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.
GraemeS said:
In fact, if we're being precise, my exact words were "But they're not willing to stand behind it, so it looks like MO making things up as he goes along." - clearly criticising someone other than MO putting him in an impossible situation.


I will always of course just accept the possibility that the referee has got the decision wrong and there is no big conspiracy. I was happy to support MO and blame his bosses, but if you insist.....

As others in the thread have pointed out, the force is minimal and concerns about "raking studs" are frankly outdated - no premier league footballer wears inch-long spikes any more. Stud first challenges might scratch an opponent or sting in the moment, but aren't automatically going to cause serious lacerations or injury to the extent that glancing contact with "studs" automatically requires SFP.

So from my perspective, there are two possibilities. Either:
1) PL match officials are told to err on the side of being harsh with borderline challenges that are also cynical SPA. This (in my mind) is consistent with the PL being overly harsh on these challenges / pundits complaining when they have failed to be harsh on these challenges in the past.
2) MO has completely misjudged the force of the challenge and VAR has failed to bail him out.
I actually chose the option that is more sympathetic to the match officials. But if you're insisting that isn't the case, then you leave me no choice but to say this is a mistake.
Click to expand...
Just because players may not wear inch long studs anymore doesn’t meant it doesn’t cause any less damage. In rugby a tap tackle can just be as effective as a crunching tackle - it brings the player to ground. People don’t need a sword to kill a person, a pen knife can achieve the same aim. Similarly a short stud can cause just as much damage as a long stud and there are plenty of pictures that have been posted on the internet in recent seasons that have demonstrated this. VAR was only going to bail him out if they considered it was a clear & obvious error, which imo it wasn’t. Of course, you will win your argument if the MCS Panel disagree with the decision, along with any appeal (though I suspect MO will be disappointed, though will accept it as part & parcel of the modern game).
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
The most annoying thing for me is....you have a very experienced referee that had a very close, clear and unobstructed view of the incident. He didn't deem it a "trip", he thought it was a rake to the ankle (may have graised his shin). IMO it was an orange and could have gone either way. VAR didn't think MO's decision was clearly and obviously an error, so the decision stands. That's it !! End of argument. The fans, pundits etc should just respect the referee's decision and move on. Until that happens, they're making life sooo difficult for us lot out in the middle.
 
BCMilan said:
The most annoying thing for me is....you have a very experienced referee that had a very close, clear and unobstructed view of the incident. He didn't deem it a "trip", he thought it was a rake to the ankle (may have graised his shin). IMO it was an orange and could have gone either way. VAR didn't think MO's decision was clearly and obviously an error, so the decision stands. That's it !! End of argument. The fans, pundits etc should just respect the referee's decision and move on. Until that happens, they're making life sooo difficult for us lot out in the middle.
Click to expand...
This argument (used on here only) "what the game expects" is not being used this time by the usual suspects.

Why is that? Does it not fit the narrative?

Strange.
 
Kent Ref said:
This argument (used on here only) "what the game expects" is not being used this time by the usual suspects.

Why is that? Does it not fit the narrative?

Strange.
Click to expand...
Until the end of last season I had a mentor who was an ex PL Referee of many years experience and he hated that expression (what the game expects) & I can understand why. Some may also say ‘no surprises’ - I am more towards this expression than the former.
 
DavidObs said:
Until the end of last season I had a mentor who was an ex PL Referee of many years experience and he hated that expression (what the game expects) & I can understand why. Some may also say ‘no surprises’ - I am more towards this expression than the former.
Click to expand...
I hate it with a passion as it doesn’t really mean anything. But it’s used a lot on here, as well as during many training seminars I’ve attended over the years.
 
DavidObs said:
Just because players may not wear inch long studs anymore doesn’t meant it doesn’t cause any less damage. In rugby a tap tackle can just be as effective as a crunching tackle - it brings the player to ground. People don’t need a sword to kill a person, a pen knife can achieve the same aim. Similarly a short stud can cause just as much damage as a long stud and there are plenty of pictures that have been posted on the internet in recent seasons that have demonstrated this.
Click to expand...
Pictures of serious injury caused by glancing contact with a stud? Nonsense.

To borrow your analogy - yes it's possible to kill with a pen knife. But it takes a lot more force, applied with a lot more precision and intent. By reducing from large metal studs to small plastic studs, low-force contact isn't automatically dangerous, and refereeing needs to reflect that.
 
The Gump said:
The usual sensible, rational and calm reaction and description of this incident from Dale Johnson over at ESPM in his Monday column, anticipating a successful appeal.

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/ins...ar-review-arsenal-myles-lewis-skelly-red-card
Click to expand...

A little surprised Dale thought it was more yellow than red. Especially when Howard Webb has said in the Fernandes one if he gone in with studs then a red card is the right decision and Lewis-Skelly definately goes in with studs so can't just be a trip can it?

I do agree with him the hyperbole from the pundits has been a joke and may of fuel the fire so to speak. I just think it's unfortunate in Arsenal fans eyes, oliver has got it in for them and if this was any other referee(apart from Taylor potentially) then the anger wouldn't be quite so severe.
 
GraemeS said:
Pictures of serious injury caused by glancing contact with a stud? Nonsense.

