What an ideal world you live in!
Well, yes, Puncheon is out for the season and his victim was fit for the next game.
Wolves V Swansea
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
- Status
What an ideal world you live in!
Well, yes, Puncheon is out for the season and his victim was fit for the next game.
boulderdomb
Active Member
Red card for me, doesn't even attempt to play the ball (not to mention the ball is impossible to play). I'd be YC if he attempted to get the ball and simply tripped his opponent however in this scenario he kicked his opponent.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
I dont believe in the ref being let down and so on..as we all know, or should know....we do our bit and if things go further, then, whatever happens, happens. Taylor can sleep well knowing he made the correct call.
I forgive you Miley, there is no need to apologise, the oracles have spoken and you can stand down from that high horse! You can’t get them all right, all the time. It happens to the best of us, mistakes happen, I once got one wrong too back in 2007 
It's been rescinded because, as we discussed at multiple points during this thread, there is nothing in the LOTG that allows this to be considered VC. It's a tactical foul, using minimal force that should have been punished with a yellow. The wrong decision was reached by the referee at the time, that's the end of the matter surely?
We were only dealing in theories before, but now we have an actual, FA-supported decision to point at, saying that under the current LOTG, this should be a yellow card. You've stated in the point I quote here that you're just going to ignore that decision? While there's obviously nothing anyone on this forum can do to stop you, I'm surprised to hear a referee openly state that they're going to make up laws to support their version of how they think football should be!
We can have a discussion about if this kind of tackle should be penalised with red cards in a future edition of the laws, and I'm certainly open to it in principal. But as referees, we are hired to apply the laws consistently and as written, not make them up to push an agenda. Surely now that you know this is the correct interpretation, you feel some obligation to apply it?
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
So, to extend your hypothesis. An attacking player is running forward to support a team mate who has the ball. A defender decides to tactically grab him to stop his progress. So also an "off the ball" incident and therefore also "excessive force" as no force is needed at all. Presumably by your logic this should also be a red?
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
The fact an 3 person panel (annon) have decided to call this a yellow card does not alter in any way at all my duties as a referee to dismiss for violent conduct each and every time I see a similar act.
We will never know but its an educated guess that the ex ref on the panel said red. Glenn Hoddle and David Pleat (of course total guesses) said yellow. Hence its 2-1 to the yellows.
None of this alters the fact the referee acted correctly.
This post is going round in circles but it does seem the referees who appear to have the highest level exp are going red whilst the stereotypical public park refs are going yellow. And very few folk can be faulted for the level they are/or have been officiating at.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
. You really do brighten our days 
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
I was giving myself credit for phrasing that in a quite dignified manner 
So the FA review panel 100% agree with the 'stereotypical parks ref', as you aptly insult us, and you personally still believe you are right. Its a good job that this isn't a Brexit or Scottish Independence argument or something serious!
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Its my view thats its violent conduct and nothing any panel says is going to change that
Anyone does that in a game in which am involved, they are off.
Likewise if on your park you are happy with people kicking out at opponents, then fine, leave them on the park.
I guess that the beauty of interpretation.
Anyone does that in a game in which am involved, they are off.
Likewise if on your park you are happy with people kicking out at opponents, then fine, leave them on the park.
I guess that the beauty of interpretation.
At the end of the day your decisions on the park are taken in the opinion of the referee. Which is why we never agree. I dont agree that just because it was over ruled its definitely not red so I'd still support either red or yellow. The ultimate powers that be that decide the correct sanction are ifab. Not fa 3 man panel. But ifab dont comment on individual cases so we arent getting that so we have to try and make sense of it ourselves.
It all depends what you see. If you see as I think I do, a player deliberately strike an opponent then it's a red card. If you see a player recklessly trip an opponent its a yellow. That, I am sure we can all agree. We will never all be right all of the time and we should respect others opinions on this challenge. As I said in my post supporting red, Its borderline so I can see why there is a split in opinion.
The theory that just because the ball is or isnt within playing distance determines the excessiveness of the force does not sit right with me and i wish referees wouldnt use it as a pre determining factor, I do wonder how some of you get to 90 minutes if thats the case. Lots of off the ball holding and pulling at corners free kicks etc. Red cards? No didnt think so.
Also @Ciley Myrus there is no need to bring peoples level of experience in to the debate. There are far better referees than me lower than my level and you yourself once started on the parks and I guess from some of your comments you're back there now following a stint somewhere near the top. It does not and cannot quantify the value of peoples contributions and i implore you to refrain from using it as a reasoning for telling someone they are wrong. It all comes across makes you appear arrogant.
It all depends what you see. If you see as I think I do, a player deliberately strike an opponent then it's a red card. If you see a player recklessly trip an opponent its a yellow. That, I am sure we can all agree. We will never all be right all of the time and we should respect others opinions on this challenge. As I said in my post supporting red, Its borderline so I can see why there is a split in opinion.
The theory that just because the ball is or isnt within playing distance determines the excessiveness of the force does not sit right with me and i wish referees wouldnt use it as a pre determining factor, I do wonder how some of you get to 90 minutes if thats the case. Lots of off the ball holding and pulling at corners free kicks etc. Red cards? No didnt think so.
