A&H

West Ham v Everton

matty639

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
So having just watched match of the day and Anthony Taylor's game at West Ham, what's everyone's opinion on the key decisions in the match?

First one to me was a foul, replays showed the keeper trying to get out but he's clearly stopping him coming out. Soft maybe but a foul for me.

Regarding the sendings off, IMO they were yellows but that's after me watching them a few times on replays and I can easily see why he has given reds as the boots were up ridiculously high, shoulder height in both cases which is just stupid by the players, had the other players ducked down to head the ball and then they taken the studs full in the face I'm sure we wouldn't even think about discussing it. Isn't it just typical though that when you have one contentious decision that low and behold happens again ten minutes later and you've already set a president earlier on.

I think the reds will rescinded personally but we'll see I guess.
 
The Referee Store
The height, leg position, how close they are to getting the ball compared to the opposition player and actual contact all said to me Red for Cole and Gibson and fair play to Taylor he stayed consistent. The difference between them and the Anichebe one is that Anichebe pulls out when he realises he is not going to get the ball therefore minimal damage is done and that was why it was only a caution. Again definite foul on keeper earlier.

Both managers decided to gang up after the game and really for me tried to make it seem as though Taylor was in the wrong and i hope not only the FA keep the 3 match ban but also do both managers.
 
quick question did they endanger the opponents safety?
 
This why I said on watching the replays I thought yellows because neither Cole or Gibson had seen the other player and were looking straight at the ball, so were unintentional hits. But and I say but, in real time I may have gone with the same decision. As you say about player safety I still see it more as a reckless challenge, I don't really see it as excess force more a complete disregard for the opponent.
 
noticed on other forums some are saying you cant take whether or not there is intention into account. unsure on that.
in law both are red cards " a tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play" but then you get, is it right for the game i.e it wasn't a local derby, a nasty game or on the breach of being out of control so i don't think the decisions were right for the game. Then you have to look at well everyone wants consistency between refs and with the above in mind either we have to say either the laws have to be applied or we can start making our own judgements. for me i'd rather apply them as they say in the book. but again thats my opinion
 
Strangely enough I too apply them as they say in the book, kind of a given for a ref to do that. The distinction to what you are making is that the challenges were tackles, they weren't, the ball was in the clear and there to be won. Neither side was in control of it.

But then you can claim they have used excessive force to challenge for the ball, which some may interpret that they have, but that it where so many of he issues lie in the interpretation of what is written in the book.
 
They were both red cards, stupidly high boots and studs showing, red cards all day long.
 
Back
Top