Kevin Friend - Middlesbrough v Man City

[Matthew]

This isn't a thread about the penalty decision itself, even as a City fan there's no defending what Sane did. Knocked the ball away and threw himself into the defender, so a clear case of simulation. I hate seeing City players dive, I really do, so I hope this doesn't become a regular thing.

This is actually about what Friend did, or rather failed to do, in the aftermath. After giving the decision, Friend was immediately surrounded by furious Boro players. During this, Fabio placed his hands on him and pulled him around. That in itself should've been a red, but he then had to be physically restrained by a teammate and dragged away whilst still shouting abuse.

What did he do? Yellow card. Seriously! Now I'm sorry, but this is why grassroots referees are assaulted. That sends the message that placing your hands on and abusing the referee is okay.

Kevin Friend you are a coward. In failing to dismiss Fabio, you let every single one of your colleagues down.

 

[GraemeS]

It was a fairly poor decision. I believe MOTD2 highlighted this and another incident (maybe Rashford?) where penalties were given despite the referee clearly having an obstructed view. That shouldn't happen - if you don't see a foul, you can't assume one has happened and give the penalty.

But yes, I absolutely agree with you on the Boro reactions. For me, Fabio earnt himself a yellow in about half a second after the decision was given. I know it's not popular on here, but I wonder if a quick yellow might have at least incentivised his teammates to put in a bit more effort to get him away? May possibly have stopped the red-card-worthy incident from happening.

 

[drahc]

It was a fairly poor decision. I believe MOTD2 highlighted this and another incident (maybe Rashford?) where penalties were given despite the referee clearly having an obstructed view. That shouldn't happen - if you don't see a foul, you can't assume one has happened and give the penalty.

MOTD will skin the referee regardless.

1) Give the penalty - "He shouldn't be given the penalty with his 'obstructed' view"
2) IDFK and caution for simulation - "That wasn't simulation, there was slight contact. We've seen them given"
3) Gives nothing, i.e. there is no foul, or clear act of simulation - "The referee has to be giving a penalty or an IDFK for simulation there"​

And this is partly why I detest MOTD commentary. Likewise, having Jermaine Jenas say "that was a good goal" or "that was a great cross" kills me inside - thanks for that input Jermaine!

 

[GraemeS]

MOTD will skin the referee regardless.

1) Give the penalty - "He shouldn't be given the penalty with his 'obstructed' view"
2) IDFK and caution for simulation - "That wasn't simulation, there was slight contact. We've seen them given"
3) Gives nothing, i.e. there is no foul, or clear act of simulation - "The referee has to be giving a penalty or an IDFK for simulation there"​

And this is partly why I detest MOTD commentary. Likewise, having Jermaine Jenas say "that was a good goal" or "that was a great cross" kills me inside - thanks for that input Jermaine!

That's a fair point - but I don't think they're wrong in this case. I think from an objective refereeing point of view, seeing a referee give a penalty with no view of the incident is definitely the worst of those 3 option. With no view, he should be giving nothing, end of.

 

[Twinblade]

He also missed the second caution for Forshaw shortly after his first, instead chose to play advantage.

I hope the FA follow the SFA's stance on the "diving" and administer retrospective bans for it (just don't follow their lead in other areas, like overturning red cards for Scott Brown type tackles).

 

[Peter Grove]

I hope the FA follow the SFA's stance on the "diving" and administer retrospective bans for it

This is what I don't understand in the various discussions I have heard about this and similar incidents of simulation with the pundits on shows such as 'Match of the Day' where they are, in effect, wringing their hands and saying, "But what can be done about it?" To me, the answer is as you say, retrospective bans - and it's not as If they have to look very far to see it.

 

[Yampy]

Kevin Friend you are a coward. In failing to dismiss Fabio, you let every single one of your colleagues down.

That's very brave of you, Mr Internet Keyboard Warrior. Next time you bump into Kevin Friend, why don't you go up to him and say it instead? He'd be afforded the common courtesy of a reply, then.

