The Ref Stop

Double jeopardy?

C

cdsman

Member
Local FA Cup qualifier - Penalty and red card at 7:14 in the video...

Looks to be an attempt to play the ball - doesn't that make the red card seem harsh / wrong?

 
The Ref Stop
Not many complaints from defender or team mates
Looking more like the tackle rather than dogso
in this case anyway team only have self to blame for the defensive mess, then desperatly trying to salvage it
at any cost by looks of it
 
I don't see that as SFP, I think the referee has just had a moment. That's where an observer would be asking him what the red card was for. If he said SFP I'd probably back him even though it isn't really for me, but if he says DOGSO then obviously he has a big problem. Although realistically one of the ARs would have told him that he had goofed and by the time of the debrief a story would have been concocted, especially as the debrief is likely to be 24 hours or longer later these days.
 
The R has a very different angle from the camera. If the R felt that the action by the defender was a deliberate take down rather than an attempt to play the ball, I wouldn't argue with him.
 
socal lurker said:
The R has a very different angle from the camera. If the R felt that the action by the defender was a deliberate take down rather than an attempt to play the ball, I wouldn't argue with him.
Click to expand...
Agree with this completely - the perfect angle is almost 180 degrees from the angle we have, the referee is around 90 degrees. We can't accurately judge how close to the ball the defender got, or really how high up the contact was made - the former of which is key to determine the DOGSO card colour and the latter to answer any SFP.
 
RustyRef said:
I don't see that as SFP, I think the referee has just had a moment. That's where an observer would be asking him what the red card was for. If he said SFP I'd probably back him even though it isn't really for me, but if he says DOGSO then obviously he has a big problem. Although realistically one of the ARs would have told him that he had goofed and by the time of the debrief a story would have been concocted, especially as the debrief is likely to be 24 hours or longer later these days.
Click to expand...
Concocting a story between the officials to tell the observer so you don't get nailed for being incorrect in law?? Sounds like the Wild West where you are. Most definitely wouldn't happen in my neck of the woods....
 
Anubis said:
Not many complaints from defender or team mates
Looking more like the tackle rather than dogso
in this case anyway team only have self to blame for the defensive mess, then desperatly trying to salvage it
at any cost by looks of it
Click to expand...
I was at the game and as you say, I was really surprised that the defender nor his team mates complained! They just seemed to accept that it was a foul in the penalty area and therefore a red card.

There was also a second penalty later on, where the defender 'grabbed' the attacker to stop him getting past him. Fairly soft penalty, but definitely not an attempt to play the ball, but only YC awarded. Ref could have said not DOGSO on this second one, but for me it was more of a send off than the first one!
 
I’ve very unscientifically used the play/pause/play method and it appears that the attacker goes through with both feet. I wouldn’t argue with SFP on that.
 
Agree with the consensus. If given for SFP then this is potentially defensible. If for DOGSO then it's a really hard sell. Worth saying though, that the referee's positioning is great and he sells the decision in a positive, calm, controlled manner.
 
This is a hd video and YouTube player has a 0.25 speed slowmo. The more I look at it the more I think I wouldn't argue with a fair tackle decision. I don't see how this could have been interpreted as SFP or no attempt to play the ball from any angle of view. All with the benefit of slow Mo and multiple replays of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top