A&H

LEE SHE - Baldock lucky?

santa sangria

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
30:45 Leeds break. Interesting incident. Shef defender slides in two footed from the front and takes our an attacker who plays the ball on to another attacker who gets a shot on goal, off the GK for a corner. Baldock, the defender, stays down, gets treatment, the referee does nothing.

IMHO the referee has dropped an absolute clanger here and VAR should be all over this but isn't.
Firstly it was an obvious advantage situation.
On one hand a SPA advantage would mean no card - but this is at least reckless.
It's clearly a foul by Baldock - he totally takes out the attacker.
But it's also a candidate for SFP. Two footed, contact above the foot. From the front so the force of the collision is strong. And the defender is out of control.

We have 2 mins of treatment - IMHO the defender is feigning in the hope there is no card. It's ample time for a review.
I've watched it back over and over and I just cannot see how the ref missed it and why there's no reaction. The commentator is laughing at Baldock but I think he should be off. Crazy.
 
The Referee Store
And 42:30 Shef McGoldrick gets a yellow for handling on the ground. Doesn't look like a SPA situation to me - so why? Has the ref just found out he should have sent off one of the other Shef defenders? Weird.
 
santa sangria said:
30:45 Leeds break. Interesting incident. Shef defender slides in two footed from the front and takes our an attacker who plays the ball on to another attacker who gets a shot on goal, off the GK for a corner. Baldock, the defender, stays down, gets treatment, the referee does nothing.

IMHO the referee has dropped an absolute clanger here and VAR should be all over this but isn't.
Firstly it was an obvious advantage situation.
On one hand a SPA advantage would mean no card - but this is at least reckless.
It's clearly a foul by Baldock - he totally takes out the attacker.
But it's also a candidate for SFP. Two footed, contact above the foot. From the front so the force of the collision is strong. And the defender is out of control.

We have 2 mins of treatment - IMHO the defender is feigning in the hope there is no card. It's ample time for a review.
I've watched it back over and over and I just cannot see how the ref missed it and why there's no reaction. The commentator is laughing at Baldock but I think he should be off. Crazy.
Click to expand...
Seems clear SFP on the replay. Can understand the ref being thrown off what with the (admittedly excellent) advantage and long delay, but I have no idea how the VAR hasn’t recommended a review (this would be a prefect example in which to use it). It fits the criteria pretty conclusively- a two-footed lunge with excessive force.
 
I don't think the referee signalled advantage. There was no signal as far as I could see.

(But glad I am not alone in the SFP thought)
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1378355794199130114

I’m a Leeds fan and I thought that was a red for SFP. It was a lengthy delay because of the injury which does always throw things off. Although I think that was a red, I the ref actually had a very good game and was really consistent throughout

Also, there were literally no appeals from Leeds which is surprising so I wonder if it just got overlooked and there was no expectation for a red on the pitch
 
I watched the replay a few times (as did the VAR I guess). The one from behind the goal is the most telling one and I would not put it ias a clear and obvious red. The end result looked bad but the tackle on its own was not as bad. He is on the ground and the foot that mad the first contact was pointing down. Then the knees clashed and caused the up ending. I know a still is not the full picture but give some information. I think VAR did right by not intervening. It's not a clanger.


Screenshot_20210404-015518.jpg
 
one said:
I watched the replay a few times (as did the VAR I guess). The one from behind the goal is the most telling one and I would not put it ias a clear and obvious red. The end result looked bad but the tackle on its own was not as bad. He is on the ground and the foot that mad the first contact was pointing down. Then the knees clashed and caused the up ending. I know a still is not the full picture but give some information. I think VAR did right by not intervening. It's not a clanger.


View attachment 4868
Click to expand...

I agree. Real time I thought red, but then seeing the replays it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I first thought.

One of those that VAR isn't going to overrule whether the referee goes red, yellow, or as in this case, nothing at all.
 
I've watched it over and over.

It's a red card for SFP,

Th referee failed to even identify the foul. It's a clear and obvious error.

I don't know how the are referees are assessed at this level but I have an error in law and a bad yellow, so probably a 7.8 possibly 7.7 given porr communication. And for the VAR to not notice a clear and obvious error plus poor communication is also down to 7.8.

This was a disaster from the officials.
 
I agree with rusty ref, this is not a red card for me. Baldock lost balance, but it was not very dangerous, no hard contact with the studs.
 
santa sangria said:
30:45 Leeds break. Interesting incident. Shef defender slides in two footed from the front and takes our an attacker who plays the ball on to another attacker who gets a shot on goal, off the GK for a corner. Baldock, the defender, stays down, gets treatment, the referee does nothing.

IMHO the referee has dropped an absolute clanger here and VAR should be all over this but isn't.
Firstly it was an obvious advantage situation.
On one hand a SPA advantage would mean no card - but this is at least reckless.
It's clearly a foul by Baldock - he totally takes out the attacker.
But it's also a candidate for SFP. Two footed, contact above the foot. From the front so the force of the collision is strong. And the defender is out of control.

We have 2 mins of treatment - IMHO the defender is feigning in the hope there is no card. It's ample time for a review.
I've watched it back over and over and I just cannot see how the ref missed it and why there's no reaction. The commentator is laughing at Baldock but I think he should be off. Crazy.
Click to expand...
Feigning injury? He was treated, tested for concussion and then replaced a few minutes later when he was unsteady on his feet?? I thought red too at match speed but it’s not as obvious when you see it from all the angles!
 
I'm not saying it wasn't a foul, nor a card should be issued or not...
But why do people who say they've played the game for so long think they know the game.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210405-140025_Twitter.jpg
    Screenshot_20210405-140025_Twitter.jpg
    449 KB · Views: 20
To be fair I didn’t know ‘reckless’ was terminology for a yellow card until I was a ref. Although I’ve definitely used ‘reckless means it’s a yellow card’ to players who ask for a red by telling me a foul was reckless...
 
I thankfully passed as a 14 year old so my hobby years as a player was ruined knowing the laws of the game, but to use the argument that he has only played it so knows the game is ridiculous.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
I thankfully passed as a 14 year old so my hobby years as a player was ruined knowing the laws of the game, but to use the argument that he has only played it so knows the game is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Although of course not helped when you get former professional footballers saying they should be used as VAR because they played the game!

As for the incident, I think the only real error by Scott was not signalling advantage because its a certain foul. I agree with those who says yellow would be the right card to use on this incident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top