Referees absolutely do look at the severity of injuries when deciding sanction. They will tell you they don't, and in most cases they don't, but when they aren't quite sure what they have seen the extent of any injury will come into it, even if just subconsciously. If a player is rolling around like a haybale in a gale force wind that screams to me that he isn't seriously injured, and almost certainly isn't actually injured at all.
Man Utd vs Man City
- Thread starter WillH
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
one
RefChat Addict
Somehow I feel this was a rhetorical and somewhat sarcastic question.
As I thought would be the case, Webb and PGMO have backed the decision of a caution for Dalot and stressed the need to watch it at real speed and that it was a glancing blow.
www.bbc.co.uk
VAR: Howard Webb backs officials over decision not to give Diogo Dalot red card
Premier League referees' boss Howard Webb rejects claims that his officials made a mistake by not sending off Diogo Dalot in Saturday's Manchester derby.
www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited:
As I thought would be the case, Webb and PGMO have backed the decision of a caution for Dalot and stressed the next to watch it at real speed and that it was a glancing blow.
VAR: Howard Webb backs officials over decision not to give Diogo Dalot red card
Premier League referees' boss Howard Webb rejects claims that his officials made a mistake by not sending off Diogo Dalot in Saturday's Manchester derby.
I'm not a fan of using this glancing blow as an excuse not to penalise as serious foul play/potentially endangering the opponent. We can't be encouraging knee high challenges with a straight leg and because it may of only graze the knee means it's not dangerous.
It is dangerous. Dangerous doesnt equal endangering the opponents safety. I've got to add as well that "potentially" endangering safety isn't a red card, it has to actually.
It's not encouraged because it's a. Dfk and caution.
When we say the blow is glancing, it is essentially another term for lacking force.
There's lots to consider for SFP including height of challenge, mode of contact, speed, intensity etc. It's ticking some boxes but lacks 1 of the essential criteria (for me) which is excessive force or endangering opponents safety. I can accept that this one can come down to individual subjectivity and either outcome could be supported.
bester
RefChat Addict
Dictionary definition
Endangering - put (someone or something) at risk or in danger.
Laws of the Game definition
Endangering the safety of an opponent
Put an opponent at danger or risk (of injury)
The glancing blow argument is focusing on a lack of excessive force the player has still been endangered.
I'm also curious about the slow-mo argument as most reviews the referee has almost exclusively been shown the slow-mo with maybe one run through at full speed
Endangering - put (someone or something) at risk or in danger.
Laws of the Game definition
Endangering the safety of an opponent
Put an opponent at danger or risk (of injury)
The glancing blow argument is focusing on a lack of excessive force the player has still been endangered.
I'm also curious about the slow-mo argument as most reviews the referee has almost exclusively been shown the slow-mo with maybe one run through at full speed
Last edited:
By this very same argument playing in a dangerous manner should be a red card offence not a caution. Carries practically the same language (danger/ risk/ injury).
Every challenge carries a risk, serious injuries have occurred from fair challenges.
one
RefChat Addict
This incident and a few others in the past sound like the type that would be backed by the the bosses (Webb and PGMO) no matter which way the decision goes as there can be justification either way. I strongly feel a red would have also been backed here. I really dont know if this is good or bad but it does impact the trust the public put on officials.
It's a tough spot to be in as no matter what the bosses do they can be criticised. I think consistency is key but very hard to achieve. If everytime there is a 'glancing' tackle like this, it is dealt the same way then the expectations are set and there won't be much of criticism.
It's a tough spot to be in as no matter what the bosses do they can be criticised. I think consistency is key but very hard to achieve. If everytime there is a 'glancing' tackle like this, it is dealt the same way then the expectations are set and there won't be much of criticism.
I don't agree. I can guarantee that probably hurt Doku, but I feel like there is zero chance of that challenge causing him an injury more than just the impact pain from the stud on the knee.
Point of contact is important in judging the severity of an offence, but if there is very little force behind the contact, it still has to provide some mitigation.
I have noticed that based upon Howard Webb’s comments, Mr Keith Hackett has not only launched an attack on the VAR on the game (who didn’t ask the Referee to view the incident) now being appointed to a high profile game, but has decreed that Howard Webb is not fit for purpose. I agree with Jame’s comments, so for KH to say HW is not fit for purpose is completely OTT.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Football surely expects a red card. At all levels. And the fall out is just window dressing.
Kinda ironic that Doku’s foot to chest on Mac Allister went unpunished. Short memories!
Kinda ironic that Doku’s foot to chest on Mac Allister went unpunished. Short memories!
Keith Hackett strikes me as a bitter man, who seems to have it in for Howard Webb regardless of what happens.
Although he’s likely making money from being perpetually angry as is the current vogue.
He also had it in for Mike Riley with the connection being clear - both held/hold the position he once had. He has also gone sour on HW after he was hoping for better things, especially since HW became a PL Referee on his watch (I think).
To be fair to Keith Hackett 3 former PL referees thought it was a red card(Dean, Gallagher and Foy) so Webb is clearly in the minority here even among former colleagues. I do understand what he says however when this perhaps should remain as refs call whichever way it goes as it does feel more of an orange card challenge and that some refs may go yellow and some may go red.
I don’t really have a problem with KH, especially since his view is also subjective based upon years of experience, but to say HW is not fit for purpose for what was a subjective decision was unfair & inappropriate for the positions he has held in the past and that he holds now.
Even more so as he was by far the worst head of PGMO. Refereeing at that level isn’t brilliant now but it is a damn site better than it was under his reign.
That said, it isn’t as pot and kettle as when he criticises fitness levels of referees
Football also expects that an IDFK is awarded when a goalkeeper handles the ball inside their own penalty area after attempting to kick the ball to release it into play after a teammate has deliberately passed it to them.
Edit to add that football also expects the goalkeeper to be sent off for DOGSO.