Never a red.... lol
Man City vs Liverpool
- Thread starter Mooseybaby
- Start date
Never a red.... lol
Important to emphasise that they're only appealing the length of the ban - ie having seen the replay, even they're not disputing that it was a red card offence on the day. And while obviously "intent" and "he was looking at the ball" don't make any difference when it comes to deciding when to show a red card or not on the day, I do think the FA are supposed to consider those factors when setting the ban length.
No they aren't. Length of ban only comes into play for discussion when it isn't a standard offence, so when someone over steps the mark. SFP is a set 3 game ban, that isn't open for negotiation. They either need to appeal the actual sending off or accept the 3 game ban, there isn't any middle ground that can be used.
That's only at County level Russ, Step 4 and above they can put in a claim that the standard punishment is clearly excessive.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Am also under impression SFP is a 3 match ban. You cant really have SFP being a 1 match ban for some yet a 3 match ban for someone else?
SFP is SFP.
SFP is SFP.
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
Another incident in last night's game and not even a free kick? We wonder why people talk about inconsistency amongst refs? Boot to face red, yellow or nothing at all? 
These boys are professional referees full time and they can't give the same decision what hope have the rest of us on Saturdays?
Oh and I love that Poll says it's ok cos it was a slip, so you can kick to head and go sorry ref, I slipped?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...on-Reid-opens-Sadio-Mane-red-card-debate.html
These boys are professional referees full time and they can't give the same decision what hope have the rest of us on Saturdays?Oh and I love that Poll says it's ok cos it was a slip, so you can kick to head and go sorry ref, I slipped?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...on-Reid-opens-Sadio-Mane-red-card-debate.html
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Surely, if the FA reduce the length the ban they are condoning that sort of challenge and undermining the authority of the match official by effectively introducing a consideration of "intent" which isn't a requirement for the offence as per LOTG?
It will just make referees less likely to dismiss for similar challenges because they know that their decision will be undermined on appeal.
It will just make referees less likely to dismiss for similar challenges because they know that their decision will be undermined on appeal.
They are absolutely not doing that by reducing the ban length. If they overturned the ban completely, I would agree with you - that is the FA saying that the referee got it wrong. But that's not what's under discussion. The FA and Liverpool are both agreeing that there should be a ban of some sort and therefore, agreeing that Jon Moss was right to show a red card. End of.
The LOTG only requires the referee to dismiss from the FOP for that kind of challenge - it says nothing about SFP being a 3 match ban. After-match punishments are almost always down to competition or FA rules, so if the FA want to reduce the ban as a result of "intent", because "he was looking at the ball" or for that matter, for "players who's surnames begin with M", they're perfectly entitled to do that. It doesn't mean Moss was wrong, it means the standard FA-imposed punishment is too harsh for this specific incident. That's it, don't read too much into it.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
You are making the point I was trying to make. The challenge is a red card, and on a referee forum, that's it
We as referees don't need 3 plus pages of debate on the length of the ban, nothing in the slightest to do with football refereeing..
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
i often get asked after issuing cards, what the ban is going to be.. and my response is always that i have no clue, and that once ive filed the paperwork i have no further input into the process
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
But by not applying the standard punishment, the punishment that a player for Dog & Duck Utd would get if they were dismissed for SFP on a Sunday morning, the FA are sending out a very wrong message.
They are saying that because you are an "elite" player, and because you "didn't mean it", we will treat you differently to other participants in the game. If players know that they can challenge like that and only get a 1 match ban (the same as for 2 cautions) where is the deterrent for those sort of challenges?
In fact the ban should be increased because the increased ability level of the players at that level should lend itself to them being able to make better judgements and therefore better challenges!
And I don't buy into the nonsense about referees shoudn't be concerned about the sanctions applied.....absolutely we should as we are the ones who have to go out there week in and week out to apply the LOTG, so our decisions should be supported and enforced by the CFA's/FA. Not second guessed and demeaned by lesser than standard sanctions.
The standard sanction should be the minimum starting point for the punishment, not a maximum to be worked down from.
They are saying that because you are an "elite" player, and because you "didn't mean it", we will treat you differently to other participants in the game. If players know that they can challenge like that and only get a 1 match ban (the same as for 2 cautions) where is the deterrent for those sort of challenges?
In fact the ban should be increased because the increased ability level of the players at that level should lend itself to them being able to make better judgements and therefore better challenges!
And I don't buy into the nonsense about referees shoudn't be concerned about the sanctions applied.....absolutely we should as we are the ones who have to go out there week in and week out to apply the LOTG, so our decisions should be supported and enforced by the CFA's/FA. Not second guessed and demeaned by lesser than standard sanctions.
