Middlesbrough v Brighton 07.05.16

[Padfoot]

I certainly have. All you can tell from them is that although he had a yellow card in his hand initially, he subsequently showed the player a red card. Unfortunately they don't reveal what thought processes were going on inside his mind, nor whether input from any of the other officials had any influence on his apparent change of mind.

Yes, he did see the extent of the player's injury and it is true that it was after seeing this that he issued the red card. However to conclude that he only changed the colour of the card because of seeing the injury is an example of the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc.

This fallacy comes about when a conclusion is based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might explain the events in question.

Watch the videos again.....keep watching until you spot the blindingly obvious point where Ramirez knocks the yellow card out of MDs hand, MD looks down, Ramirez gesticulates and points toward his injury.....MD then reaches for his red card.....

But of course that could just be coincidentally the same point that an AR decided that he had a better view than MD, who was facing the incident from a massive 10-15 yds away and pipes up to offer his opinion.......

 

[Darius]

How about this.....

MD was on the fence. Orange Card if you will. He pulls out Yellow Card, sees injury. Thinks actually that is definitely excessive force. Red Card.

He's done it in the most ridiculous of ways but the end result whilst clumsy is the right one.

 

[deusex]

I certainly have. All you can tell from them is that although he had a yellow card in his hand initially, he subsequently showed the player a red card. Unfortunately they don't reveal what thought processes were going on inside his mind, nor whether input from any of the other officials had any influence on his apparent change of mind.

Yes, he did see the extent of the player's injury and it is true that it was after seeing this that he issued the red card. However to conclude that he only changed the colour of the card because of seeing the injury is an example of the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc.

This fallacy comes about when a conclusion is based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might explain the events in question.

What I meant was I think you have confused "direct evidence" with "cast iron proof".
There is cerainly evidence!

 

[Will Triffitt]

Eh? Don't agree with any of this to be honest.

1. As Padfoot says, judge the challenge on the challenge and not the result, which can be misleading.
2. In your incident that you've described; if you're stopping play "for an injury" then you're doing just that. You didn't give a free kick but you decided the injury merited play being stopped. You can't then look at the player and decide it's a free kick with any credibility.
3. If a player is "quite badly hurt", how would that tell you the challenge was careless? How can you look at an injury and from that, differentiate between careless/reckless? Or even a fair challenge that caused the player to land awkwardly?

I'm not trying to say that the consequence of an incident determines or should govern the correct procedure. I know this is an excuse we all use but, in my head I know what I mean. The challenge should always be the main deciding factor in what you next. However, if you are not sure what the next thing to do is whether it is a caution, dismissal or nothing then I do think the effects of the challenge can help. 2- Again (I was having a bad day writing this post!) I miswrote this post. I saw the challenge, player go down and knew play had to be stopped. Originally I was going to do a drop ball but I used the time while the player was having treatment to make a final decision. I had club assistants, one of which (who would have seen the incident) wasn't great at all. I informed the player of what I was going to do and my hanged decision and they all agreed. 3 - I thought the tackle was on the border, I knew I had to do something so gave a FK.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Clearly reacted to the injury not the challenge.......Ramirez shows him the injury. the card colour changes!

I'm going to ask the unpopular question - in very rare cases, like this one, where it's quite clear the injury has come from the challenge, is it really wrong to use that information to make your decision? Surely that has some reflection up how dangerous the challenge was, and perhaps the initial assessment of 'reckless' was an underestimation?

I know in almost every case where the player wants to show you stud marks, the marks could have come from any point in the game - and I realise such an approach risks sending off a player just because the opponent suffered a broken leg.

On the flip side, would anybody claiming 'red card' change their decision if there wasn't the gash? Perhaps the gash wasn't the result so much of force from the challenge but wear on the studs?

I was about to say a bit of a freak thing that's come from normal studs, but then I reconsidered because the notion of SFP is supposed to consider the risk of what could happen.

Honestly, had there not been this sort of outcome, I think a yellow card would have been awarded and nobody on here would comment - isn't that consistent with other yellow cards?

Knocking the card out of the referee's hand - yep, should be a red. That's the sort of decision that separates the different philosophies referees have though - and at this level I don't think any referee will send off the victim of the tackle for just about anything.

 

[Padfoot]

I'm going to ask the unpopular question - in very rare cases, like this one, where it's quite clear the injury has come from the challenge, is it really wrong to use that information to make your decision? Surely that has some reflection up how dangerous the challenge was, and perhaps the initial assessment of 'reckless' was an underestimation?

I know in almost every case where the player wants to show you stud marks, the marks could have come from any point in the game - and I realise such an approach risks sending off a player just because the opponent suffered a broken leg.

On the flip side, would anybody claiming 'red card' change their decision if there wasn't the gash? Perhaps the gash wasn't the result so much of force from the challenge but wear on the studs?

I was about to say a bit of a freak thing that's come from normal studs, but then I reconsidered because the notion of SFP is supposed to consider the risk of what could happen.

Honestly, had there not been this sort of outcome, I think a yellow card would have been awarded and nobody on here would comment - isn't that consistent with other yellow cards?

Knocking the card out of the referee's hand - yep, should be a red. That's the sort of decision that separates the different philosophies referees have though - and at this level I don't think any referee will send off the victim of the tackle for just about anything.

Yes it is entirely wrong to use the consequences to decide the sanction, because as we know, injuries can occur from innocuous challenges etc.
So, deal with the challenge and not the end result.

Of course it's easy to sell a sanction based on the consequences rather than the challenge which is why referees do it......lazy refereeing. Why have the grief in selling the correct decision when you have an easy life by selling a consequence based decision?

 

[Tealeaf]

Positions are now 100% clear and all loops closed. Before we degenerate into slanging matches we're taking a pause. Not necessarily a permanent closure, but half-time at least.