A&H

Middlesbrough sending off

Credible though? The refs blocked, both Ars are too far away to make a credible call.
The joy of comms. I wouldn't believe Warnock if he told me his name was Neil, so who really knows where the call came from? If the AR really made the recommendation then it's up to the referee to decide if he wants to accept it or not.
 
The Referee Store
The joy of comms. I wouldn't believe Warnock if he told me his name was Neil, so who really knows where the call came from? If the AR really made the recommendation then it's up to the referee to decide if he wants to accept it or not.
Yep. Missed that point off.
Have to assume 1 of 2 things
What the AR said was in line with what he thought might have happened.
He had no idea (as can happen) and asked for the input and no choice but to take it
 
True. In this case maybe.
But it doesnt matter who has the info if it is right. Much easier on comms for AR to say X has done Y to Z without raising the flag. The referee can make/give the decision appearing that it is theirs.
There was a Clip from a oldish game. Where a 4th official informed the ref of a handball offence and goal disallowed despite ref and AR closer.
4th was absolutely bang on with the call as such completely bailed the whole team out.
At our level, yes, you are absolutely staying well out of that.

absolutely, if the calls correct, am not caring who,is giving it.

only the ref will know but if thats me in this incident, I certainly be saying , really, are you sure, and one last time, are you absolutely sure.
I would be aware or at very least have doubts either Ar can tell me exactly what happened there.
regardless of how often i been on with them and or trust them etc.
 
Last edited:
absolutely, if the calls correct, am not caring who,is giving it.

only the ref will know but if thats me in this incident, I certainly be saying , really, are you sure, and one last time, are you absolutely sure.
I would be aware or at very least have doubts either Ar can tell me exactly what happened there.
regardless of how often i been on with them and or trust them etc.

Problem is if you don't have a great view, and I don't think Peter Bankes did here, and the AR is saying 100% a red card, can you not go with that advice? Yes, you can repeatedly ask "are you 100% sure", but if he keeps replying yes your hands are tied.
 
Problem is if you don't have a great view, and I don't think Peter Bankes did here, and the AR is saying 100% a red card, can you not go with that advice? Yes, you can repeatedly ask "are you 100% sure", but if he keeps replying yes your hands are tied.

yes I agree.

ideally the Ar giving it should march on and show the card then as ref we can go guys, i never called that!
 
Crazy that it's been overturned.

Where the point of contact is a face which is not in an unexpected position, the usual factors going SFP are unnecessary to apply. If studs meet face, the safety of the player is always endangered.

Anyway, I'm sure the EFL review committee knows best...
 
absolutely, if the calls correct, am not caring who,is giving it.
MY point is that the call has been proven, by an independent tribunal to be incorrect.
After have seen the footage of the incident, coupled with my knowledge of the LOTG, I had no doubt that the R/C would be rescinded
 
MY point is that the call has been proven, by an independent tribunal to be incorrect.
After have seen the footage of the incident, coupled with my knowledge of the LOTG, I had no doubt that the R/C would be rescinded
We mostly here think it's not red. But to infer that independent tribunal's decision proves that the decision on the field was wrong is a bit of a stretch. We have discussed it here before. Given that there is only one referee in that panel and past decisions, I think the panel's decision is more in line with expectations than lotg. And the two are not always the same.
 
We mostly here think it's not red. But to infer that independent tribunal's decision proves that the decision on the field was wrong is a bit of a stretch. We have discussed it here before. Given that there is only one referee in that panel and past decisions, I think the panel's decision is more in line with expectations than lotg. And the two are not always the same.

Exactly this. A decision being overturned doesn't necessarily mean the decision was wrong, there have been countless cases of this over the years.
 
Crazy that it's been overturned.

Where the point of contact is a face which is not in an unexpected position, the usual factors going SFP are unnecessary to apply. If studs meet face, the safety of the player is always endangered.

Anyway, I'm sure the EFL review committee knows best...
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to - there was no contact with the face, with the studs or otherwise.

On watching the replays, it is clear that while the very tip of the Middlesbrough player's boot comes close to the goalkeeper's chin level, that's the closest his boot ever gets to the keeper's face.
 
Exactly this. A decision being overturned doesn't necessarily mean the decision was wrong, there have been countless cases of this over the years.
I think that is part of the problem with 'football's' relationship with referees.

This type of challenge/decision and, as we know, there are countless others, doesn't really have a definitive 'right' or 'wrong' answer, much as spectators, team officials and media like to think otherwise.
 
I think that is part of the problem with 'football's' relationship with referees.

This type of challenge/decision and, as we know, there are countless others, doesn't really have a definitive 'right' or 'wrong' answer, much as spectators, team officials and media like to think otherwise.
To take that point a step further, I think we need to be aware that this is the case by design. The "laws" have always been written as guidance in order to help referees make subjective decisions slightly more consistently.

And that's why things like the previous handball law went down so badly - because it seriously limited the referee/VAR's ability to go "nah, he didn't mean to do that". As a result, we saw loads of penalties given for things that didn't "feel" like handball, and the law got changed again - to re-introduce some vagueness. Because that's what people actually want, they just don't realise it.
 
To take that point a step further, I think we need to be aware that this is the case by design. The "laws" have always been written as guidance in order to help referees make subjective decisions slightly more consistently.

And that's why things like the previous handball law went down so badly - because it seriously limited the referee/VAR's ability to go "nah, he didn't mean to do that". As a result, we saw loads of penalties given for things that didn't "feel" like handball, and the law got changed again - to re-introduce some vagueness. Because that's what people actually want, they just don't realise it.
Excellent post Graeme.

I often get into discussions about this and similar on 'my' fans' board.

I always point out that if a referee officiated a game to the exact letter of the law, everyone would want to kill him/her after about 10 minutes!
 
and the law got changed again - to re-introduce some vagueness
I'd like to think of this differently. They changed it to give the referees more discretion on applying the intent of the law (because the law makers were unable to put it into words).
 
Back
Top