The Ref Stop

Championship - Red card knocked out of ref's hand

deusex

deusex

RefChat Addict

Be interested to see how little a ban he gets, maybe an extra match? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
I would think more, it all comes down to what the ref wrote in his report.
 
I'm not sure it's an awful challenge, swinging his leg to clear the ball? Attacker is on his blindside? I think I'd have gone yellow.

The ref definitely goes short pocket first then something prompts him to change his mind (or perhaps offinabus)
 
Yeah, I'm not totally sold on the red either. Challenge alone isn't bad enough for a red IMO and he's clearly going for the ball, which should limit it to yellow under the new DOGSO. The referee's also walked right up into the guy (who's initially trying to back off), not even attempted to get other players away and then pulled the card right into his face. We'd all be crucified by observers if we attempted any one of those antagonistic things at grassroots level.

Of course, none of this excuses the reaction, I'm assuming this sticks something like a VC charge on top of the DOGSO/SFP that he was shown red for originally?
 
I thought that the referees approach for the red card contributed massively to the aftermath! That is not how it should be done!
 
This should be a training video on how NOT to send somebody off.
Years ago we were taught that when you give a penalty you run to a spot about on the edge of the GA, just off the goal line. That way, the players are all in front of you. I've found it to be a good tool - easier to tell players to clear off that way. It was described as 'run over to your castle and pull up the drawbridge'. Then it can be easier to isolate players as needed.
That, and the other obvious point is to make sure you actually know which pocket your cards are in.
I agree about the challenge - looked like a genuine attempt for the ball and no DOGSO under the new laws. (just a normal, swinging kick, didn't expect the attacker to come in at the last moment).
 
Player will be in very hot water for that. Thats a low level assault in criminal law = slap on the wrist type offence if reported to authorities.
IMO the referee could have handled this situation better.
For me this is a yellow. Its a genuine attempt at the ball, which is in last ditch playing distance and therefore there is an opportunity to win the ball which is the important part. From this angle its definitely not SFP. The only possible deviation to my opinion as suggested is OFFINABUS in which case its correct. On to the administration of the sanction...
He's just given a penalty which always leads to some level of disagreement. He has his back turned to almost everybody except the guy he is about to send off. He should be, as suggested bolting towards the goal line with back to spectators everybody in view. Diffuse the protests. All the while giving himself some valuable thinking time. Isolate the offender and administer a caution/ send off.
What are peoples thoughts on support from ARs and 4th official? Could they not have offered a bit of advice on the comms here? Thats 3 other refs that seemingly have allowed this referee to make, on face value, an incorrect decision in law? Remember the referee can change his decision until play has restarted. I think I'd want the help if I'd been in his position . No wonder fans are struggling to understand the change in law when its not being applied consistently - forest fans up in arms today over a dogso caution correctly given by the referee in that game.
Finally, could be a first I dont know but the red card could be rescinded but the player get banned anyway on a separate charge for his reaction?
 
es1 said:
I'm not sure it's an awful challenge, swinging his leg to clear the ball? Attacker is on his blindside? I think I'd have gone yellow.

The ref definitely goes short pocket first then something prompts him to change his mind (or perhaps offinabus)
Click to expand...

Assistant / 4th official in his ears on comms?
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
es1 said:
The ref definitely goes short pocket first then something prompts him to change his mind (or perhaps offinabus)
Click to expand...
if u look closely he takes his notepad out. This is still in his hand when he picks up his red card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Difficult to know what was said over the comms, though he didn't give himself any thinking space.

In my opinion he should have backed away towards the corner flag beckoning the offending player to come with him. It would have bought him some time to weigh up what he actually saw, take in advice from other officials. I am sure he would have issued a yellow. The penalty is as clear as it gets. But the sending off is very harsh, he was focused on the ball and wasn't aware of the striker. Accepting that he should have anticipated that in all probabilty there would have been. But football is instinctive
 
James Long said:
What are peoples thoughts on support from ARs and 4th official? Could they not have offered a bit of advice on the comms here? Thats 3 other refs that seemingly have allowed this referee to make, on face value, an incorrect decision in law?
Click to expand...
We cannot assume that this is a mistake in Law. If the referee believed the tackle to be worse than reckless, then even under the new Laws he is fully allowed to still give a red card. And while we may disagree with this decision, this is only a dispute over facts, and that is not protest able as a mistake in Law would be.
 
Thinking Red here is right. The tackle is from behind and through the legs - can you make a genuine attempt at the ball from behind a player and through his body?

I could even been sold on excessive force notwithstanding dogso.
 
James Long said:
if u look closely he takes his notepad out. This is still in his hand when he picks up his red card.
Click to expand...
Eh...there is no notebook in his hand?

Initial thoughts pen - yellow

Player clearly saying I won the ball, not sold on OFFINABUS and arrogance of ref and the way he strutted towards him definitely contributed to players reaction.
 
Ganajin said:
We cannot assume that this is a mistake in Law. If the referee believed the tackle to be worse than reckless, then even under the new Laws he is fully allowed to still give a red card. And while we may disagree with this decision, this is only a dispute over facts, and that is not protest able as a mistake in Law would be.
Click to expand...
apologies. I was trying to be careful not to say an outright mistake as you'll gauge from the rest of my post. Yes I disagree with his decision but I think that one part of the post on its own in isolation is taken out of context.
I could perhaps of worded it better
 
When he submits his reports, it'll be clear if the player was sent for SFP or DOGSO - and if it's the latter, then the 1 match ban might get overturned, but you feel he'll still sit out at least 3 for his reaction?
 
James Long said:
Looks as though he has something in his left hand. Might not be notebook those were just my initial thoughts. I've taken a still take a look.
View attachment 1115
Click to expand...

look at it on a larger screen trust me there is nothing in his hand! He reaches into his short pocket and then goes for the shirt pocket and delivers the red which is then knocked out of his hand the only other thing in his hand is the string from his wrist lanyard holding his whistle look just after the card is knocked out of his hand just before he turns!
 
A Freethinker said:
look at it on a larger screen trust me there is nothing in his hand! He reaches into his short pocket and then goes for the shirt pocket and delivers the red which is then knocked out of his hand the only other thing in his hand is the string from his wrist lanyard holding his whistle look just after the card is knocked out of his hand just before he turns!
Click to expand...
zoomed in. Im not saying he has. I am saying it looks like. Look at the image i have attached. The quality leaves a lot to be desired but it certainly looks like he has something in his left hand. Its more than likely a quality of picture issue but just saying what it looks like he could have done
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20170220-093937.png
    Screenshot_20170220-093937.png
    711 KB · Views: 13
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top