To borrow your analogy - yes it's possible to kill with a pen knife. But it takes a lot more force, applied with a lot more precision and intent. By reducing from large metal studs to small plastic studs, low-force contact isn't automatically dangerous, and refereeing needs to reflect that.
Click to expand...
Very unpleasant injuries rather than serious & glancing is sufficient if either player are at speed, which can be further heightened by the directions each are travelling at. So not nonsense (my footballing career ended at the age of 29 following a glancing blow and a visit to St Thomas hospital in London looking like the elephant man). So if the MCS panel agree with MO and the Appeal Panel throw out any appeal received from Arsenal, will you accept their decisions (not that Referees at any level below should change what they do in their games)?
 
Last edited:
DavidObs said:
Very unpleasant injuries rather than serious & glancing is sufficient if either player are at speed, which can be further heightened by the directions each are travelling at. So not nonsense (my footballing career ended at the age of 29 following a glancing blow and a visit to St Thomas hospital in London looking like the elephant man). So if the MCS panel agree with MO and the Appeal Panel throw out any appeal received from Arsenal, will you accept their decisions (not that Referees at any level below should change what they do in their games)?
Click to expand...
Why would you think that? I've got an established record on here of taking MCS and appeal panel decisions will less than a pinch of salt - making referees follow one law book and then judging the accuracy of their decisions using ex-players who probably don't know what that book looks like always has and will continue to be a farce. That won't change for this incident.
 
GraemeS said:
Why would you think that? I've got an established record on here of taking MCS and appeal panel decisions will less than a pinch of salt - making referees follow one law book and then judging the accuracy of their decisions using ex-players who probably don't know what that book looks like always has and will continue to be a farce. That won't change for this incident.
Click to expand...
So it’s your way or no way, which is exactly what MO did and I don’t think he should be criticised for it. It was a subjective decision & I don’t think it was incorrect in Law - which should be the first criteria any PGMOL set up panel should be looking at (be it MCS or Appeal panels). The Referee does what he/she considers right on the day.

In my world, Referee’s have the right to appeal my reports and have done on some occasions this season. Most have lost and 2 have partly won. For those who have partly won, it would be foolish of me not to carefully consider what the appeals panel have said and to what degree if any, I need to take on board for future appointments. This is part of development for both myself & the Referee.
 
Referees have the right to appeal a report written by a referee and have another referee decide. Seems pretty logical to me. But for some reason, that's not what happens with PL appeals panels - hence why I think you may as well toss a coin and see what that "decides".
 
GraemeS said:
Referees have the right to appeal a report written by a referee and have another referee decide. Seems pretty logical to me. But for some reason, that's not what happens with PL appeals panels - hence why I think you may as well toss a coin and see what that "decides".
Click to expand...
Process looks the same to me in the main for the PL as it does for anywhere else:

“First things first, clubs must lodge their appeal by 17:00 on the second business day following the incident.

Premier League clubs can appeal certain red cards on the basis of 'wrongful dismissal'. Once the appeal has been made, the on-field decision will be reviewed by the FA via an independent regulatory commission. This commission is made up of three people who will discuss the appeal after looking over reports from the referee and the fourth official, as well as video evidence of the incident itself.

They will then decide whether to uphold or overturn the three-game ban.

However, there are times when an appeal is deemed 'frivolous' by the commission, and instead of overturning the three-match ban, they add another game onto the suspension. This risk means club's don't relentlessly appeal red card decisions”.
 
DavidObs said:
This commission is made up of three people who will discuss the appeal
Click to expand...
And who famously, are not necessarily qualified referees and as far as we know, have no requirement to pass a LOTG test or display any knowledge of the law before taking on that role. Being an ex-player is considered qualification enough :rolleyes:
 
In practice, the appeal panel is not there to say if the referee was right or wrong (regardless of lotg). They are there to determine if the player should receive suspension. Come to think of it there isn't too much wrong with that decision being made based on player experience and expectations for physical offences.

Does anyone here know for a fact what it is that the club 'legally' appeals? Is it the red card or is it the suspension? If it is the red card and their team lost the game, then they should have grounds for a replay.
 
GraemeS said:
And who famously, are not necessarily qualified referees and as far as we know, have no requirement to pass a LOTG test or display any knowledge of the law before taking on that role. Being an ex-player is considered qualification enough :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That is the case for the MCS Panel (ex players, along with a PGMOL rep), but should not be the case for the Appeal panel.
 
one said:
In practice, the appeal panel is not there to say if the referee was right or wrong (regardless of lotg). They are there to determine if the player should receive suspension. Come to think of it there isn't too much wrong with that decision being made based on player experience and expectations for physical offences.

Does anyone here know for a fact what it is that the club 'legally' appeals? Is it the red card or is it the suspension? If it is the red card and their team lost the game, then they should have grounds for a replay.
Click to expand...
It my understanding it is the red card and not the suspension. In any event, because virtually all red cards are subjective, there should be no grounds for a replay. The only time for consideration of a replay is if the Referee is incorrect in Law and it had a negative impact on the outcome of the game eg if the Referee has a drop ball, the player playing the ball hits the ball directly into his opponents goal without it touching anyone else and awards a goal (rather than a goal kick).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top