A&H

Brentford v Fulham

L

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
Anyone seen the challenge by Harrison Reed?

Debating at half time if it should have been a red with them saying orange.
Kinda agree with the analysts.
Studs up, caught Norgaard above the ankle having lunged/stretched for the ball he over hit.

Atkinson, mind, overall is doing well. Hardly notice him.
 
The Referee Store
On another day, with VAR, there could have been multiple reds for Fulham tonight. Several orange tackles all got yellows and mitrovic which, I presume, none of the officials saw clearly.

Better team won mind but I feel I've been cheated out of pens!
 
I think if it's an 'orange' tackle, you should go yellow - certainly in a play-off final. I would hope VAR wouldn't intervene on 'orange' tackles.

Thought Atkinson was excellent.
 
onthebrink said:
I think if it's an 'orange' tackle, you should go yellow - certainly in a play-off final. I would hope VAR wouldn't intervene on 'orange' tackles.

Thought Atkinson was excellent.
Click to expand...
That's the opposite of the FA guidance. We were told at the 5-4 seminar a while back that there is no orange and a so called orange tackle should be a red card offence.
Haven't seen this challenge so can't comment specifically.
 
JamesL said:
That's the opposite of the FA guidance. We were told at the 5-4 seminar a while back that there is no orange and a so called orange tackle should be a red card offence.
Haven't seen this challenge so can't comment specifically.
Click to expand...
And that's the opposite of what PGMOL guest speakers have said at my RA meetings
Red requires a degree of certainty (depending on the temp of the game that is)
 
Big Cat said:
And that's the opposite of what PGMOL guest speakers have said at my RA meetings
Red requires a degree of certainty (depending on the temp of the game that is)
Click to expand...
I think the suggestion was that if you think it is orange, you're already certain it's more than yellow. If it's more than yellow... Well there is only one colour after that :)
 
JamesL said:
I think the suggestion was that if you think it is orange, you're already certain it's more than yellow. If it's more than yellow... Well there is only one colour after that :)
Click to expand...
By the same argument, if you think it's orange, you're already certain it's less than a red...?
 
Alex Rush-Fear said:
By the same argument, if you think it's orange, you're already certain it's less than a red...?
Click to expand...
I'm only quoting what Dan Meeson said. iirc it was, in response to a fellow candidate saying a challenge was orange for a red card development clip,along the lines of "there is no such thing as orange. If you see a challenge you believe is more than a yellow (ie orange) you are seeing a red card offence."
I agree with what you say because the principle is the same, if you look at a challenge and in your head it isn't quite a red, its a yellow. There is no such thing as orange. There isn't a middle ground. It's more than a yellow is red, and less than a red is yellow.
By saying it is orange, you are essentially saying it has breached the reckless threshold. At which point it becomes excessive force. There is no in between in law, you have to categorise it as one or the other.
This is a KMD... When the observer comes in and says what did you see you better not say it was orange, as he'll be left wondering what you've seen and if you saw it correctly because you haven't been able to say what you saw in law and will appear indecisive. You need to be certain of what you saw and satte in law reckless or excessive.
 
JamesL said:
I'm only quoting what Dan Meeson said. iirc it was, in response to a fellow candidate saying a challenge was orange for a red card development clip,along the lines of "there is no such thing as orange. If you see a challenge you believe is more than a yellow (ie orange) you are seeing a red card offence."
I agree with what you say because the principle is the same, if you look at a challenge and in your head it isn't quite a red, its a yellow. There is no such thing as orange. There isn't a middle ground. It's more than a yellow is red, and less than a red is yellow.
By saying it is orange, you are essentially saying it has breached the reckless threshold. At which point it becomes excessive force. There is no in between in law, you have to categorise it as one or the other.
This is a KMD... When the observer comes in and says what did you see you better not say it was orange, as he'll be left wondering what you've seen and if you saw it correctly because you haven't been able to say what you saw in law and will appear indecisive. You need to be certain of what you saw and satte in law reckless or excessive.
Click to expand...
Good point that we don't want to be using the word 'orange' with an observer. We might however call upon that phrase down the boozer
 
JamesL said:
I'm only quoting what Dan Meeson said. iirc it was, in response to a fellow candidate saying a challenge was orange for a red card development clip,along the lines of "there is no such thing as orange. If you see a challenge you believe is more than a yellow (ie orange) you are seeing a red card offence."
I agree with what you say because the principle is the same, if you look at a challenge and in your head it isn't quite a red, its a yellow. There is no such thing as orange. There isn't a middle ground. It's more than a yellow is red, and less than a red is yellow.
By saying it is orange, you are essentially saying it has breached the reckless threshold. At which point it becomes excessive force. There is no in between in law, you have to categorise it as one or the other.
This is a KMD... When the observer comes in and says what did you see you better not say it was orange, as he'll be left wondering what you've seen and if you saw it correctly because you haven't been able to say what you saw in law and will appear indecisive. You need to be certain of what you saw and satte in law reckless or excessive.
Click to expand...
Yeah but Dan's not here to have the argument with and you are :p I rarely have it happen on-field where my mind is thinking 'orange' anyway to be honest, my brain tends to quickly decide on yellow or red (rightly or wrongly :oops:) and for the odd one where I am uncertain whether to go yellow or red I'll usually have a colleague's advice to use, or players' reaction may help my thought process.

And obviously I wouldn't say it was orange to an observer :rofl:
 
Alex Rush-Fear said:
Yeah but Dan's not here to have the argument with and you are :p I rarely have it happen on-field where my mind is thinking 'orange' anyway to be honest, my brain tends to quickly decide on yellow or red (rightly or wrongly :oops:) and for the odd one where I am uncertain whether to go yellow or red I'll usually have a colleague's advice to use, or players' reaction may help my thought process.

And obviously I wouldn't say it was orange to an observer :rofl:
Click to expand...
In my learning experience, I feel as if a red card has a signature. Such that the decision is instantaneous and then it's merely about dealing with the process. To my recollection, anytime I'v engaged in some sort of mental (orange) debate, a caution was the outcome (and a stern word, which may otherwise be unnecessary)
 
I'd agree the phrase 'orange' is used too much and generally best avoided.

But I still think that a referee should have a high degree of certainty if showing a red. The expression 'orange' has always suggested to me a referee is in two minds as to whether to go yellow or red, in which case I would err on the side of (literally a) caution.
 
As an observer, I'd be happy to hear it was an orange card. I'd be even more happy when the referee explained to me how he decided whether it was red or yellow. Firstly, because the referee would have to demonstrate their understanding of the law and how it should be applied. Secondly, because the referee would be demonstrating the courage of their convictions. Thirdly, because the referee would be recognising that the tempo of the game might influence the shade. I'm all for referees thinking while being consistent.
 
onthebrink said:
I'd agree the phrase 'orange' is used too much and generally best avoided.

But I still think that a referee should have a high degree of certainty if showing a red. The expression 'orange' has always suggested to me a referee is in two minds as to whether to go yellow or red, in which case I would err on the side of (literally a) caution.
Click to expand...

While I'd agree it gets used too often, on any decisions, there are always border cases. To me, "orange" means it is a border case where it is appropriate to consider the temperature of the match and the prior actions of the team/player in making the final decision. "Orange" is not an excuse to not give a red for what USSF used to call "100% misconduct"--a teaching phrase they used to emphasize that certain plays had a clear misconduct level and not giving it was making excuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top