The Ref Stop

Manchester City vs Tottenham

Mooseybaby

Mooseybaby

Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Pep's Man City looking a carbon copy of his Barca team, playing some seriously impressive football at the moment.

A few highly questionable challenges which on another day could quite easily have been red, worst of which was probably Deli Alli's studs up follow through on KDB! :eek:
 
The Ref Stop
Otamendi for his kick to the head on Kane?
Kane for his tackle on Sterling?
Alli's awful challenge on de Bruyne?

I guess we'll never know why these three were deemed only cautions.
 
Yampy said:
Otamendi for his kick to the head on Kane?
Click to expand...
Fair caution here. Not a huge amount of force in this one.

https://www.clippituser.tv/c/rvlaqz

Yampy said:
Kane for his tackle on Sterling?
Click to expand...
This was a bad miss, no matter how you look at it.

https://streamable.com/i4zlr

Yampy said:
Alli's awful challenge on de Bruyne?
Click to expand...
I didn't realize this was as bad as it was until I saw the replay. I'm willing to give a pass on this (it's a type of tackle I've misidentified in the past at speed myself).

https://www.clippituser.tv/c/mlevbq
 
2 Obvious red cards missed........

Otamendi on Kane......personally, if I have a clear view of that, I'm going red.....can see why it was a caution though.....but clearly endangered the safety of Kane....the amount of force used is irrelevant, and a red herring in this discussion.......

Poor day for the officials.
 
High boot one for me is reckless, nothing more.
Kane, red card, no idea why referee is running backwards at it either
Ali, red card but I can accept it probably looked different on the one view in real time
 
We can all be Top pundits with the joy of multiple views, the obvious ones aren't always so at first view and from refs eyes.

Its hard to type this but I agree with Miley!!! :mad::confused:
 
Ciley Myrus said:
High boot one for me is reckless, nothing more.
Kane, red card, no idea why referee is running backwards at it either
Ali, red card but I can accept it probably looked different on the one view in real time
Click to expand...

If you have a clear view of the high boot, it's clearly disregarding the safety of the opponent.......it's not like the opponent is stooping over to head the ball and the foot is at waist height......the foot is clearly intentionally placed at head height, coming from behind the player so they would have little or warning/opportunity to avoid.....sheer luck that no serious injury was sustained......if you feel that is reckless I'm guessing players have to lose limbs before you start considering SFP......

However, if you don't have a clear view, then I can see why a caution may seem the best outcome. But, with neutral assistants, and a 4th official there is no real excuse for not getting to the correct outcome as between the team, a clear view would have been achieved,
 
Padfoot said:
If you have a clear view of the high boot, it's clearly disregarding the safety of the opponent.......it's not like the opponent is stooping over to head the ball and the foot is at waist height......the foot is clearly intentionally placed at head height, coming from behind the player so they would have little or warning/opportunity to avoid.....sheer luck that no serious injury was sustained......if you feel that is reckless I'm guessing players have to lose limbs before you start considering SFP......

However, if you don't have a clear view, then I can see why a caution may seem the best outcome. But, with neutral assistants, and a 4th official there is no real excuse for not getting to the correct outcome as between the team, a clear view would have been achieved,
Click to expand...
"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"

Sounds like a caution to me!
 
Perspective required here........any foot to head contact is excessive force......almost.
Red card all day, every day
 
Mintyref said:
Perspective required here........any foot to head contact is excessive force......almost.
Red card all day, every day
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be endangering a player rather than excessive force Minty?? It may only be a slight tap on the face!!! I get the red card argument though!! Clumsy rather than malice for me!! The other tackles were the opposite!!
 
Am going to be stubborn here and say whilst boot was clearly high, Kanes head drops into the high boot, so if the high boot has indeed caught Kanes face, which it did, its because Kanes face drops onto it, Raising the foot to that height in itself is not SFP, there is little if any force, its not at a great speed and the chance to play the ball IS there, I would even say the player is in control of his actions, its not a wild swipe, so, I dont see any of the criteria for SFP here, reckless, yes, anythung else, no.
 
Padfoot said:
If you have a clear view of the high boot, it's clearly disregarding the safety of the opponent.......it's not like the opponent is stooping over to head the ball and the foot is at waist height......the foot is clearly intentionally placed at head height, coming from behind the player so they would have little or warning/opportunity to avoid.....sheer luck that no serious injury was sustained......if you feel that is reckless I'm guessing players have to lose limbs before you start considering SFP......

However, if you don't have a clear view, then I can see why a caution may seem the best outcome. But, with neutral assistants, and a 4th official there is no real excuse for not getting to the correct outcome as between the team, a clear view would have been achieved,
Click to expand...



Clearly nonsense view if you mean me, as I have said on the same thread I think the other two are SFP and as far as I know, all players limbs are still intact. You cant generalise, the three incidents are seperate, a high boot in itself is not SFP in anyones book. If it was, and its prob been mentioned on here before, then no bicycle or overhead kicks and so on would ever be allowed. Good luck disallowing Rooneys effort, some folk say its best goal in EPL history, but hey lets chalk it off just in case it disregarded the safety of an opponent.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Wouldn't it be endangering a player rather than excessive force Minty?? It may only be a slight tap on the face!!! I get the red card argument though!! Clumsy rather than malice for me!! The other tackles were the opposite!!
Click to expand...
Takes little contact from a boot to a head for it to be excessive force, I know they're players, even more reason to protect what few brain cells they have..... they'll need them in later life..........
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Clearly nonsense view if you mean me, as I have said on the same thread I think the other two are SFP and as far as I know, all players limbs are still intact. You cant generalise, the three incidents are seperate, a high boot in itself is not SFP in anyones book. If it was, and its prob been mentioned on here before, then no bicycle or overhead kicks and so on would ever be allowed. Good luck disallowing Rooneys effort, some folk say its best goal in EPL history, but hey lets chalk it off just in case it disregarded the safety of an opponent.
Click to expand...
I don't remember how close any opponents were, too close and I'd have chalked it off!
 
Thats scary, denying football a moment of pure technique and skill on the whim an opponent might be in the vicinity.
Thats not refereeing, thats destroying a sport as a spectacle for players and fans.
There is no leaway in the LOTG for where the actual "excessive" force takes place, head, arm, shin, stomach. So dont go making it up.
 
Soooooooo Ciley, and others, why didn't Mr Pawson deem the slight push in the back by Rose a penalty this week?:rolleyes:

Last week in the Liverpool v Everton game ANY contact was a pen I was told - same ref yesterday - different outcome?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top