A&H

Middlesbrough v Brighton 07.05.16

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dirty Harry

Dirty Harry

New Member
Hope I can use this forum for posts I've seen on BBC website relating to live matches (#bbcfootball). The following tweet tells you all you need to know about the lack of awareness about the LotG out there. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know already, but it sums up the reason Mike Dean awarded a red card quite nicely. Maybe he could even use it in his report?

"That is a nasty injury for Gaston but not a red card, he played the ball then caught the player on the follow through".

Nuff said....
 
The Referee Store
I ouched in real time. It was only when I saw the wound I realised that red was justified. There really can be no complaints - it was the very definition of a challenge that endangers the safety of the opponent
 
Going to be a bit controversial here but I think Mike Dean has had a shocker here.

I have watched the incident over and over again and just can't see it as a red. The ball was won legally and cleanly and the follow through was completely accidental.

The gash was down his shin? Surely if he had proper shin pads on rather than the stupid small ones they have it wouldn't of happened.

If it was the assistant who told him it was a red then fair enough but watching live Dean clearly seems to have the yellow in his hand then change his mind once he has seen the injury. Injury shouldn't make any difference to the colour of the card
 
LC said:
Going to be a bit controversial here but I think Mike Dean has had a shocker here.

I have watched the incident over and over again and just can't see it as a red. The ball was won legally and cleanly and the follow through was completely accidental.

The gash was down his shin? Surely if he had proper shin pads on rather than the stupid small ones they have it wouldn't of happened.

If it was the assistant who told him it was a red then fair enough but watching live Dean clearly seems to have the yellow in his hand then change his mind once he has seen the injury. Injury shouldn't make any difference to the colour of the card
Click to expand...

would you not say that the raised studs and velocity of the challenge ticked the box of endangering an opponents safety?
 
andrew ref said:
would you not say that the raised studs and velocity of the challenge ticked the box of endangering an opponents safety?
Click to expand...

As it is the sort of challenge which you see in every single match and always goes unpunished no I wouldn't
 
Dean isn't the first referee to dismiss based on the consequences rather than the actual challenge, and he won't be the last.

Haven't seen the incident in question, but its very difficult to ignore a nice bloody wound when considering card colour.......makes it an easy sell for a red, even if it is only a caution.....no ones going to argue if a player has half his leg missing are they?
 
I haven't seen it, but was listening to it on TalkSport on the way to a game.

All the uneducated cliches came out - 'but he went to play the ball', 'it was an honest attempt to win the ball' etc.

My personal favourite was a stonker: -

'He's just gone in to win the ball there. He can't help taking him out because he's a bit out of control once the challenge follows through. It was careless and a bit reckless, Mike Dean has seen the injury and given a red off the end result of that. But if that was the case every player that was running and fell over and broke an ankle, you'd have to find somebody to send off"

And these people are paid for this nonsense.
 
Red for me. For those that haven't seen it the two players had a pushing match as play was going on just a minute or so before the challenge, Mike Dean had to stop play to read the riot act. The just a matter of seconds later this happens ...

9392db850f1be87a662564a93168212d


Stephens did player the ball, but then extended his leg to make contact with Ramirez. I won't post photos of the damage caused as it isn't pretty, but a quick google search will show those that want to look.
 
To do that type of damage is it reckless or excessive force? If he changed his mind based on the injury then while it's messy it's still clearly the right decision.
 
It might have been one of those where Mike Dean was too close, he was right on top of it. I suspect he has seen it as a yellow card offence but one of Simon Long or Ian Hussin has advised him to put the yellow away and get a red out. They got to the right decision in the end no matter how messy it might have looked.
 
Padfoot said:
Dean isn't the first referee to dismiss based on the consequences rather than the actual challenge, and he won't be the last.

Haven't seen the incident in question, but its very difficult to ignore a nice bloody wound when considering card colour.......makes it an easy sell for a red, even if it is only a caution.....no ones going to argue if a player has half his leg missing are they?
Click to expand...

Firstly, taking the advice of your AR is not dismissing based on the consequences.

Secondly, it may be worth viewing the incident first.
 
Doesn't need to, Dean probably shouted too loud and watching things before commenting is for losers
 
Darius said:
Doesn't need to, Dean probably shouted too loud and watching things before commenting is for losers
Click to expand...

Likewise acting like a petulant child and making cheap shots across threads is most definitely a qualification for loserville.

:p
 
YorkshireReferee said:
Firstly, taking the advice of your AR is not dismissing based on the consequences.

Secondly, it may be worth viewing the incident first.
Click to expand...

Thirdly....it might be worth nothing that I have neither agreed nor disagreed with Mike Dean's actions......precisely because I haven't seen the incident. I have merely commented that referees do send off based on consequences not actions (I am still unaware of MD making it public he received advice from his assistant on the colour of the card?) and the possible reasons that it may occur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top