A&H

Man City vs Liverpool

Ciley Myrus said:
I have made reference to above before. If said gentleman refers to players of the sport he officiates in as he does, it seems unsurprising that only the death penalty will suffice rather than any punishment a governing body set as standard.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem.....the standard punishment is perfectly fine.......its when that governing body starts reducing punishments from the standard because of crocodile tears from players/clubs that the wrong message is received.

If the CFA/FA maintained the standard punishment in all but the most exceptional of cases there would be no issue.

Clearly you either haven't bothered to read, or utterly failed to understand, the points I made earlier about reduction from the standard punishments.
 
The Referee Store
Padfoot said:
Again, a position of immense naivety or stupidty....if you truly cannot understand how, to a player/club, the discipline panel reducing the standard punishment isn't seen as a vindication of their feeling that the referee was wrong......

It's not about whether or not the panel thinks the referee was wrong.....the facts actually matter little.....it's the perceived message that is sent out to the clubs/players, certainly at grassroots level.
Let me relate some personal experience.....I dismissed a player for VC, he had just won a FK after being fouled, picked the ball up, slammed down on the ground and blasted it full bore at the back of the opponent who had fouled him. The club immediately (Monday morning) complained to the CFA that their player "didn't mean to do it", "isn't that sort of player" etc etc. Went to non personal hearing, player's ban reduced to 1 match........now, do you think the club/player felt vindicated in their complaints that the dismissal was too harsh? I know for a fact that they did, because they went around telling others that the CFA agreed with them, that I got it wrong on the day and it shouldn't have been a red card.
Now, we all know that isn't the case, because otherwise the card would have been overturned....but the perception is very different. And because of that perception the deterrent factor has been greatly diluted.

Can we, as referees, do anything about it? Of course we can......we can ignore it, and say it's none of our business, despite knowing that it's just made the job that little bit harder next time.....and of course that position is encouraged by RDO's, tutors etc because they know that if referees actually started thinking about how much their decisions are perceptionally undermined by the creaking fossils on most disciplinary panels, they might decide that actually, they have better things to do with their Sunday mornings, then put up with the antics of 22 pissed up troglodytes, especially when making those difficult decisions, inviting yet more abuse and potential assault, the players go all doe eyed at the panels and get away with reduced sanctions.

Will we ever change it? Doubt it very much.....but that's still no excuse for walking around in denial and pretending nothing is wrong with the system.
Click to expand...
I'm slightly confused as how the above incident could possibly be seen as accidental....can I politely suggest that a report describing the incident as you have here should be very difficult to argue as accidental? So perhaps more clarity in the report written at the time might have avoided the whole issue you describe?

Anyway, this is all fairly irrelevant to the specific incident we're discussing here, because as I said earlier, video evidence is an option here. In a match you or I referee, it's a case of who says what and in that case, the opinion of the impartial observer (you) should be given highest priority. If you don't write in your report or say in the hearing that you believe the contact was accidental, then I agree that the default should mostly be stuck to.

In the incident being discussed, video evidence can be considered and it's possible for those making the decision to rule on intent without relying on the referee's single viewpoint. Therefore in my opinion, if they had wanted to reduce the ban, an FA committee would have both the right and the ability to make an informed judgement on the players intent without having to totally rely on the referee or the "standard" punishments - in a way that a county FA committee ruling on a grassroots red card would not be able to.

And I'd also like to echo the above replies regarding your attitudes towards those you interact with. Perhaps your report and statement would have been considered more credible if you didn't clearly have a superiority complex towards every other "pissed up troglodyte" and "creaking fossil" in the hearing with you? "Respect" goes both ways and has to be earnt, it isn't automatically granted to you just because you pull on the black top.
 
GraemeS said:
I'm slightly confused as how the above incident could possibly be seen as accidental....can I politely suggest that a report describing the incident as you have here should be very difficult to argue as accidental? So perhaps more clarity in the report might have avoided the whole issue you describe?

Anyway, this is all fairly irrelevant to the specific incident we're discussing here, because as I said earlier, video evidence is an option here. In a match you or I referee, it's a case of who says what and in that case, the opinion of the impartial observer (you) should be given highest priority. If you don't write in your report or say in the hearing that you believe the contact was accidental, then I agree that the default should mostly be stuck to.

In the incident being discussed, video evidence can be considered and it's possible for those making the decision to rule on intent without relying on the referee's single viewpoint. Therefore in my opinion, if they had wanted to reduce the ban, an FA committee would have both the right and the ability to make an informed judgement on the players intent without having to totally rely on the referee or the "standard" punishments - in a way that a county FA committee ruling on a grassroots red card would not be able to.

And I'd also like to echo the above replies regarding your attitudes towards those you interact with. Perhaps your report and statement would have been considered more credible if you didn't clearly have a superiority complex towards every other "pissed up troglodyte" and "creaking fossil" in the hearing with you? "Respect" goes both ways and has to be earnt, it isn't automatically granted to you just because you pull on the black top.
Click to expand...

My report wasn't the issue. The issue was the bleating from the player/club and the tidal wave of crocodile tears that accompanied them.

As for superiority complex.....HAH! Not with my background! Council estate kid, grew up in one of the roughest parts of London with some of the most villainous contemporaries. And I am not a million miles from a being a creaking fossil myself (I certainly creak) ....consider them terms of endearment rather than derision.
 
Anyway, they've all done us a favour.

U18s game today between two good sides. 20 mins to go blue defender and red attacker end up in a tangle on the deck.

As he tries to disentangle himself and get up, blue defender accidentally (and it was an accident) kicks red. I blow up and give DFK to reds.

Blue defender saying "I didn't mean to" (and I don't think he did, and I do think red milked it a little). But I explained he has a duty of care to his fellow player. "Remember what happened between Liverpool & Man City on Saturday" I say. Helped me sell the fk.
 
Anyone see the Villa v Middlesborough red card the other night, scissor action tackle straight red, fans on FB were up in arms that it wasn't even a yellow!! I chucked in the endangered the players safety and a few didn't know what i was talking about!!!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Anyone see the Villa v Middlesborough red card the other night, scissor action tackle straight red, fans on FB were up in arms that it wasn't even a yellow!! I chucked in the endangered the players safety and a few didn't know what i was talking about!!!
Click to expand...
I didn't think it was that bad! Haven't seen a slow mo but looked a yellow to me
 
Both reds were pretty nasty challenges with zero attempt to play the ball. According to the Birmingham Mail, Villa have appealed Lansbury's red card. Wonder if the FA will take a dim view to Bruce's comment ...“The referee has done his best to level it up." Looked like Villa probably should have had a penalty after the Boro keeper swung a leg out having failed to hold onto the initial shot. (2.40)
 
Mooseybaby said:
Both reds were pretty nasty challenges with zero attempt to play the ball.
Click to expand...
I'd have to disagree. While Traore's challenge was indeed dangerous and probably deserved a red, it seems to me there was a definite attempt to reach the ball. His front foot comes around in front of the defender and only narrowly misses getting something on the ball. It was his trailing leg that did the damage (of course, it doesn't matter which foot it is that endangers the opponent's safety).

Lansbury's challenge on the other hand - I agree, absolutely no attempt to play the ball, only the man.
 
I've been away for a while so I'm just catching up on the original subject of Mane's red card. Like the majority of posters I see this a red card, no debate. I think I've said before in these forums that many people involved in football (including referees sometimes) are remarkably lenient and tolerant towards head high challenges. If a similar tackle was made a knee height there would be outrage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top