Bristol City v Sheff Utd

[Gabriel]

It's funny actually because the Bristol City manager was saying something along the lines of how can you kick the ball if you haven't challenged for it? I don't think he was getting anywhere near that ball if he didn't literally pull his opponent to the ground with both arms. Clear red card.

 

[Archer]

Crikey, imagine watching this crap on Sky Sports when you could have come and enjoyed me abandoning a Sunday League Div 7 game instead.

Red all day. Cheerio!

 

[Big Cat]

Yeah kicking the ball doesn't mean that the upper body contact (or pull) counts as a challenge for the ball.

I do feel like this one is close to the mark of what can go down as a challenge for the ball, but I certainly don't think a red card is wrong.

I didn't like the suggestion by the B City manager that they had told Kevin Friend he shouldn't be on the game because he's made other big decisions against them - that is very close to being an accusation of deliberate bias.

I'm not sure where I got this notion from, but I have it mind that the spirit of the law change was that football didn't want double jeopardy unless the foul play was of an egregious nature.... professional foul or cheating so to speak. In my view, although the defender hauled the forward down, he did so in the act of challenging for the ball

I'm in a minority of one (maybe you're half way to agreeing with me), but a caution and PK seemed apt to me
The decision (or the defender's action of pulling the player down) ruined the game in a heartbeat

Anyway, I'm not sure where I got my interpretation from, but my mindset is that the law makers understood that double jeopardy should be reserved for uncommon acts of very unsporting behaviour. Maybe I've dreamt this up

 

[socal lurker]

Look at the law—holding/pulling is expressly excluded from the “grace” for a PK DOGSO being yellow.

 

[JamesL]

I'm not sure where I got this notion from, but I have it mind that the spirit of the law change was that football didn't want double jeopardy unless the foul play was of an egregious nature.... professional foul or cheating so to speak. In my view, although the defender hauled the forward down, he did so in the act of challenging for the ball

I'm in a minority of one (maybe you're half way to agreeing with me), but a caution and PK seemed apt to me
The decision (or the defender's action of pulling the player down) ruined the game in a heartbeat

Anyway, I'm not sure where I got my interpretation from, but my mindset is that the law makers understood that double jeopardy should be reserved for uncommon acts of very unsporting behaviour. Maybe I've dreamt this up

Think your memory is overstating the intention of the law change.
When the so called double jeopardy rule came in the teaching was that all upper body offences would be red.
The change to this was to reflect that not all upper body offences were to be seen as red and only those where the player was legitimately challenging for the ball.
This for me is very clear pushing or pulling which is explicitly still a red card.

 

[The Gump]

For those not bothered to find it online the link to the foul is here.

I'm really not sure what the debate is over the RC and any appeal is surely doomed to fail. Player is already going down from being pulled from behind before the player attempts to, and does, play the ball. The only way you could 'get away' with this not being RC is if you don't award the penalty, and it's very clearly a penalty.

 

[RustyRef]

For those not bothered to find it online the link to the foul is here.

I'm really not sure what the debate is over the RC and any appeal is surely doomed to fail. Player is already going down from being pulled from behind before the player attempts to, and does, play the ball. The only way you could 'get away' with this not being RC is if you don't award the penalty, and it's very clearly a penalty.

Agree, without Dickie pulling him back Moore almost certainly scores, there really can be no other outcome than DOGSO.

 

[Archer]

So we’re all agreed: Dickie pulling on the field is a red card.

 

[ARF]

So we’re all agreed: Dickie pulling on the field is a red card.

 

[RefereeX]

So we’re all agreed: Dickie pulling on the field is a red card.

Ballon D’oh winner worthy comment!

 

[socal lurker]

FWIW, since my post above, I’ve heard from a reliable source that in MLS, the clear instructions, despite the explicit language of the Law, is that an attempt vitiated the red card even for holding/pulling. This doesn’t seem the type of thing MLS/PRO would do on their own, but I can’t prove that. (The source I believe is reliable indicate this should be a VAR reversal per PRO instructions.) there seem to be examples in other leagues, too- odd that the PL, which generally seems to be lighter on punishment than many places, is adhering to the language of the Law here (at least in this one example). I’m really curious what the powers that be really think of this one.