 

[Matthew]

That's very brave of you, Mr Internet Keyboard Warrior. Next time you bump into Kevin Friend, why don't you go up to him and say it instead? He'd be afforded the common courtesy of a reply, then.

I'd happily say that to his face. After being head butted by a player I have zero time for referees who let their colleagues down by not doing what they're supposed to do. Kids see that on TV and think that it's okay, which then filters into grassroots football.

 

[Tealeaf]

Passions running high and understandably so but let's ensure peeps that this does not degenerate into personal attacks on one another.

 

[QuaverRef]

Interesting that Middlesbrough have been charged for failing to control their players after that incident. Although I agree that they should be charged as Fabio/De Roon/Downing were pretty much screaming in the referee's face, the process does seem flawed when the reasoning behind their reaction was because of a player cheating.

 

[Jack M]

Interesting that Middlesbrough have been charged for failing to control their players after that incident. Although I agree that they should be charged as Fabio/De Roon/Downing were pretty much screaming in the referee's face, the process does seem flawed when the reasoning behind their reaction was because of a player cheating.

So two wrongs make a right then?

 

[QuaverRef]

So two wrongs make a right then?

No, hence I said 'I agree they should be charged'. But I believe the system is flawed when players can be retrospectively punished for their behavior but only under certain circumstances.

 

[deusex]

Clubs being charges for actions referees have the power to dea with....
A tiny fine and we'll do it all again next week!
Can't have refs ruining games with cards now can we

 

[Jack M]

No, hence I said 'I agree they should be charged'. But I believe the system is flawed when players can be retrospectively punished for their behavior but only under certain circumstances.

So if a player cheats, the other team has free range to berate the ref? Ok, not what I expect a referee to say

 

[QuaverRef]

So if a player cheats, the other team has free range to berate the ref? Ok, not what I expect a referee to say

Are you just completely ignoring the fact I've said twice that I agree that the players should be charged for their actions towards the referee?

The point I'm making (again) is the FA should be taking retrospective action for all behavioral problems, not just isolating particular incidents.

 

[Peter Grove]

So if a player cheats, the other team has free range to berate the ref? Ok, not what I expect a referee to say

No, he's saying that if the FA can essentially, take action against various players for one kind of misconduct (dissent) after the match has finished, for something that the referee did not sanction at the time (only Fabio was booked) why can't they take retrospective action against another kind of misconduct (simulation). FIFA has been asked about this and says it has no objection (IIRC, they basically said disciplinary procedures are up to each national association to administer). And, as others have mentioned, the Scottish FA already does this.

 

[Jack M]

He said in his original post Fabio et al done what they did because of a dive.
This implies it was ok because of mitigating circumstances

 

[Darius]

No it implies that they were annoyed the ref had been cheated. Therefore this is why they committed the act of dissent.

All dissent has a root cause, if you issue a caution for dissent you should be looking for the reason why after the game. It helps development

 

[QuaverRef]

No it implies that they were annoyed the ref had been cheated. Therefore this is why they committed the act of dissent.

All dissent has a root cause, if you issue a caution for dissent you should be looking for the reason why after the game. It helps development

Exactly right. I don't agree with the FA looking at isolated incidents such as the dissent at the Middlesbrough game and saying 'They shouldn't be reacting in this way towards the referee, they need to be punished' without looking at the root cause as well. It should be looked at as a bigger picture.

The Middlesbrough players are rightly punished, the intention is to eradicate future reactions in this manner, but it doesn't eradicate the cause (Sane diving). Go further down the chain, punish Sane as well. This would hopefully stop this player from diving in the future, thus in turn preventing further acts of dissent when players feel they are cheated.

 

[es1]

I find it disappointing that we (the English FA) choose not to punish obvious dives retrospectively when other nations do.

In instances like this, and the Rashford dive on the same day, where it's clear as day the attacker has dived/clearly initiated contact and fooled the referee into giving (what were game changing) penalties, the FA should be acting.

You wouldn't stop diving altogether, as Scotland still have to punish divers on a fairly regular basis, but players would hopefully think twice before throwing themselves to the ground after their first 2 game ban.