The Ref Stop

Crystal Palace Vs Manchester United

Late to the party. I think we can all agree that the action itself is stupid and has no place in football. He doesn't have a lot of forward momentum and I don't think contact should be the factor to decide how dangerous this is. It's how close to an opponent it is done that is the consideration here. If this was done a few yards away from an opponent no one will be thinking a free kick let alone a card. If it was right on top of an opponent then it would be the easiest red for everyone. So basically the closer you are to an opponent the more dangerous and risk to safety and the closer you get to red.

At first look it seemed there was a decent gap between him and opponent. But for me he lands close enough to an opponent's leg for it to be endangering the safety of opponent, and being a red.

Key words here are 'endangering' safety which doesn't necessarily mean safety issue has to materialise or injury inflicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
The Ref Stop
I was away this weekend with very little internet access so had only read about this, and I was expecting it to be a lot worse. Would have had no issues if it had been red on the pitch and wouldn't have expected VAR to get involved to overturn it, but equally I don't think there's enough for VAR to recommend a review, certainly not with the new mantra. Stupid from Martinez, and he has certainly got away with one. I suspect the independent review panel will either back this or be split down the middle.
 
KMI panel:

The Premier League's Independent Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel has unanimously backed the decision not to show a red card to Manchester United defender Lisandro Martínez in Saturday's 0-0 draw at Crystal Palace.

Referee David Coote booked Martínez for his challenge on Daichi Kamada in the 63rd minute. The VAR, Chris Kavanagh, checked the tackle, which saw the Argentina international leave the ground and jump in with both feet, but opted not to send Coote to the pitchside monitor to review his decision.

Guidance issued by UEFA, and followed by PGMOL and the Premier League, states that if there is no contact with a challenge of this nature, only a yellow card should be shown. Even though Martínez left the ground and appeared to stamp down, he brought his feet down onto the ball rather than the opponent

The KMI Panel's findings, seen by ESPN, appear to contradictory in nature -- though they follow the guidance issued. The KMI Panel stated that "the action viewed in isolation is a ridiculous challenge. Martinez is so fortunate that he doesn't contact Kamada." It went on to add that the decision was "supported as correct on the basis that the action by Martinez had been completed and no contact was made, however the panel felt very strongly that this type of challenge has no place on the pitch."
Click to expand...

Source: Dale Johnson ESPN
 
RefereeX said:
Very interesting. I personally have no issue VAR not getting involved if there is no contact, but I'm not convinced that the lack of any contact means it shouldn't be a red card.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the actual UEFA guidance to see how that could be applied to this sort of challenge. As Dale points out, the wording does seem as though the expectation should be a red card but the application for interpretation prevented them from doing so?

If I see a challenge like this in my game, it's going to be a red card. But we are going to have the "I didn't touch him ref" arguments as a consequence.
 
IMO even if there is guidance it didn't have this sort of "ridiculous" challenge in mind.

If a ball is head high and one player is about to head it. An opponent having full view and ample time to choos his action, karate kick air jump horizontal both feet first challenges for the ball, and by sheer luck misses and no contact is made, how can a guidance mean to say that challenge is not a red card.

I think all guidance should be taken as what they are,"guidance", and not a commandment.
 
"the action viewed in isolation is a ridiculous challenge. Martinez is so fortunate that he doesn't contact Kamada." It went on to add that the decision was "supported as correct on the basis that the action by Martinez had been completed and no contact was made, however the panel felt very strongly that this type of challenge has no place on the pitch."

I actually lost brain cells reading this statement.
 
Whether or not anyone likes it, it follows on from what happened towards last season with the Everton player who was sent off but won on appeal because no contact was made on a serious looking challenge. However, there is also a KMI panel for National League representing NL North & South and they operate looking at incidents in light of that level of football, which is clearly lower than the PL. So, in answer to thread 48, yes I do think we should take the PL KMI panel seriously, but although very difficult at times, it will often have no bearing on what happens at our level of football, because although the same laws, there will be different thresholds. So, I would expect that below PGMOL level (& even PGMOL level with no VAR), for this incident to be a red card offence.
 
deusex said:
"the action viewed in isolation is a ridiculous challenge. Martinez is so fortunate that he doesn't contact Kamada." It went on to add that the decision was "supported as correct on the basis that the action by Martinez had been completed and no contact was made, however the panel felt very strongly that this type of challenge has no place on the pitch."

I actually lost brain cells reading this statement.
Click to expand...
To paraphrase - we're duty-bound to support this decision, don't blame us if more players try it.
Sounds like they want the guidance changed.
 
Paul_10 said:
It does feel like they will back the referees decision almost no matter what.
Click to expand...
Well not exactly; if you read other threads it clearly says when they feel the referee has got an Incident wrong e.g. 2nd yellow for Morgan Gibbs-White and no penalty to west Ham.
 
JamesL said:
Well not exactly; if you read other threads it clearly says when they feel the referee has got an Incident wrong e.g. 2nd yellow for Morgan Gibbs-White and no penalty to west Ham.
Click to expand...
Exactly James. At the end of the day you would expect PL Referees to get most decisions right and a few wrong and I think the stats do show that set against the KMI Panel.
 
Paul_10 said:
It does feel like they will back the referees decision almost no matter what.

If Coote produced a red card there, you suspect they won't say it's the wrong decision and referencing certain guidance.
Click to expand...
I would say the opposite to that. Not many referees, Rob Jones excepted, would think that Gibbs-White's challenge wasn't a caution, second or otherwise. It was a lunge, he was off the ground, and caught the opponent with a scissor action, it was an absolute nailed on caution, yet 3 of the 5 panel members said it was incorrect.
 
RustyRef said:
I would say the opposite to that. Not many referees, Rob Jones excepted, would think that Gibbs-White's challenge wasn't a caution, second or otherwise. It was a lunge, he was off the ground, and caught the opponent with a scissor action, it was an absolute nailed on caution, yet 3 of the 5 panel members said it was incorrect.
Click to expand...
And we have to give some credence to that because the panel are not picked off the street, but ex pros and ex coaches etc. Having said that, if that included Ron Chopper Harris or Grahame Souness, then their threshold would be off the scales!
 
David G said:
And we have to give some credence to that because the panel are not picked off the street, but ex pros and ex coaches etc. Having said that, if that included Ron Chopper Harris or Grahame Souness, then their threshold would be off the scales!
Click to expand...
I believe they have to be fairly recently retired ex-players or managers. They don't publish the names but I know Rob Green has been involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top