Also @Ciley Myrus there is no need to bring peoples level of experience in to the debate. There are far better referees than me lower than my level and you yourself once started on the parks and I guess from some of your comments you're back there now following a stint somewhere near the top. It does not and cannot quantify the value of peoples contributions and i implore you to refrain from using it as a reasoning for telling someone they are wrong. It all comes across makes you appear arrogant.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Individual experience is crucial when making any call. Either from past experience of making the call, for right or wrong, or, being involved and seeing the call being made, again, for right or wrong. Nowhere would I or did I state someones actual ability was in question. How can we learn in life, with anything, unless we experience it.
I only stated that reading though previous posts, it seemed that anyone I would consider to have been or at, a high level, was edging on the red side, whereas anyone, without undermining anyones ability, that appears not to be, or has not been, at, let say, a senior level of sorts, was going yellow.
Which, is what I personally would expect from an incident like this.
Not once would I or did I evaluate anyones ability. Thats a variable, and one which I for one am not in a position to judge.
Someones experience though, is factual and plays a huge part in decision making and managing the game, and, given its a fact, then, comments can be made on it. Either a player has hit 100 pens in his career or he has hit 1. Hitting 100 would certainly give you the upper hand when it came to taking pens compared to the guy who has hit 1.. Same as this incident, being experienced to have been involved in such clips as the OP factually would give you a better chance of calling it correct than someone with limited experience of said clip. It is this experience to which I was referring. For someone not to have that experience is not a slight on them.
Arrogance is not a sin. Or a crime,. Some folk are quiet, some are brave, some are mischievous, some are jovial and so on......folk are just made in all shapes and sizes and with all different personalities.....but thats nothing to do with the OP
I only stated that reading though previous posts, it seemed that anyone I would consider to have been or at, a high level, was edging on the red side, whereas anyone, without undermining anyones ability, that appears not to be, or has not been, at, let say, a senior level of sorts, was going yellow.
Which, is what I personally would expect from an incident like this.
Not once would I or did I evaluate anyones ability. Thats a variable, and one which I for one am not in a position to judge.
Someones experience though, is factual and plays a huge part in decision making and managing the game, and, given its a fact, then, comments can be made on it. Either a player has hit 100 pens in his career or he has hit 1. Hitting 100 would certainly give you the upper hand when it came to taking pens compared to the guy who has hit 1.. Same as this incident, being experienced to have been involved in such clips as the OP factually would give you a better chance of calling it correct than someone with limited experience of said clip. It is this experience to which I was referring. For someone not to have that experience is not a slight on them.
Arrogance is not a sin. Or a crime,. Some folk are quiet, some are brave, some are mischievous, some are jovial and so on......folk are just made in all shapes and sizes and with all different personalities.....but thats nothing to do with the OP
I couldn't ever see myself in the SG like some on here.... Who can live on just the 80K these days!!! 
The way my wife spends it, I bloody cant!!! 
I had to get a proper job!!! 
The way my wife spends it, I bloody cant!!! I had to get a proper job!!!
Levels displayed on here are no indicator of experience. A football league liner will eventually become a 5 once they come off the panel list so again it has no bearing on the argument or point you were trying to make. That and referring to people as stereotypical park refs.... just no need.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
No, we don't. Whatever else you might say about this decision, it is not an official FA pronouncement on how the Laws of the Game should be interpreted. It is the decision of an Independent Regulatory Commission consisting of a majority of non-referees who are under no obligation to make or justify their decision solely by reference to the wording of the Laws of the Game. It's simply their personal opinion on an individual incident.
Not ‘could’ be interpreted, more like ‘the way’ that they’d like them to be interpreted PG.... that’s political speak for I’m wrong but want to make out I’m maybe right.! Move on, you got one wrong, it’s not the end of the world
one
RefChat Addict
Every review/appeal panel has a terms of reference or method of operation they are obliged to follow. Even my local district association has one so I'd say the FA would certainly have one. Is the above statement a matter of fact or just your opinion?
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
It is only my opinion but I would say it is based on various articles I've read about how the IRC's are appointed and how they work but also on the 'written reasons' they have given in many cases. While these written reasons do sometimes reference the LotG, sometimes equally, they do not and even when they do mention the Laws, they also mention other factors that influenced their decision. So I stand by my opinion that they do not make or justify their decisions based solely on the laws. For instance, in one published decision, they mentioned that they had considered (in addition to the LotG), "The prevalence of the type of offence in question in football generally [and] the wider interests of football in applying consistent punishments for dismissal offences.” These last two factors are not part of the LotG.
However the main point I was trying to make is that the IRC is by definition, independent and whatever decision they come up with, is not the 'official' FA position on a given matter of law. They are not an FA technical sub-committee charged with establishing the FA's official interpretation of the aspect of the law in question.
Whether I'm right or wrong on exactly how the IRC's reach their decisions (and I didn't say they don’t consider the laws at all, only that they don't base their decisions solely on the LotG) I still maintain that their decisions do not give us a definitive FA position on the law, just a ruling on a specific incident.
- Status