The Ref Stop

Wolves vs Arsenal

Decision?

  • Red

    Votes: 30 38.5%

  • Yellow

    Votes: 48 61.5%
  • Total voters
    78
Status
Not open for further replies.
Runner Ref said:
Willie Collum says pretty much this on the VAR review show you didn’t want to watch. He doesn’t want incidents like this shown in slow motion, as it takes away the force, speed, brutality etc. At least on the first viewings of the incident.
Click to expand...
I thought one of the ethos's of VAR was that they wouldn't use freeze frames and slomo except for helpful factual stuff like in/out PA
Instead they typically use it for point of contact (as do many members on here), which only has relevance if the force used is excessive and/or if it truly endangered the safety of the opponent, which is very usually not the case
As with all VAR principals, they went out the winda withing the first few months of it ruining 'the beautiful game'
 
The Ref Stop
Kes said:
When I saw MO pull out the red I assumed it was for DOGSO.
Click to expand...
Which could never have been with him being positioned well with Wolves half of the FoP. Although MotD consider it was a very poor decision and convinced it will be overturned, I hope it won’t be. MO had a clear view and saw what he saw, which included that the incident initially started from the shin and then down to the ankle/foot.
 
DavidObs said:
Which could never have been with him being positioned well with Wolves half of the FoP. Although MotD consider it was a very poor decision and convinced it will be overturned, I hope it won’t be. MO had a clear view and saw what he saw, which included that the incident initially started from the shin and then down to the ankle/foot.
Click to expand...
I agree but in real time it just looked like a standard nailed-on caution for SPA.
 
Kes said:
I agree but in real time it just looked like a standard nailed-on caution for SPA.
Click to expand...
I think that from the real time view from the tv cameras it does look a nailed down SPA. However, MO was in very close proximity (perhaps even too close) & clearly saw the rake and during the time when the Wolves player was at full speed - deliberately bringing him to ground. I have no doubt that the offender had no intention of hurting his opponent, but his actions could have easily broken a bone.
 
There have been plenty of crunching tackles above the ankle with a lot of force that have been checked and confirmed caution. This has little force as it's a trip, yet a red.

Fernandes got rescinded which was far worse as he did it out of frustration, so you'd expect this should
 
Ryanj91 said:
There have been plenty of crunching tackles above the ankle with a lot of force that have been checked and confirmed caution. This has little force as it's a trip, yet a red.

Fernandes got rescinded which was far worse as he did it out of frustration, so you'd expect this should
Click to expand...

The difference was Fernandes challenge was his was with the side of the foot whilst Lewis-Skelly's challenge was with studs and above the ankle. Howard Webb said it himself, if it was with studs the red card would be 100% the right decision.

Because of all the noise and it involves a big 6 club, this will probably be shown on the next mic'd up show and if it does I bee surprised if Howard Webb says the decision was incorrect.

I think because it perhaps lack force is what makes this seems more harsh than it actually is. It probably influenced me when I thought it was more of a yellow but seeing it more in terms of point of contact and with studs, i think it's more red.

The criticism of MO and the VAR is a disgrace though, it really is not the worst decision ever, far from it.
 
Personally where the boot is placed is on the border between a yellow and a red- therefore not clear and obvious. Not a shocker of a decision but could go either way. Not that arteta would complain any less if he punched him in the face to stop a counter attack
 
This image is doing the rounds on social media. I know that stills don't always tell a true story, but I can fully understand any referee seeing contact that high and going red, even more so when there's no attempt to play the ball.

1737912855068.png
 
deusex said:
Couldn't wait to see the mental gymnastics performed to vindicate Sir Michael.
The usual suspects didn't disappoint.

I look forward to 3 red cars every single game now this is deemed a red. :redcard:
Click to expand...
I presume I may be one of the people you’re referring to, given you laughing reacted to my post…

For what it’s worth, I voted yellow. I think it lacked the force required to be a red card, despite the point of contact.
But given the current expectation of when VAR should intervene, this was never going to meet the threshold as MO would have told them that the Red was for point of contact high above the ankle and that was exactly what happened.
I’m not saying I think it’s a red, but I’m saying it’s not an egregious error, and it was still a good spot by MO to notice the point of contact in the way he did, when it looked to everyone else that it was a routine trip…
 
RustyRef said:
The argument that any force is excessive force, as the football isn't anywhere near the challenge. Should someone just be allowed to kick someone when the ball is nowhere near, just so that they can stop an attack? I personally don't think so, so I don't really have an issue with decisions like this.
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying, but if that is the definition of excessive force, then any off the ball contact is excessive force. Which then means all of the pushing and pulling at corners is excessive force and should be a red card as the force used is not needed.

Go and watch clip 1 of the Scottish VAR review that was posted on here. Player sent off for what the referee believed was a push/strike to the throat, when in reality it was a push in the chest. VAR asked him to check it but referee went with his initial decision. Willie Collum then says it shouldn’t have been a red card, even though it’s an off the ball push. So I think that blows your theory on excessive force out of the water
 
Last edited:
I think some may also be missing that excessive force is not a necessity for SFP/VC - where there has been brutality.
LOTG defines brutality as 'an act which is savage, ruthless or deliberately violent'.
Planting studs into an opponent to bring them down at all costs can easily be regarded as a ruthless act and therefore brutality.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
I think some may also be missing that excessive force is not a necessity for SFP/VC - where there has been brutality.
LOTG defines brutality as 'an act which is savage, ruthless or deliberately violent'.
Planting studs into an opponent to bring them down at all costs can easily be regarded as a ruthless act and therefore brutality.
Click to expand...
He hardly placed his studs into him, he grazed him. Of the 3 definitions of brutality you mentioned, which one are you placing this under? I personally don’t see either of the 3 in this incident
 
RustyRef said:
Caveat that I haven't seen a full replay yet, only the YouTube clips that keep getting taken down. My point is there was zero, absolutely zero, attempt to play the ball, which makes it a deliberately attempt to kick an opponent off the ball.
Click to expand...
I think everyone who's seen it would agree with that. The issue is that the precedent is that such deliberate kicks/trips normally receive a yellow card.
 
RustyRef said:
I've long held the view, and have stated it many times on here, that taking out an opponent when the ball is in a different postcode should be a red card. Football is about kicking the ball, not opponents, and I don't think players should get away with just taking out opponents when the ball is not even vaguely within playing distance.

That said, I'm struggling more with this one as it was such a minor trip, but I do come back to there was absolutely zero attempt to kick the ball.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. An ideal offence to be punished with a sin bin, imo.
 
Law 12 states SFP as “A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent OR uses excessive force OR brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. It seems to me that the challenge MO has seen can be deemed as endangering the safety of an opponent, who was at full speed at the time of the deliberate challenge by the Arsenal player. Yes, I think most people would have accepted the situation had he been given a yellow, but was he incorrect to issue a red - I don’t think he was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top