A&H

West ham v man utd

JamesL

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
Seeing lots of "pundits" on twitter saying Mike Dean has had a shocker with the Feghouli red. Have to admit I first thought it was wrong but on second viewing and still frame I can easily see how its a red applying the punish the action not the outcome to the challenge. Its the age old if younleave the ground you're not really in control of the outcome. Anyone any thoughts on this one?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20170102-174026.png
    Screenshot_20170102-174026.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 29
The Referee Store
I don't think Mike Dean made the decision, rather someone has said something over the comms. If you watch his reaction immediately after the challenge he turns away and isn't even going to give a foul, yet then turns back and gives a massive blast on the whistle. So I'm sure someone has shouted red card over the comms. I can see why as well as the West Ham player has had a bad touch and then lunged in to try and win it back, and that always has alarm bells ringing with referees.

Not a red for me though, and here was a clear example of why referees need to look at player reaction as a valuable tool. When a shocker of a challenge comes in the players always run to either the offender or the referee, and that didn't happen at all here. So in pulling out the red he has managed to surprise absolutely everyone.

Be interesting to see if they appeal and if so what happens. Technically he has left the ground with both feet, hasn't won the player and caught the opponent, so I suspect they may refuse any appeal.
 
There was a foul in the 2nd half that looked worse, not sure it received even a card.

Assistant appears to have missed at this level a fairly straight forward offside decision against Ibrahimovic for United's 2nd goal. Even the United player looked surprised he wasn't flagged!
 
Last edited:
That challenge was worse that the red card challenge.

Simon Long, the assistant tried teaching me about the offside law just over a month ago... I think I may pop him a little email with a few pointers; that was an easy call, it wasn't exactly a fast phase of play!
 
Last edited:
DB said:
That challenge was worse that the red card challenge.

Simon Long, the assistant tried teaching me about the offside law just over a month ago... I think I may pop him a little email with a few pointers that was an easy call, it wasn't exactly a fast phase of play!
Click to expand...

I'm sure a select group assistant will be desperate to hear your advice
 
Has there been a recent directive issued to the pro refs about these kind of challenges? There was a 'soft' red in the Brentford v Norwich game on Sunday for a similar thing. If it is imposed consistently then it will help us mortal refs enormously.
 
Need to add the red at Man City to the list too. Will make carding this at the lower levels much easier.
 
I thought red card. In the air, Both feet off the ground. No control. Dangerous. Lunging. Studs up (I think). Did serious foul play training the other week with Youth development group, meets all the criteria for a red card we discussed there. Zlatan's goal was offside. Even in AR did blink, the West Ham defence didn't really move so on this occasion, if you look where the attackers were and where the defence were, you could take a pretty good guess that he was offside. Zlatan's reaction as well gave it away.
 
James Long said:
Its the age old if younleave the ground you're not really in control of the outcome
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with this tenet. You have very considerable control over your actions even with both feet off the ground. Try challenging for a header without both feet leaving the ground.
 
Will Triffitt said:
I thought red card. In the air, Both feet off the ground. No control. Dangerous. Lunging. Studs up (I think).
Click to expand...

Not only is it not studs up, he goes to play the ball with the instep of his leading foot, and he actually has his trailing foot back on the ground when the two players make contact. I think that's a very, very harsh red indeed.
 
The one I was most disturbed with was the Herrera blood incident. There was a clear foul not given, fair enough angles etc but he clearly looked back at Herrera and let West Ham carry on. Herrera was holding his head. Now I hadn't realised that Mike Dean was a qualified Doctor able to determine there was nothing wrong with Herrera. Play continues Lanzini has a great shot that is saved and Herrera can be seen with blood down his face at the resulting corner.

For me that is poor
 
All this with the benefit of TV replays....... who called it Red in real time? I admit I did. The replays made me go yellow.
 
Trip said:
Not only is it not studs up, he goes to play the ball with the instep of his leading foot, and he actually has his trailing foot back on the ground when the two players make contact. I think that's a very, very harsh red indeed.
Click to expand...

I read something similar in the paper. If you leave the ground like that, you can't judge where you are going to land. With all due respect you need to get away from the media view of the incident and look at the law "Endangers safety of opponent"? I thought so - don't have to get into, if "studs were showing"; "one foot/two foot"; "Where did he land"; "Did he touch the ball" malarkey the "pundits" come up with!
 
PinnerPaul said:
If you leave the ground like that, you can't judge where you are going to land.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the slavish repetition of this nonsense that if both feet leave the ground it's somehow automatically dangerous. The very definition of running means both feet leave the ground. Almost every headed challenge involves both feet of both players leaving the ground. Of course you can judge where you're going to land (when you jump). At worst you have limited your ability to change where you're going to land. That doesn't mean what you're doing is endangering anyone's safety.

I mentioned 'studs up' because I was responding to a post that used that phrase. It definitely wasn't a 'studs up' challenge and nor was it a two-footed challenge. I do not think it meets any of the criteria for a dismissal in law.

Having said that it's not the worst decision made that afternoon. It looked far worse in (TV) real time than in the replays. But the offside goal beggars belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top