It's actually not clear from that article if Halsey thinks it was a red card or not. It in fact looks like he kind of agrees it's red, but that he thinks Moss shouldn't have given it because it wasn't really clear "in real time" (and so he should have taken the safe option - yellow). Which is a rather strange reasoning... He's basically criticizing Moss for taking what later - after seeing replays - appears to be the right decision.
Man City vs Liverpool
- Thread starter Mooseybaby
- Start date
Ye but don't forget they are role models for many young referees. I have heard the fact (never checked?) That clattenberg started at the age of 26 many times
Can't be correct, he was a level 4 by the time he was 18, refereeing in the Conference at 24 and Football League the year later. He started in the Premier League before he was 30, that doesn't happen if you only start refereeing at 26.
Must be a urban myth then!
MentalFrix
New Member
I can't believe this has caused any controversy whatsoever. He jumps into a challenge at speed, with his foot raised at head height. Simplest red card.
Mike Jones at Swansea today, saw a similar challenge as a yellow however.
Mike Jones at Swansea today, saw a similar challenge as a yellow however.
Yeah fair point - no doubt they're entitled to their opinion and it's worth a lot more than some of the ex pros on this particular topic. But it just comes across as a grudge of some kind with Halsey - if I haven't got him confused he was the one suggesting Jon Moss didn't deserve the cup final a couple of years ago.
Generally it's worth having ex referees add to the debate (especially when the official hierarchy doesn't make any comment), but having a dig at their colleague when it's so obviously the correct decision is poor form for me.
I saw that one -- to me, it didn't look like contact was made (though I only saw it in real time, never saw the replays), so a YC would be fair in that circumstance.
You can still endanger a opponent without touching them only reason he didn't touch him was because mawson kind of saw it coming and just fractionally moved...
and got it right didnt wait to see the extent of the injury then make his mind up
True, but at the same time, it's the precise definition of playing in a dangerous manner:
The referee today obviously felt that this was more PIADM, and in this situation, a caution would be appropriate due to the potential level of injury at stake.
In short, yes, I feel that both referees actually got these two calls correct.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
"That doubt should have made it a yellow". Well, no. That's not how it works. Also, he is viewing it from a poorer angle - so of course he's going to have doubt from his armchair from a far-off camera angle until a better angle is shows. What he's saying isn't making any sense whatsoever.
The fact that the keeper ducked his head down slightly to around chest height is also irrelevant - genuinely can't believe he's apportioning some blame to the keeper. Had the keeper been kicked in the chest it would still be a clear red.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
That's a ridiculous (and scurrilous) claim to make, in my opinion. I've just re-checked the footage and John Moss, having clearly seen the challenge, actually walked in a direction that took him further away from the keeper while calling Mané over to him and brought the red card out before he'd even had a chance to see the extent of the keeper's injuries.
The Laws say that "when a player [...] endangers the safety of an opponent [he] must be sent off."
If you don't think that was a red card, perhaps you could explain just exactly how you think it did not endanger the safety of an opponent?
Last edited:
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
That challenge was also significantly different to this one. So far you've twice made the claim that he was incorrect but haven't actually engaged in any of the discussion raised by those claims.
Halsey certainly isn't on the City fans' hate list (we've had him at supporters club meetings) but he's daft on this. Haven't there been several "official" illustrations that mean you do take into account the consequences of a foul tackle?
"In real time I would have taken the safe option and cautioned Mane because there was an element of doubt." Safe for whom? Not the GK lying with a gashed face and stud marks an inch or so from an eye.
Surely the distinction between yesterday's yellow and Saturday's red is that Reckless means that the player has acted with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent while “Using excessive force” means that the player endangers the safety of an opponent. Mane was not "in danger of injuring his opponent" (previous wording) but plainly did endanger the safety of an opponent. I'm not baffled by some of the media nonsense (which I put down to the general antipathy toward City) but I am baffled by refs at any level who didn't see it as a red card under the SFP definition.
The wording of excessive force is still stupid. As "complete disregard" for "reckless" is now just "disregard", that suggests a lower threshold for YCs, but I can't be the only one to think that "excessive force" is a stupid category. What is "the necessary use of force"? Necessary to do what? The wording is "far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent" - what if you have far exceeded the necessary use of force but weren't in danger of injuring an opponent?; what if you used "necessary force" and did serious damage? Personally, I'd also want to think about the difference between SFP and VC - many SFP tackles are SFP because the offender went for the man and ignored the ball (and that's a distinction we now have to make in DOGSO, with a RC still possible in the PA if the tackle was not a realistic attempt to play the ball).
"In real time I would have taken the safe option and cautioned Mane because there was an element of doubt." Safe for whom? Not the GK lying with a gashed face and stud marks an inch or so from an eye.
Surely the distinction between yesterday's yellow and Saturday's red is that Reckless means that the player has acted with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent while “Using excessive force” means that the player endangers the safety of an opponent. Mane was not "in danger of injuring his opponent" (previous wording) but plainly did endanger the safety of an opponent. I'm not baffled by some of the media nonsense (which I put down to the general antipathy toward City) but I am baffled by refs at any level who didn't see it as a red card under the SFP definition.
The wording of excessive force is still stupid. As "complete disregard" for "reckless" is now just "disregard", that suggests a lower threshold for YCs, but I can't be the only one to think that "excessive force" is a stupid category. What is "the necessary use of force"? Necessary to do what? The wording is "far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent" - what if you have far exceeded the necessary use of force but weren't in danger of injuring an opponent?; what if you used "necessary force" and did serious damage? Personally, I'd also want to think about the difference between SFP and VC - many SFP tackles are SFP because the offender went for the man and ignored the ball (and that's a distinction we now have to make in DOGSO, with a RC still possible in the PA if the tackle was not a realistic attempt to play the ball).
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Just seen this. Am now bewildered as to why there is even one page, nevermind three on this. Red card.
Although a pair of slippers on the Liverpool player might have reduced the damage to the keeper
Although a pair of slippers on the Liverpool player might have reduced the damage to the keeper
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
There will be no doubt. Read Howard Webb's autobiography!
Not really endangering an opponent...
And Liverpool appeal the length of the ban....
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spor...iverpool-appeal-against-length-sadio-13605065
That's why the thread is three pages long.
And Liverpool appeal the length of the ban....
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spor...iverpool-appeal-against-length-sadio-13605065
That's why the thread is three pages long.
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
An appeal though does not, or should not negate the stonewall cast iron fact that from a referee perspective its a red card.
Anyone qualified and or registered as a match official has to recognise this is a red card offence.
Its frightening to even imagine anyone would not dismiss a player in their own game for this challenge.
Liverpools appeal will be based on a claim that there was no intent to injure
Which as referees, we know is irrelavent
Thus very little discussion or debate re the correct call being made is required.
Anyone qualified and or registered as a match official has to recognise this is a red card offence.
Its frightening to even imagine anyone would not dismiss a player in their own game for this challenge.
Liverpools appeal will be based on a claim that there was no intent to injure
Which as referees, we know is irrelavent
Thus very little discussion or debate re the correct call being made is required.
He did make contact, Mawson went off a few minutes later to get his arm strapped up as the studs cut it. And given his arm was in front of his head at the time it might well have been a whole lot more similar to Mane's had Mawson not seen the challenge coming in and protected himself.
If contact was made, then arguably, it should also be a dismissal then.
My comments (previously in the thread) have all gone on the idea that there was no contact made (and to be frank, that may have also be the referee's belief), which would lead to PIADM and YC... I don't know what the actual restart was though in the match.