Lancstangerine
Well-known member
Overturned on appeal. That’ll add to the Bolton victim complex from Saturday. Good.
Yep ours were absolutely clear and even had one in the prem via VAR overturned that dame week and yet they didn't ours.I'm surprised to be honest, the same panel upheld Lavery's red at Sheffield Utd and Carey's at Burnley. Neither of which should have been a sending off and video evidence was far more clear. Shame as it would have been a 3 game suspension and he's a key player for them.
That's how I understood the rule, if he's last man and made a genuine attempt for the ball in the penalty area it's a pen and a yellow card, I thought at the time the ref got it wrong and this confirms it."According to the FA’s laws of the game, having attempted to play, or challenge for the ball, in conceding the spot-kick, Almeida Santos should have received just a caution."
The FA dont know their arse from their elbow."According to the FA’s laws of the game, having attempted to play, or challenge for the ball, in conceding the spot-kick, Almeida Santos should have received just a caution."
Is this because it would be deemed unfair to give BOTH a penalty and a red card?I can’t understand why the confusion, if the challenger was outside the box a red card is correct but in the box it’s a yellow.
I’m just amazed the ref got it wrong, not that I’m complaining
Correct, I’m not with you Brett&Murphs for me he not only attempted to play the ball he actually got a piece of it but the referee decided he played the man first so a pen was given.Is this because it would be deemed unfair to give BOTH a penalty and a red card?
They haven't said he played the ball. They say he challenged for the ball, so it should have been a penalty and a yellow, for a foul, but not a red.How's that playing the ball?
It's on the other side of both his feet!View attachment 18526
That’s correct, but if you watch where the ball goes after the challenge it shoots off towards the corner flag so he has had to have played the ball, however the ref deemed he took the man out first hence the penalty decision, but he should have given a yellow not a red card.They haven't said he played the ball. They say he challenged for the ball, so it should have been a penalty and a yellow, for a foul, but not a red.
He booted Joseph’s feet into the ballThat’s correct, but if you watch where the ball goes after the challenge it shoots off towards the corner flag so he has had to have played the ball, however the ref deemed he took the man out first hence the penalty decision, but he should have given a yellow not a red card.
Thats only one frame. Santos is looking towards the ball with Joseph floating from the nudge in the back. Santos does make contact with the ball once Joseph's foot has been moved out of the way by his right boot.How's that playing the ball?
It's on the other side of both his feet!View attachment 18526
Santos had both feet off the ground. Rest is irrelevant.Thats only one frame. Santos is looking towards the ball with Joseph floating from the nudge in the back. Santos does make contact with the ball once Joseph's foot has been moved out of the way by his right boot.
This rule about attempting to play the ball and it's a yellow is utter bollocks, every single player can claim to be attempting to get the ball, if it's a goal scoring opportunity then it should be Eva red simple as that.Yep ours were absolutely clear and even had one in the prem via VAR overturned that dame week and yet they didn't ours.
It was undeniably a pen, the new rule about going for the ball in the box, or whatever it is being a yellow might have saved him.
But who cares, we got to wave him goodbye.
So if that tackle happens just outside the box it's a red, as happend to Casey against Peterborough?I was surprised he got sent off after the pen was given because of this new double jeopardy rule. I thought maybe there was some other rule in play like if it's considered a dangerous challenge it can be a sending off and a pen or something, but clearly not!
So if he'd gone through the back of Joseph, studs up, on full power, shattered both his legs, that would still only be a yellow because it was in the box?I can’t understand why the confusion, if the challenger was outside the box a red card is correct but in the box it’s a yellow.
I’m just amazed the ref got it wrong, not that I’m complaining
Reasoning? The FA?There law states that excessive force is a Red.
And there's a law that says an attempt to play the ball whilst fouling and denying a goal-scoring attempt is a Yellow.
The law doesn't address what happens if the attempt to play the ball also uses excessive force.
So either the FA have decided, there is no excessive force in this instance (which surprises me with the airborne nature and from behind) or the law on excessive force doesn't outweigh the attempt to play the ball and fouling in a goal-scoring situation (which also surprises me).
I suspect they have concluded no excessive force and a genuine attempt to play the ball. I don't think the evidence warrants overruling the ref's original decision.
Does anybody have a link to the FA's reasoning?
Yeah, but he didn't did he? If the challenge was using excessive force with studs up it's a red irrelevant to whether it's in the box, out of the box or in the players tunnel for that matter, it's a straight red.So if he'd gone through the back of Joseph, studs up, on full power, shattered both his legs, that would still only be a yellow because it was in the box?
If it's a red outside the box, it's a red in the box.
I wonder if they are working on a typed up version of the complete works of ShakespeareReasoning? The FA?
You must be new here.
Yeah, but he didn't did he? If the challenge was using excessive force with studs up it's a red irrelevant to whether it's in the box, out of the box or in the players tunnel for that matter, it's a straight red.
The FA have viewed the incident no doubt from every camera angle available and have correctly in my view rescinded the red card to a yellow.
They changed the law on this.Doesn’t matter what colour of card he mis timed his tackle fouled the player A pen and a sending off.
I guess of they just pulled someone down that wouldn't be an attempt, tbf he did seem to go for it, but Joseph had the run on him and nipped in last second.This rule about attempting to play the ball and it's a yellow is utter bollocks, every single player can claim to be attempting to get the ball, if it's a goal scoring opportunity then it should be Eva red simple as that.
It's just a strange outcome when you consider we had one upheld for one of our players being sent off for being pushed over at Shef utd.Apparently Bolton have had 3 of their last 5 red cards overturned. When was the last time we had one overturned?
They know where their arses are because their heads are up themThe FA dont know their arse from their elbow.
Yes but Bolton didn't protest outside the EFL, did they?I'm surprised to be honest, the same panel upheld Lavery's red at Sheffield Utd and Carey's at Burnley. Neither of which should have been a sending off and video evidence was far more clear. Shame as it would have been a 3 game suspension and he's a key player for them.
Doesn’t matter to us they could be playing one of our rivalsI'm surprised to be honest, the same panel upheld Lavery's red at Sheffield Utd and Carey's at Burnley. Neither of which should have been a sending off and video evidence was far more clear. Shame as it would have been a 3 game suspension and he's a key player for them.
He just took the player out who was in the way. Joke of a decision"According to the FA’s laws of the game, having attempted to play, or challenge for the ball, in conceding the spot-kick, Almeida Santos should have received just a caution."