A&H

Alan Shearer Analysis of Hull v Sunderland

Southend-ref

Southend-ref

Southend United Supporter
Level 6 Referee
Did anybody else want to kick their TV after Alan Shearer offered his verdict of Andre Marriner's refereeing in the above game? His constant use of the word 'wreckless' to describe the red card challenges annoyed me so much! And then he said that he should have sent off the Hull player for the challenge on Adam Johnson. For me Marriner got all 3 right - what do you think?
 
The Referee Store
Andre got 2 right and 1 wrong for me.

Both Sunderland ones were red, but I think the Hull one on Johnson was too
 
I struggled to see the catermole red. Looked like a caution to me. I heard pundits talk of his reputation buying him the red, have to agree.
 
2 reds for Sunderland were 100% for me, and I thought he did well. The third, it was one of those, I can see it either way. I can see why it is and why it isn't a red. And for me, if I have doubt about it, I wouldn't be giving it, so again I think he called it right.
 
Agree with the other 2.

The dossena red was 100% worst tackle I have seen in a while. Potential leg breaker.

The Brady challenge was dumb, he was in the air, both feet off the ground, but from the side and not sure if he actually made any contact. A caution seemed a good decision.
 
Only issue I have is that Cattermole's and the Hull players 'tackles' seemed quite similar in terms of severity. Dossena's was horrific and he should be ashamed of himself. Cattermole is a walking timebomb, but imo he might have cause to feel a little harshly treated when the Hull player only received a yellow, but I agree, Shearer's so called analysis of refereeing decisions has returned to the usual standard of utter nonsense, after a brief moment of clarity the other week.
 
For me, the differences between the Cattermole & Brady challenges are the angle and contact points.

Cattermole is coming from a head-on direction, lunging in making contact with the foot/ankle at excessive speed where as Brady is from the side and, whilst initially airbourne lands and slides into the Sunderland player not with his boot/studs but with his legs.

Intensity of Cattermole's challenge is far greater than that of Brady's as a result.
 
yeah possibly, Brady's looked far uglier in slow motion to me (not that the ref had that as a tool or frankly has nothing to do with it) as he jumped and looked all set to lunge two footed, however, I take your points about speed and direction, I imagine that's exactly what the referee in question decided.
 
I can't understand why Sky/BBC don't do what BT have done and employed a referee to comment on the refereeing. I've always thought that it should be the case (I am still waiting for it to happen in cricket as well, rather than listening to Bob Willis rambling on ignorantly!) and I am amazed that it has taken this long.
 
I would agree with what his initial decisions were, I can see why some may feel Brady's was a red also though as he does lunge in.

The second Sunderland one was a disgrace and three game ban seems lenient given he could have ended the other guys career right there.
 
ASM verbatim!

Serious Foul play considerations:
  • Speed
  • Intensity
  • Control of the challenge
  • Likelihood of playing ball
  • Position of contact, if any.
  • Likelihood of injury aka Endangering Safety of Opponent
  • Excessive Force.

The caution for the challenge by the Hull player was totally correct IMO too. Contact was minimal and was not with the feet. The moment a player is off the ground, is a free kick for me anyway, and a caution likely too.
 
I have to agree with Dancohen17 even as a hull fan. He was off his feet, studs showing, late, nowhere near the ball. But from a Hull fan point of view it couldn't have been in a better position to annoy Gus Poyet, a kicking him while he's down sort of thing :D:D I do think that Andre Marriner is a good ref though and think that he left the colour of the card down to the fourth official.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top