The Ref Stop

Millwall v Leeds

The Ref Stop
I don't think it's an attempt for the ball and I don't think there was a covering defender who would have got there at the moment of the foul (at first I thought they would but if you look at where the foul actually begins the striker is going right and the defenders are to the left of him.)

If it's a penalty I think red card is the correct decision but I'm not convinced that it was actually a foul.
 
I think there is the slightest of clips that brings the attacker down. Once given though it has to be red, centre of the area, no covering defenders, would have had control of the ball, and crucially there is no attempt by the defender to play the ball at any point.
 
Well he has won his appeal, but not sure if that is because they don't think it was a foul or they don't think it was DOGSO.
 
Poor decision by the FA, if it’s a rescinded card then the diver should have been retrospectively banned. I’m no Leeds or Milscum fan but it’s a crap decision compared to the Bamford incident!
 
The problem with appeals are (at least my limited understanding is) the panel are ex player, ex manager, and ex ref and majority vote wins. So only 1 of the votes is cast by a match official who likely has a good grasp of law.
 
I believe the red was rescinded as they didn't think it was DOGSO, and the player isn't banned because apparently they found contact. He basically got away with cheating, won his side the game and pretty much suggests you can dive and get away with it
 
How did he (I assume you are referring to the Millwall player) get away with cheating?

If they found contact, then the referee was right to award a penalty. What he was wrong in doing was going DOGSO and sending him off, supposedly.
As said on here, some are for the red, and some not. So clearly some people feel if giving it then they deemed it to be DOGSO. Thats the funny thing about appeals, as highlighted above, it is a 3 man panel and 2 have to agree to one or the other for it to stand or rescind. In this case, they decided to rescind. 3 different judges may have said it sticks.

I personally felt there was enough for a penalty. Certainly would have been a foul elsewhere on the pitch, wouldn't it? I am positive you'd have been screaming for it at the other end and been just as happy with a red card too, and may have seen why a yellow was issued too if that was to be the case.

And to cite someone for supposedly cheating when Leeds have Bamford in their squad is laughable.
 
Not sure how you've turned this into a personal thing about Bamford because I support Leeds?? It doesn't affect me I can't see any contact whatsoever and I'm not sure it's possible to. I don't blame the ref for missing it, he's just been deceived.

The decision to not give the ban to the Millwall player doesn't affect Leeds, I just think he's got away with one. I wouldn't have screamed for it, I'd have been embarrassed for him diving.

Also, I don't think the decision reached the panel as apparently it didn't meet the threshold

No need to mention who I support or another playing who wasn't involved
 
alexv said:
I believe the red was rescinded as they didn't think it was DOGSO, and the player isn't banned because apparently they found contact. He basically got away with cheating, won his side the game and pretty much suggests you can dive and get away with it
Click to expand...
Thanks for that balanced view @alexv 👍😂
 
I haven't turned it against Bamford, just saying Leeds can not complain about foul play when they have Bamford.
And I don't care if you support Leeds or QPR (well, QPR I might....).
They haven't banned him because they clearly felt that it was a penalty, but not worthy of DOGSO. Just because they rescinded it doesn't mean it automatically becomes the referee being deceived.
And surely for it to be overturned, it must have reached some form of a panel to make that decision. The referee can not change his mind when writing a report. He has to submit it as it happened.
 
So because I'm a Leeds fan, I can't point out diving?? I'm sure 100% of teams have had someone dive for them before. I just don't understand how they've seen contact, when there just isn't any. There hasn't been a single angle which has shown clear contact. Even if there was the tiniest touch, he's managed to take a step or two before going down. He's literally simulated contact
 
alexv said:
There hasn't been a single angle which has shown clear contact.
Click to expand...

But that's upside down. To support the referee decision, they don't need clear evidence. They need clear evidence to contradict it. Isn't it most likely on the diving issue that they didn't think the evidence was sufficiently clear to impose a post-game sanction? (I haven't watched the clips, so I don't have an opinion.)
 
socal lurker said:
But that's upside down. To support the referee decision, they don't need clear evidence. They need clear evidence to contradict it. Isn't it most likely on the diving issue that they didn't think the evidence was sufficiently clear to impose a post-game sanction? (I haven't watched the clips, so I don't have an opinion.)
Click to expand...
Watch the clips. I don’t think anyone can blame the ref for not spotting the dive, but replays show there was no contact. This still (although not perfect) shows how far the ‘offender’ was, before he took a touch and went down. It’s not surprising to see younger players dive when this suggests it can win you a penalty, red card and not face repurcussions 5396C95A-BC76-4FCF-A7FB-8BF52D2E7B06.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top