(I think it should be red, the point of DOGSO was always to get rid of cynical fouls. And now we seem to be going out of the way to forgive cynical fouls on technicalities.)

 

[Big Cat]

non-Referees seemed to universally protest about this red card decision
Whether it was (from a rules perspective) or not, the game doesn't seem to want a dismissal, presumably (for same reasons as the way I feel about it) because it was not the player's intention to haul the striker down. That wasn't his intention in my opinion, so the red is wrong for me, even if it's right

 

[es1]

non-Referees seemed to universally protest about this red card decision
Whether it was (from a rules perspective) or not, the game doesn't seem to want a dismissal, presumably (for same reasons as the way I feel about it) because it was not the player's intention to haul the striker down. That wasn't his intention in my opinion, so the red is wrong for me, even if it's right

But the intention is to stop/impede his progress so he can try and make a 'legitimate' challenge, it's not like it's accidental (not that you're saying it is)

 

[Big Cat]

But the intention is to stop/impede his progress so he can try and make a 'legitimate' challenge, it's not like it's accidental (not that you're saying it is)

I don't think it is. I've done the same myself as a central defender. Sometimes, a player just tries too hard to win an unwinnable ball
I'm certain he's not thinking, 'I'm gonna bring him down to prevent a goalscoring opportunity'. Why would he? It results in an OGSO PK and a sanction, so why would he intend that? That thought is only associated with a 'professional foul' when a player is desperate and out of options

 

[RustyRef]

non-Referees seemed to universally protest about this red card decision
Whether it was (from a rules perspective) or not, the game doesn't seem to want a dismissal, presumably (for same reasons as the way I feel about it) because it was not the player's intention to haul the striker down. That wasn't his intention in my opinion, so the red is wrong for me, even if it's right

Don't think non-referees did universally protest, most people in the game I've heard talk about it agreed with the red card. The studio pundits agreed with it, as did those on the other Championship game the following today.

 

[Big Cat]

Don't think non-referees did universally protest, most people in the game I've heard talk about it agreed with the red card. The studio pundits agreed with it, as did those on the other Championship game the following today.

Highly likely, we mix in very different circles

 

[bloovee]

FWIW, since my post above, I’ve heard from a reliable source that in MLS, the clear instructions, despite the explicit language of the Law, is that an attempt vitiated the red card even for holding/pulling. This doesn’t seem the type of thing MLS/PRO would do on their own, but I can’t prove that. (The source I believe is reliable indicate this should be a VAR reversal per PRO instructions.) there seem to be examples in other leagues, too- odd that the PL, which generally seems to be lighter on punishment than many places, is adhering to the language of the Law here (at least in this one example). I’m really curious what the powers that be really think of this one.

(I think it should be red, the point of DOGSO was always to get rid of cynical fouls. And now we seem to be going out of the way to forgive cynical fouls on technicalities.)

It was to get rid of the "professional foul" where someone clear on goal was chopped down outside the PA.

Specifically:

 

[socal lurker]

It was to get rid of the "professional foul" where someone clear on goal was chopped down outside the PA.

Specifically:

If it was solely that, there never would have been bee PK reds…but it is also tough to say intent exactly when talking about group decisions and something that evolved from being a kind of SFP

 

[Russell Jones]

It was to get rid of the "professional foul" where someone clear on goal was chopped down outside the PA.

Specifically:

Which is what makes it somewhat surprising that in the considerations we are asked to use (the three D's and a C) there is no room for the other C .. Cynical.

We have ended up in a situation where some fairly cynical challenges in the penalty area might get downgraded to a YC because of a generous interpretation of a 'challenge for the ball' whereas a completely accidental clip of the heels by a defender naturally running outside the area is highly likely to end as Red Card .. correctly as the Law currently stands.

 

[DavidObs]

Which is what makes it somewhat surprising that in the considerations we are asked to use (the three D's and a C) there is no room for the other C .. Cynical.

We have ended up in a situation where some fairly cynical challenges in the penalty area might get downgraded to a YC because of a generous interpretation of a 'challenge for the ball' whereas a completely accidental clip of the heels by a defender naturally running outside the area is highly likely to end as Red Card .. correctly as the Law currently stands.

Spot on RJ.