA should be able to review an incident where a ref decided not to take any action as well as an incident where they did. Or to put it another way - where are Rooney's and Ronaldo's retrospective red cards?
|
|
|
|
Post by mumf14 on Feb 4, 2009 1:15:11 GMT
All very true....Thickskin Karmasutra is also a fit and proper person...Ha Ha Ha...
A bit like S.W.P not getting sent off for kicking at Delap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 4, 2009 1:20:11 GMT
I'm confused about this. There is a clash involving Lampard which the ref sees and decides to issue a red card. The incident is open for review and the red card is rescinded, in my view correctly. Boswinga sticks his boot into Benayoun's back, which the ref sees and decides to take no action. The incident is not open for review and so no action is taken against Boswinga, in my view incorrectly. Seems like the rule here is that if the ref sees the incident and decides to take action the decision is reviewable. If the ref sees the incident and decides not to take any action the decision is not reviewable. This doesn't seem logical to me, as the ref actually claims to have made a conscious decision in both cases. For me the FA should be able to review an incident where a ref decided not to take any action as well as an incident where they did. Or to put it another way - where are Rooney's and Ronaldo's retrospective red cards? Those ARE the rules fella, and they are absolutely ridiculous! |
|
|
|
Post by mumf14 on Feb 4, 2009 1:23:13 GMT
The worst EVER was allowing the ex-Thai Prime Minister to take over at City tho'....
Unbelievable....£ 150 MILLION fraud.
(They must have all sat round a table, with their fingers in their ears and their eyes firmly closed,.... pissed as farts on the finest Cognac money can buy...)
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Feb 4, 2009 1:30:24 GMT
It is ridiculous. They might go under the idea that to issue a post match red card is undermining the ref BUT thats bollox. It should be done in such a way that it is helping the ref. If the ef didn't see Bosingwa kick OK he gets a second chance with video evidence. How can Bosingwa get away with that? Smilarly Ronneys elbow against us. Thing is if Faye had rolled around like a ponce the red might well have been given.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddy_under_fire'sviews on Feb 4, 2009 1:33:29 GMT
The worst EVER was allowing the ex-Thai Prime Minister to take over at City tho'.... Unbelievable....£ 150 MILLION fraud. (They must have all sat round a table, with their fingers in their ears and their eyes firmly closed,.... pissed as farts on the finest Cognac money can buy...) hahaha... you're not fuckin wrong there |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 4, 2009 7:52:48 GMT
I'm confused about this. There is a clash involving Lampard which the ref sees and decides to issue a red card. The incident is open for review and the red card is rescinded, in my view correctly. Boswinga sticks his boot into Benayoun's back, which the ref sees and decides to take no action. The incident is not open for review and so no action is taken against Boswinga, in my view incorrectly. Seems like the rule here is that if the ref sees the incident and decides to take action the decision is reviewable. If the ref sees the incident and decides not to take any action the decision is not reviewable. This doesn't seem logical to me, as the ref actually claims to have made a conscious decision in both cases. For me the FA should be able to review an incident where a ref decided not to take any action as well as an incident where they did. Or to put it another way - where are Rooney's and Ronaldo's retrospective red cards? Didn't you know the FA employ Terry Pratchett and Jk Rowling to write the rules of the game these days  |
|
kice
Academy Starlet
Posts: 165
|
Post by kice on Feb 4, 2009 12:00:13 GMT
In addition to this. I find it stupid that a player can come flying with their studs 2-3 feet from the ground and because he touched the ball before he touched the player he should not get a red card. Sorry, I don't understand this. A dangerous play is dangerous whether the ball is touched first or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by bossthemidfield on Feb 4, 2009 12:03:21 GMT
In addition to this. I find it stupid that a player can come flying with their studs 2-3 feet from the ground and because he touched the ball before he touched the player he should not get a red card. Sorry, I don't understand this. A dangerous play is dangerous whether the ball is touched first or not. TRUE  The fucking FA know FA. |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 4, 2009 12:08:08 GMT
In addition to this. I find it stupid that a player can come flying with their studs 2-3 feet from the ground and because he touched the ball before he touched the player he should not get a red card. Sorry, I don't understand this. A dangerous play is dangerous whether the ball is touched first or not. Isn't the essence of tackling aiming to get the ball? So if you get the ball it at least means you've made an attempt at a fair tackle which, for example, is a defence Bosingwa could not use. |
|
|
|
Post by bossthemidfield on Feb 4, 2009 12:21:40 GMT
In addition to this. I find it stupid that a player can come flying with their studs 2-3 feet from the ground and because he touched the ball before he touched the player he should not get a red card. Sorry, I don't understand this. A dangerous play is dangerous whether the ball is touched first or not. Isn't the essence of tackling aiming to get the ball? So if you get the ball it at least means you've made an attempt at a fair tackle which, for example, is a defence Bosingwa could not use. Not if your intention is to follow through with studs up. |
|
kice
Academy Starlet
Posts: 165
|
Post by kice on Feb 4, 2009 12:40:00 GMT
A player that has his studs up is dangerous. I don't think that the player intends to take another player down but he should realise that he is not alone on the field. Studs up like Lampard did should be a red card IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Feb 4, 2009 12:53:01 GMT
A player that has his studs up is dangerous. I don't think that the player intends to take another player down but he should realise that he is not alone on the field. Studs up like Lampard did should be a red card IMO. Is that not what Amdy got sent off for at Boro? |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Feb 4, 2009 12:59:25 GMT
A player that has his studs up is dangerous. I don't think that the player intends to take another player down but he should realise that he is not alone on the field. Studs up like Lampard did should be a red card IMO. I can't agree, i am no fan of Lampard but.... The Lampard sending off was one of the worst decisions i've seen for a long time are we saying a player should not lift his foot off the ball to compete for a ball that is off the ground?? that is where we are heading if this a sending off offence for any slide tackle you have to have some part of your stud facing away from the ground, so that must be outlawed too!! |
|
|
|
Post by Baggs on Feb 4, 2009 13:31:09 GMT
On the one hand I can see why the ref got it wrong from first glance - until I saw lots of different angles it looked terrible to me.
