Quite a few esteemed members in the Mental Disability Club I see.....Have you any more insults for others opinion?? 
Cosgrove Send Off: An Appeal - Really?
- Thread starter Redster
- Start date
LothianRef
Member
It's not, but we don't all think it SFP...........
Quite a few esteemed members in the Mental Disability Club I see.....Have you any more insults for others opinion??
I didn't realise any esteemed members had lodged an appeal against this red card and then lost that appeal. You might want to read the OP properly.
Watching this in slow motion really detracts from the force of the challenge. The sheer speed [read: force] at which he came in, in combination with the height and lack of control in the challenge make it SFP for me, too.
You're right that the should've and could've are relevant to recklessness, but I uswd them in response to someone who said thw force was reasonable when considering how far the tackler had run to play the ball. Just because a tackle is reckless doesn't mean it isn't also SFP.
I can see why people say yellow - there is no straight legged studded challenge to the shin - but for me the SFP is in the speed and height (they being relevant to force) of the challenge. Nothing in mitigation for my mind.
LothianRef
Member
I will say I’ve seen worse challenges go unpunished though
We get it, you’ve closed your book in this.... why post when you obviously don’t like and dissenting voices!
Last edited:
I think I'm the one in dissent, old chap
He’s off the ground, at full speed and with studs showing. I can see the argument for yellow as he wins the ball and it is the trailing leg that takes the opponent out, but I think most top level referees would go red for that these days as it ticks all of the boxes for SFP.
PP62
Well-Known Member
When you see a player running 20+ metres at speed to probably make a tackle your alarm bells should be ringing and you have to be putting in a sprint to get a good view of the challenge. In real time it looks terrible. In slow motion we see the contact is with the trailing leg against the attackers foot and isn't all that bad. However, until I have a slow motion replay in my head this will be a red card every time.
If there was only a question of whether this is really red or that someone has missed the law justifying yellow, maybe people wouldn't have jumped.
But suggesting that this appeal would require a mental deficiency, and not say, more of understanding the law subtleties than of emotional reaction, or having a familiarity with the appeals process, some people are a bit less likely to see good faith there.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
I can absolutely see why the referee went for red, at full speed, with only 1 chance to view it from 1 angle, it is going to look like a cheeky tackle.
But, I can also see why people are saying yellow, although I wonder whether anyone viewing at full speed with the referees view, not multiple camera angles, would stick by their guns.
But, I can also see why people are saying yellow, although I wonder whether anyone viewing at full speed with the referees view, not multiple camera angles, would stick by their guns.
On first view of the full speed clip in the video, I thought strong yellow.
Obviously that wasn't the exact same view as the referee.
My card for this tackle would very much be swayed by the context up until that point.
If we've had a great clean contest at 0-0, a firmly delivered caution and a word to both captains is going to put a ring around this. Messy, lopsided, a few cautions already, this is an easy dismissal to make a point with.