Comes from going to my first Leeds game in around 8 years yesterday. Referee made two massive calls in deciding that Leeds players committed acts of simulation. First one I agreed with, second one I disagreed with. I found myself in fan mode, on my feet shouting my disagreement. Then assessor head kicked in, his angle and his proximity were much better than mine. I've since heard that both calls were spot on from the tv highlights (not seen them). I'm mellowing ...
What are our thoughts on this?
- Thread starter HarryD
- Start date
I understand the logic behind this Brian and I can see how it is easy to sell but I can't see how you say yellow just because no contact was made. For me it seems as though you are punishing the victim for not sticking around to have his legs broken and instead jumping out of the way??
Did I say that @HullRef? Read it again. I said contact with one foot, caution, even if the ball was played.
Intent was taken out of the laws many years ago. In assessing we have been told for the last 4-5 years, assess what happened not what could have happened. Same principle applies
deusex
RefChat Addict
Footage is nowhere near good enough to say its def a red/yellow, but it's certainly some card.
What is he possibly arguing about? Does something happen before the challenge that has aggrieved him because that is the clearest penalty you'll ever see. Anyone who runs at the referee like this runs the risk, and whilst he'd do well to knock me over, the contact enough would see him walking and me home. Can't believe he then refused to leave the pitch. I'd say a 9 match ban wouldn't be excessive
What is he possibly arguing about? Does something happen before the challenge that has aggrieved him because that is the clearest penalty you'll ever see. Anyone who runs at the referee like this runs the risk, and whilst he'd do well to knock me over, the contact enough would see him walking and me home. Can't believe he then refused to leave the pitch. I'd say a 9 match ban wouldn't be excessive
As an assessor then would you mark down a referee for sending the keeper off?
I though assessors couldn't mark down if in there opinion the referee got it wrong (like in this instance or for a DOGSO) but only if they were wrong in law...
Or is that a misunderstanding on my behalf??
@HullRef if you look at my earlier posts you'll see that I said if the referee chose to caution or dismiss, I would be deferring to their proximity to play and their viewing angle.
Aaah that makes sense
I thought it would be a bit unfair to mark down a referee because you disagreed on something objective 
I think we will have to disagree on this one. I think it is a stone wall red but that is my opinion and I have not had the sort of education on it than you. I guess when I go for promotion and this sort of stuff is covered in seminars I will defer to your way of thinking
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I don't see a red card in this. It's not 2 foot - his left foot is clearly tucked into him. He jumping in but was hitting the ground as he got the player. There wasn't a lot of force in it - the only way there's a possible red card is if it was studs on up on the player.
But it's funny - we all know the textbook answer; assuming it's a caution, textbook is to caution then send off for the assault. But no referee would ever do that, especially not at this level.
It's a pity that a player, already being booked for a tackle, kind of gets a free go at the referee - commit a cautionable tackle then run at the referee to argue? That's not 2 yellows.....why, exactly?
Ah well, it is what it is.
But it's funny - we all know the textbook answer; assuming it's a caution, textbook is to caution then send off for the assault. But no referee would ever do that, especially not at this level.
It's a pity that a player, already being booked for a tackle, kind of gets a free go at the referee - commit a cautionable tackle then run at the referee to argue? That's not 2 yellows.....why, exactly?
Ah well, it is what it is.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
No the textbook answer is red for the tackle....
It's a very simple premise.......if both of your feet leave the floor when making a challenge, you become an unguided missile.....you have no control over your speed or direction.....it then becomes a matter of chance whether your opponent gets injured or not over which you no longer have any influence........that is called 'endangering the safety of the opponent'.......and the sanction for that is?
It doesn't matter whether contact is made or not, or whether you meant to do it or not....it is the act of challenging in that manner that is being sanctioned not the result.
Forget about how many feet end making the challenge, it's irrelevant in this instance....the offence was committed when both feet left the floor at the start of the challenge.
It's a very simple premise.......if both of your feet leave the floor when making a challenge, you become an unguided missile.....you have no control over your speed or direction.....it then becomes a matter of chance whether your opponent gets injured or not over which you no longer have any influence........that is called 'endangering the safety of the opponent'.......and the sanction for that is?
It doesn't matter whether contact is made or not, or whether you meant to do it or not....it is the act of challenging in that manner that is being sanctioned not the result.
Forget about how many feet end making the challenge, it's irrelevant in this instance....the offence was committed when both feet left the floor at the start of the challenge.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
From the video I don't see that both feet leave the ground, looks like his left leg keeps dragging the ground.
And I completely disagree that a jump at the start means it's an automatic red no matter how hard (or even if) you hit the player.
And I completely disagree that a jump at the start means it's an automatic red no matter how hard (or even if) you hit the player.
Which textbook are you referring to? It certainly isn't the LOTG.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Neither is a karate kick to the chest......or a knee high tackle.......what's your point?
A competent referee wouldn't need it spelling out for them.....it's very very basic stuff, once you stop trying to referee what you think players want you to referee (or expect) and just deal with what is in front of you......once both feet leave the floor, the player is out of control.......simple really.
Once again... Padfoot insinuating that referees who disagree with him are incompetent. Anyone else who does the same seems to get pulled up on it, but he rarely does
Y
Yacinho
Guest
I think you need to read all the posts, for example in the second quote I'm writing what has been said before me, confirmed by saying "Now that's gold" sarcastically
As for the third, I don't see how my mind changed from what I said in the very first place
Again, English isn't my native language, I try my best but maybe I fail to be understandable when I use sarcasm
As for the third, I don't see how my mind changed from what I said in the very first place
Again, English isn't my native language, I try my best but maybe I fail to be understandable when I use sarcasm
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
nothing to do with disagreeing with me.....everything to do with recognising the basic physics of what happens when both feet leave the floor......recognising the player is out of control and can no longer do anything about what happens next.......recognising that in close proximity to an opponent it's inherently dangerous......
Whether you think its caution ( you'd be wrong by the way) or a red, you have to recognise the basic danger in tackling like that......?
is
Don't let these british refs push you off the train, yacinho
I think you need to read all the posts, for example in the second quote I'm writing what has been said before me, confirmed by saying "Now that's gold" sarcastically
As for the third, I don't see how my mind changed from what I said in the very first place
Again, English isn't my native language, I try my best but maybe I fail to be understandable when I use sarcasm
Don't let these british refs push you off the train, yacinho
I think you need to read all the posts, for example in the second quote I'm writing what has been said before me, confirmed by saying "Now that's gold" sarcastically
As for the third, I don't see how my mind changed from what I said in the very first place
Again, English isn't my native language, I try my best but maybe I fail to be understandable when I use sarcasm
Haha fair enough, just 'banter' anyway rather than taking a dig - not getting involved in this one personally!
But for the record, either a yellow or red for the tackle is perfectly acceptable imo and then a red anyway for the aggressive threatening behaviour afterwards
