|
Intent
Aug 30, 2015 0:38:01 GMT
Post by ihitthebar on Aug 30, 2015 0:38:01 GMT
Can anyone clarify FA rules on whether intent should be taken into account when it comes to bookings? I can only imagine today's varied decisions come down to 1 of 2 things - either the referees are thick as pig shit, or FA guidelines say intent is irrelevant(which I think someone posted before was the case)
There were so many cards from today alone that could've been different with some common sense applied and I don't see how a generic rule book can guide whether a player is allowed to stay on the field. The refs job is hard and, for decisions on the foul itself, I appreciate the importance of the referee having guidelines that cover almost every circumstance deemed a foul; but for cards, particularly reds, surely common sense surrounding the event should dictate the decision, not the exact position of someone's hand or foot at the time, and certainly not how much other players roll around or surround the referee (fuck off Keown). I think it's fair to expect the referee and three other officials could determine whether they can say for certain what the players intent was or whether they acted in a genuinely dangerous manner.
Is it a foul? Should be clearly covered in guidelines
Is it a booking? Should be decided on by the circumstances around the incident and based on intent
|
|
|
Intent
Aug 30, 2015 0:41:11 GMT
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 30, 2015 0:41:11 GMT
Re Charlie Adam, he intended to tread on the player and the right course of action was taken.
|
|
|
Intent
Aug 30, 2015 0:47:41 GMT
Post by ihitthebar on Aug 30, 2015 0:47:41 GMT
Charlie's I honestly can't make my mind up on (maybe the officials could be confident enough that it was intentional if it did come into it) but Huth - surely the intent is there and should be a red? Afellay - pathetic thing to do and 'raised his hand' so by today's rules 100% red but did he intend to hurt him or was it just a petty incident that could've been dealt with in a simpler way? Nobles I have no idea what that was for but surely, again, clearly no intent for anything dangerous
|
|
|
Intent
Aug 30, 2015 0:49:31 GMT
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 30, 2015 0:49:31 GMT
I switched off after we were on so can't comment and didn't watch it before (I was being cool watching Boca Juniors).
I wouldn't have even booked Affelay tbh but he needs to calm down because it was out of frustration and there's no need for it.
|
|
|
Intent
Aug 30, 2015 0:52:12 GMT
Post by interestedobserver on Aug 30, 2015 0:52:12 GMT
If it was down to intent, Charlie would be off as soon as he got within 5 yards of an opponent. He has a real nasty element to his game which, personally, I would rather not see.
|
|
|
Intent
Aug 30, 2015 1:09:46 GMT
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 30, 2015 1:09:46 GMT
He has previous with Gardner too.....
|
|
|
Intent
Aug 30, 2015 1:14:01 GMT
Post by ihitthebar on Aug 30, 2015 1:14:01 GMT
In which case a nasty player would be forced to either change his game or his job
|
|
|
Intent
Aug 30, 2015 1:22:46 GMT
Post by PotterLog on Aug 30, 2015 1:22:46 GMT
careless = foul reckless = booking excessive force = off
intent = irrelevant
|
|
|
Intent
Aug 30, 2015 6:16:53 GMT
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 30, 2015 6:16:53 GMT
We need Howard Webb back. He is just about the only ref I can think of in the modern era that would use a modicum of common sense and you would often see him giving stern lectures to players instead of yellow and.red cards. Of course he knew exactly when to brandish the cards but always felt his priority was to help keep the game competitive and fair. Those twats yesterday.... For fuck sake how many cards did he brandish? Looking at the stats, anybody not watching would have rightly thought what a dirty, niggley match that must have been. It wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 7:00:44 GMT
What about the scissor tackle on Adam in the first place? If that isn't excessive force I don't know what is.
We all know that both incidents will be replayed throughout the season with different end results depending on the offending player.
That is where the frustration sets in.
|
|
|
Intent
Aug 30, 2015 7:10:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by lee1982 on Aug 30, 2015 7:10:48 GMT
Re Charlie Adam, he intended to tread on the player and the right course of action was taken. Well at least weve moved away from calling it a stamp. I still see it as charlie stumbling backwards and trying to regain his balance. Its not his fault the West Brom player is trying to hold onto his leg. At worst its just a coming together charlies leg has to go somewhere.
|
|
|
Intent
Aug 30, 2015 7:52:46 GMT
Post by ihitthebar on Aug 30, 2015 7:52:46 GMT
careless = foul reckless = booking excessive force = off intent = irrelevant Helps clarify tackles but what about Afellay- where does 'being a bit of a pansy' fit in? Don't think it could be put down to excessive force or reckless. I'm not condoning it, what he did was stupid and a red card by the letter of the law but does it really need to be? Similarly with Huth's, I don't see what that could be classed as but, for me, should've been red due to intent.
|
|