Red? Wow.

I can see why it's given.... Well the way things are these days. I actually thought it was a bit of a daft one that gives the ref a decision to make.

I wouldn't call it 'out of control' and he gets 100% of the ball. I am sure we will try and get it recinded but I'm not overly confident it will be.

It just looks 'bad' even though he fully gets the ball. He's two footed and slightly off the ground. A massive miss if out for 3 games.
 
Copied on another thread but for me it matches the definition of "serious foul play" copied below:

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
 
Scrote said:
By definition (within the rules) he isn't in control when both feet have left the floor. There is no other interpretation as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...
Both feet leave the floor when running......

their player wasn’t near when he connected with the ball. It’s just a strong challenge endangering no-one. Well end up with a ‘pretty patterns non contact’ game the way it’s going. And it will be utter kak.
 
El Guapo said:
Both feet leave the floor when running......

their player wasn’t near when he connected with the ball. It’s just a strong challenge endangering no-one. Well end up with a ‘pretty patterns non contact’ game the way it’s going. And it will be utter kak.
Click to expand...
B91222AE-9B26-45CD-9228-C69B4F2350E5.png

You can argue that he got the ball first but the Huddersfield player was definitely near when the challenge was made.
 
But he was close enough to make contact with the Huddersfield player as he slides through to win the ball?

I think there's even a case for a red if he misses both the player and the ball as the law seems to suggest that it's the "lunge/attempt" that is penalised, rather than any actual contact with the opposition player.
 
changingman said:
Copied on another thread but for me it matches the definition of "serious foul play" copied below:

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
Click to expand...
He didn't lunge at an opponent in challenging for the ball though.
 
changingman said:
But he was close enough to make contact with the Huddersfield player as he slides through to win the ball?

I think there's even a case for a red if he misses both the player and the ball as the law seems to suggest that it's the "lunge/attempt" that is penalised, rather than any actual contact with the opposition player.
Click to expand...
But that’s the nature of movement, people moving towards each other will collide at some point. His feet were not raised dangerously towards the other player at any time during his movement. At no point was the player in danger of injury. It’s just a strong tackle, nothing more.
 
El Guapo said:
But that’s the nature of movement, people moving towards each other will collide at some point. His feet were not raised dangerously towards the other player at any time during his movement. At no point was the player in danger of injury. It’s just a strong tackle, nothing more.
Click to expand...
Yep, take that point but I think this hinges on "excessive force", whether it endangers the player or not doesn't matter.

For me the law is designed to outlaw exactly the type of tackle we saw last night but hopefully there's enough doubt to get it overturned.
 
changingman said:
Yep, take that point but I think this hinges on "excessive force", whether it endangers the player or not doesn't matter.

For me the law is designed to outlaw exactly the type of tackle we saw last night but hopefully there's enough doubt to get it overturned.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on what constitutes excessive force and I guess it’s all about opinion, interpretation and semantics really. You and I can see each other’s viewpoint but we disagree subjectively on the crucial aspect. That’s what is so great about football. We can all view different angles, Slo-mos and stills and still have different views, I think that’s fantastic, as is the fact it can discussed amicably. 👍

let’s hope it gets overturned, we don’t need to be losing Paddy for 3 games.
 
El Guapo said:
He was further away than that when he connected with the ball initially (obscured by Morsy) I guess our opinions differ which is fair enough 👍

View attachment 13765
Click to expand...

I think we can see from the thread that opinion is divided ( although the majority think it wasn’t a sending off)

Sadly the ref and assistant fell into the “it was a red card” section. Let’s hope the appeals committee are of a different opinion as we can do without losing him for 3 games.
 
It also appeared to be the linesman who signalled that it was a red (rather than the ref)? When Warnock was berating the fourth official he was motioning towards his arm, which I believe is the method by which the lino alerts the ref to something?
 
That is a sending off every day of the week and by almost any referee. When he finishes moving he has gone 4 yards. He was lucky not to break the lads leg.By the time his foot makes contact with the ball, the strikers foot is coming level with it. He endangered the players safety, and was, quite rightly, sent off.

Yesterday in real time I thought he was a bit unlucky, in slow motion it is clearly a bad challenge, albeit a genuine attempt to get the ball. It was reckless and he opened himself up to the red card.
 
Watched the slomo again. He contacts the player before getting the ball as well. Not a chance that is overturned and I would expect an additional ban for a frivolous appeal.

It's OK harking back to the good old days, but the match was played yesterday and is subject to the current rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top