The standard sanction should be the minimum starting point for the punishment, not a maximum to be worked down from.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
it might indeed be your take that the sanctions applied should be the concern of the referee but, its clearly not, you are simply on the park to manage the game, apply the LOTG to the best of your ability and knowledge. Whether team A has 3 unregistered players or team B plays a suspended player or team C gets a man dismissed and a 2 match ban, none of this has anything to do with the match referee.
Much the same as the cop car which pulls you over for a random breathalyser test. What happens when it goes to court and so on has nothing to do with the policeman who pulled you, he/she simply submit the facts and let the bodies that govern, well, govern....
Much the same as the cop car which pulls you over for a random breathalyser test. What happens when it goes to court and so on has nothing to do with the policeman who pulled you, he/she simply submit the facts and let the bodies that govern, well, govern....
Yampy
RefChat Addict
Personally, I can't fathom why Liverpool consider this worthy of an appeal on the grounds of the ban being excessive punishment. A 3-game ban would end on September 23rd and includes a Carabao Cup game in which he'd likely not feature anyway. I doubt very much if Ederson recovers from his facial injuries in time to play before Mane does.
I think the red card was correct, I think the 3 game ban is correct and, I think Liverpool FC's actions are ill-thought, bad publicity and disrespectful. Perhaps some one at the FA might even consider it frivolous. Take some responsibility for your actions.
I think the red card was correct, I think the 3 game ban is correct and, I think Liverpool FC's actions are ill-thought, bad publicity and disrespectful. Perhaps some one at the FA might even consider it frivolous. Take some responsibility for your actions.
"But reeeeeef, can't you make the ban start after X game"
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
You are thinking too narrow minded if you believe that the sanctions applied have nothing to do with referees.
Consider the scenario you have given, where the drink driver gets a weeks ban instead of the standard 12 months....because he claims he "didn't mean" to do it.......that sends a message to all future drink drivers that if you claim you "didn't mean" to do it, you stand a chance of getting a drastically reduced punishment......which erodes the deterrent effect of the punishment.
Exactly the same applies here......if you reduce the standard punishment because someone claims they "didn't mean" to do it, you erode part of the deterrent effect of the punishment.
And that should concern every referee because we are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath, with players not being deterred from those sort of challenges, with the potential for mass brawls when another GK has his face sliced open because of a dangerous challenge.....and when it's a lone referee on a Sunday morning, the fact that he needn't be concerned with the eventual punishments isn't going to much help or comfort whilst they are trying to deal with 22 players kicking seven bells out of each other.
The FA/CFA's have a responsibility towards player safety and shouldn't be reducing standard punishments in cases where players are injured because of dangerous challenges, regardless of how much an offender makes puppy dog eyes and pleads their lack of intent.
If you remain to be convinced, consider the player who was given a reduced ban after "assaulting" a match official because they "didn't mean" to do it......consider how that reduction is none of your concern when he breaks your jaw after you've sent him off, or cautioned him, when had the standard punishment been upheld he would never have been on the pitch in the first place?
It can, and does, happen. Frequently. Players and clubs will plead anything to get bans reduced, putting dangerous and potentially violent players back into the game sooner they should be.
But hey, not our concern, right?
That's a false correlation and you know it.
Alongside the fact that prisoners almost always get early release for "good behaviour" or sentences suspended for being "genuinely remorseful". It is down to the powers that be to decide the punishment, not the referee. You apply the laws of the game on the pitch, report the facts afterwards, attend a hearing if you must but at no point will any1 ever say, "hey James, how long should the ban be?" It just isnt within the referees remit.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Is this you?
I'm not saying referees should decide the length of the ban.......that has already been decided by the FA......it's 3 matches.
What I am saying is that if you truly believe that you shouldn't be concerned over the CFA/FA reducing the STANDARD punishment then you are either incredibly naive, incredibly stupid or a combination of both.
The punishment is the main part of the deterrent, not the red card on the day......why do you think players ask you if you're submitting that card after the game? It's because they are concerned about the ban that they know follows.....so if you start reducing the length of the bans, you reduce the impact that it makes, ergo you reduce the deterrent effect.
Who is at the sharp end and has to deal with the immediate impact of players making dangerous challenges? Not the FA. Not the CFA. YOU. The referee.
If you're happy for the CFA/FA to allow dangerous and violent players back onto a pitch to be managed by you, sooner they should be, just because they go all butter wouldn't melt, then go out and do exactly the same thing again........then I refer to my earlier statement....naive or stupid, you decide.
You, the referee, have done your part on the day, why should you not expect the CFA/FA to theirs and only deviate from STANDARD punishments in exceptional circumstances? "I didn't mean to" is not an exceptional circumstance.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
If you wish to have a say in bans etc, sit on a commitee
The referee is there is apply the LOTG as best as they see fit. If you deem punishments to be not severe enough, officiate at a sport where punishments are greater