A&H

retrospective action?

The Referee Store
Grealish maybe the most "fouled" player in the Premier League, but he is probably also the most theatrical! Seems to hit the deck as if shot by a sniper when breathed on.

Granted I am not "neutral" as far as this game is concerned, but how Grealish got through the game without a banana for persistent infringement is beyond me, appeared to commit more fouls than the rest of the Villa team put together.

The FA are spineless, doubt anything will happen as Grealish is a media golden boy, so much for their promises to deal restrospectively with players proven to have deceived a match official!
 
James goodgame said:
absolute shambles!, even with var cards are getting rescinded!
Click to expand...

There's a completely different bar between what VAR classes as a clear an obvious error and what the appeal commission views as an incorrect red card.

I like Grealish as a player, he is outstanding. But he spends as much time on the floor as he does on his feet, and makes it very difficult for referees. He certainly isn't alone in this, but in my view he is certainly the worst when it comes to feeling any kind of contact and going over. On this one was he caught in the face? Yes. Did the contact merit his reaction? No, absolutely not in my opinion.
 
RustyRef said:
But he spends as much time on the floor as he does on his feet, and makes it very difficult for referees.
Click to expand...
I've made my view clear on this before. It's the referees who make it difficult for themselves. Players just take advantage of this weakness. Hitting the deck seems to be a requirement for most referees to give a foul or a card.
 
one said:
I've made my view clear on this before. It's the referees who make it difficult for themselves. Players just take advantage of this weakness. Hitting the deck seems to be a requirement for most referees to give a foul or a card.
Click to expand...

I remember the Italian ref(Orsato) only showed a yellow card to a Man United player after he "headbutted" a PSG player much to the disbelief of everyone yet I thought it was an excellent decision because whilst there was some contact, it was minimal and did not warrant the
reaction of the PSG player who clearly reacted like that to get an opponant sent off. I think this should be the case more often imo and only when it's a proper physical encounter should a red be shown otherwise your just rewarding theactrics.
 
Well surely VAR should have been able to work out if the reaction was over the top for the initial action? Is it in the rules that you can't ask the referee to review his decision for the red card?
 
Anyone got a clip?
As Rusty says, a VAR review has totally different tick boxes to an appeal.
So it being overturned does not necessarily mean it was an incorrect decision.
 
halter42 said:
Here is a link: https://streamable.com/527eda
For me it is a clear RC, I don't care if Grealish milks it, it's a strike to the head to me.
Click to expand...
Agree.
I wonder what material that cast/strapping is made of two.

"In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or
arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible."

As an appeal panel, when presented with the above statement, how is that not a red card...??
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
JamesL said:
Agree.
I wonder what material that cast/strapping is made of two.

"In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or
arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible."

As an appeal panel, when presented with the above statement, how is that not a red card...??
Click to expand...
Does the appeal panned care about the lotg in their decision?

Ok let me put it this way. Which question does the appeal panel answer?
- should the offender have been sent off?
- should the offender be suspended for any games?

If it's the latter then was are debating the wrong thing here.
 
one said:
Does the appeal panned care about the lotg in their decision?

Ok let me put it this way. Which question does the appeal panel answer?
- should the offender have been sent off?
- should the offender be suspended for any games?

If it's the latter then was are debating the wrong thing here.
Click to expand...
I've no idea but maybe I should have said how is that not a red card and appropriate/corresponding suspension applied!!
As referees I assume we are all in agreement that we see this and send off? Or do we have others here that think this isn't a red card offence?
 
one said:
Does the appeal panned care about the lotg in their decision?

Ok let me put it this way. Which question does the appeal panel answer?
- should the offender have been sent off?
- should the offender be suspended for any games?

If it's the latter then was are debating the wrong thing here.
Click to expand...
I think this is a really good point, and also applies the other way round as well. A referee showing a red card is not attempting to impose a ban in subsequent matches - they are simply sending a player off, then they report what happened and the competition authorities impose the ban.

The automatic conflation of the two, (particularly at the top level where video evidence exists and allows for the possibility of informed disagreement) just confuses things.
 
JamesL said:
As referees I assume we are all in agreement that we see this and send off? Or do we have others here that think this isn't a red card offence?
Click to expand...
I can’t work this out, any day of the week I’m giving a red card for this and because now in the background this panel have had a discussion, it’ll be the referee and VAR blamed despite the fact they, in my eyes, got the decision correct.

I also think it’s wrong to suggest Grealish should be punished for play acting. This happens in every single game where a slide tackle etc comes in, a player screams and rolls around, then gets up. Are we wanting 3/4 additional bookings for those when we aren’t medics and don’t know how much the contact actually hurt? Grealish may have play acted to a degree, but he’s only done so because he’s been hit in the face. We shouldn’t be calling for punishment of the victim
 
It can't be denied that by the letter of the 'book of unintended meaning', Azperlecantspellhisname has to be dismissed for 'striking an opponent'
That said, my infant kids strike each other harder that this and they don't roll around pretending to be hurt
So the dismissal can't/shouldn't be overturned, but it's 'morally right' that it was and it's the cheating culture that's the true enemy here (as usual :rolleyes:)
 
Last edited:
There will always be red cards overturned that every referee thinks should stand, simply because the panel is made up of two ex-players or managers and only one ex-referee. The former often see things very differently to how referees do.

An overturned red card absolutely doesn't mean that either the referee or VAR were wrong though. It means that two people who have no qualifications in the laws of the game disagree with them.
 
one said:
Does the appeal panned care about the lotg in their decision?

Ok let me put it this way. Which question does the appeal panel answer?
- should the offender have been sent off?
- should the offender be suspended for any games?

If it's the latter then was are debating the wrong thing here.
Click to expand...

It's not that long ago that no one reviewed send offs (except for things like wrong player or appealable error of law) and the suspensions were automatic (but could be enhanced).

The LOTG still say the ref is the final arbiter of facts of the game. So from a technical LOTG perspective, the red card is not actually reversed (Whcih is why the game is not replayed), but the collateral consequences of the red card are lifted. My gut sense is that the panels are answering some hybrid version of the two questions @one poses here.
 
socal lurker said:
It's not that long ago that no one reviewed send offs (except for things like wrong player or appealable error of law) and the suspensions were automatic (but could be enhanced).

The LOTG still say the ref is the final arbiter of facts of the game. So from a technical LOTG perspective, the red card is not actually reversed (Whcih is why the game is not replayed), but the collateral consequences of the red card are lifted. My gut sense is that the panels are answering some hybrid version of the two questions @one poses here.
Click to expand...
Yeh, the panel are not sitting a LOTG test
Interestingly Howard Webb used the number of overturned dismissals (in that article you posted) to emphasise how VAR has improved in the MLS... the number of panel overturned decisions decreasing year on year
Again, I know you merely posted the article so not holding ye to account, but statistics can always be wielded into making any point about anything
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Hang about.

People actually think overturning was the correct decision coz Grealish milked it?

He was punched in the face on purpose. How is that not a red card? Baffled
 
All I know is what the 'overturn' achieved is:
  • Azpil won - he didn't get the suspension he deserved
  • Grealish won - he made sure his team played against 10 men for the rest of the game
  • The referee team lost - the general public think ref wrongfully sent off a player
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top