Newcastle v Liverpool
- Thread starter Ryanj91
- Start date
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
If that's all you would consider then you are not applying the proper criteria.
For a potential DOGSO offence the laws say that a referee must consider the following elements:
If all you're considering is whether the player could have got a shot away (which is also not one of the criteria anyway) then I'd have to say that's well short of what is required.
And why did everyone not expect nearly the exact same offence from Gordon to be a caution? It's abundantly clear that he's applied the law inconsistently in the cases I've listed, and there's a strong correlation between harsher punishments when the opponents shout loudest. Occam's razor - unless you have a better explanation, the most obvious is most likely to be correct.Couldn't disagree more. I didn't say that Tindall's reaction caused the referee to give the card, I said his reaction showed that everyone expected it to be a caution. If you are going to disagree fine, but at least read what I actually wrote before calling them "weasly explanations" (and get a spell checker)
And he was clearly getting the red out for the DOGSO before any player even thought about appealing, yet you've neglected to mention that as it doesn't back the narrative you want to paint.
I'm not arguing with the red. Note where I specify that the pressure is required "for these technical offences" - so who's not reading other peoples posts now?
There's a long gap and a lot of poor decisions between the initial mistake and the DOGSO - if your best defence is that he managed to get one right in the 26th minute, how do I arrange to have you come and do my observations? Because that's setting the bar for positive feedback astonishingly low!
I've already given my view on the Gordon incident, I don't think the referee saw it. There's a player stood in front of him when it happens, I'm pretty sure he thinks a Liverpool player kicked it, and that's really the only possible explanation why he then let a Liverpool player take the free kick from 15 metres further forward than where it should be, he thinks the ball is already in play. Its still a missed caution and 0.1 off the mark, and one of his colleagues should have been in his ear telling him what had happened. Again, another one that only the officials and PGMOL will know what actually happened.
This is ridiculous:
www.bbc.co.uk
All that abuse amounts to a ONE-GAME ban.
This is why football is in trouble.
Van Dijk gets extra match ban for red-card reaction
Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk is suspended for an extra match and fined £100,000 after admitting he acted in an improper manner following his red card in a win at Newcastle United.
www.bbc.co.uk
All that abuse amounts to a ONE-GAME ban.
This is why football is in trouble.
Kinsleyr
Member
What extra abuse? All I heard on the review was that he said 'its a ****ing joke' which is tame by standards heard at junior football nowadays!This is ridiculous:
Van Dijk gets extra match ban for red-card reaction
Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk is suspended for an extra match and fined £100,000 after admitting he acted in an improper manner following his red card in a win at Newcastle United.
All that abuse amounts to a ONE-GAME ban.
This is why football is in trouble.
The forum I follow is full of comments along the lines of 'what a joke, he was ****, the referees deserve to be called out.'This is ridiculous:
Van Dijk gets extra match ban for red-card reaction
Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk is suspended for an extra match and fined £100,000 after admitting he acted in an improper manner following his red card in a win at Newcastle United.
All that abuse amounts to a ONE-GAME ban.
This is why football is in trouble.
And they wonder why nobody wants to do it!