However, the ref was 5 yards away and could hardly have had a better view.
The lack of retrospective review means that you may as well have a go, as you might get away with it (ie Bosingwa). Ruins the game for me
|
|
|
|
Post by tqstokie on Feb 4, 2009 15:40:30 GMT
I agree with Kice. If a player goes high with studs showing it is dangerous, therfore the tackle Lampard made was dangerous and cannot be not dangerous simply because one stud caught the ball. The red card should have stood. Boswinga like Delap was a bit stupid and he too should have received a red card. Steven Gerrard prior to Lampard also lunged with studs showing. SWP against Stoke also lunged at Etherington with studs showing both swp and Gerrard escaped without any card at all. The referees need to be consistent but since Mike Riley phoned Lampard to apologise makes you think he can't recognise a dangerous challenge when he's had bags of time to consider the evidence. I suppose that carried to its logical conclusion most games would finish with nine or ten players per side if all instances of dangerous tackling were punished with a red card. That is until the dangerous tackling stopped, now would that be such a bad thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Feb 4, 2009 15:54:31 GMT
I thought what Bosingwa did was brilliant. He just didn't kick out,simply shoved the guy over who was deliberately timewasting. Good on him!
|
|
|
|
Post by stoke624 on Feb 4, 2009 21:30:29 GMT
ref should be immediately suspended for such an inept performance at anfield but the FA never take any action and we are left to continually suffer at their hands week in week out
|
|
|
|
Post by crimesy on Feb 4, 2009 21:34:21 GMT
Undermiming the referees... like my arse.
|
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Feb 4, 2009 21:43:41 GMT
Lampard both played and won the ball an age before that Liverpool player arrived on the scene. Well not an age but you get the jist so as such there was nothing at all wrong with that challenge of Lampards.
Assaults like that one from Boswinga are sickening and as such he should face a mininum ban of 6 months.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirstendunstslovebubbles on Feb 4, 2009 21:55:35 GMT
Just about sums our fa up really. It is a ridiculous rule, all because they say they don't want to overrule the referees. Yet they can still rescind red cards. Should we really expect less from an fa who appointed mcclaren as england boss?
|
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Feb 4, 2009 21:58:18 GMT
eddy...love that crest..can i pinch it? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Feb 4, 2009 22:05:30 GMT
Lampard both played and won the ball an age before that Liverpool player arrived on the scene. Well not an age but you get the jist so as such there was nothing at all wrong with that challenge of Lampards. Assaults like that one from Boswinga are sickening and as such he should face a mininum ban of 6 months. Haha .... Assault ... 6 months? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Feb 4, 2009 22:08:43 GMT
Lampard both played and won the ball an age before that Liverpool player arrived on the scene. Well not an age but you get the jist so as such there was nothing at all wrong with that challenge of Lampards. Assaults like that one from Boswinga are sickening and as such he should face a mininum ban of 6 months. Haha .... Assault ... 6 months? ;D ??? ??? |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Feb 4, 2009 22:13:58 GMT
Well if it was assault mate i'm sure we won't see Benayoun for a while but he's fit and on the bench 3 days later without even a plaster or bruise i would suggest. Sending off yes, assault and a 6 month ban .... c'mon tazi, get real fella  |
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Feb 4, 2009 22:19:05 GMT
No other word for it but assault.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Feb 4, 2009 22:22:33 GMT
He barely touched him. Terrible tackle but not overly dangerous or painful. Benyoun just got up and carried on. If that's assault then i reckon i get assaulted at least once a week. I've been hit with harder snowballs only today |
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Feb 4, 2009 22:24:59 GMT
He barely touched him. Terrible tackle but not overly dangerous or painful. Benyoun just got up and carried on. If that's assault then i reckon i get assaulted at least once a week ;D + your edit  |
|
