Santos red card

voyeur said:
I think people are unaware of the latest rules...

"The double-jeopardy law states: "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off."
Click to expand...
so it's all subjective as to who thinks he was playing the ball and those who he think his only way to get to the ball was going thru the player which for me is not playing the ball. anyway, it's gone now.
 
Delfino said:
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?
Click to expand...
If he'd broken Joseph's ankle, which he could have as he flew in with both feet, maybe that would be deemed 'excessive force'. Thank God Kyle's foot wasnt planted when the lunge came in!
 
Just called to see my mate (big Bolton fan) in his warehouse and very loudly gave a rendition of
“tangerine, tangerine, tangerine” only to be met with a chorus of “fcuk off, Blackpool fans aren’t welcome in here”
Just love the banter.😂
Anyway we discussed the match and he agreed it was a definite penalty but (as Bull alluded to) should not have been a penalty under the rules.
As it happens it’s worked out okay for Santos but I still think the severity of the challenge warranted a red because it was dangerous play.
Anyway more important issues than Santos, like 3 points tonight.
I mentioned that Saturday was a “6 pointer” and even more so tonight.
 
voyeur said:
I think people are unaware of the latest rules...

"The double-jeopardy law states: "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off."
Click to expand...
So, Santos is airborne, studs up AND makes contact from behind. The only thing lucky for Santos was that he didn’t do serious damage to Joseph.
 
20togo said:
so it's all subjective as to who thinks he was playing the ball and those who he think his only way to get to the ball was going thru the player which for me is not playing the ball. anyway, it's gone now.
Click to expand...
Attempt to play the ball is different from playing the ball. They decided his intention was to play the ball. I don't have a problem with it, I think it was likely the case. They are not saying no punishment was due. They are saying penalty and yellow card, which is quite a lot of punishment. It all hangs on what his intention was, people are obviously disagreeing about that. I don't think his intention was to foul KJ. Just my opinion.
 
I'm guessing the refs report states that he gave a red as the player didn't make an attempt for the ball. Well he did make the attempt albeit he didnt get there. If he had pushed him in the back then that isn't trying to make an attempt for the ball.

Cos the ref hasn't mentioned the dangerous play then the FA cant overturn that cos he hasn't made a decision to overturn. If the ref had sent him off for a two footed tackle being dangerous then i guess the FA wouldn't have overturned it.

At least that's the way I see it.
 
tangerine wonderland said:
I'm guessing the refs report states that he gave a red as the player didn't make an attempt for the ball. Well he did make the attempt albeit he didnt get there. If he had pushed him in the back then that isn't trying to make an attempt for the ball.

Cos the ref hasn't mentioned the dangerous play then the FA cant overturn that cos he hasn't made a decision to overturn. If the ref had sent him off for a two footed tackle being dangerous then i guess the FA wouldn't have overturned it.

At least that's the way I see it.
Click to expand...
Has the Actress said to the Bishop
 
voyeur said:
Attempt to play the ball is different from playing the ball. They decided his intention was to play the ball. I don't have a problem with it, I think it was likely the case. They are not saying no punishment was due. They are saying penalty and yellow card, which is quite a lot of punishment. It all hangs on what his intention was, people are obviously disagreeing about that. I don't think his intention was to foul KJ. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Dangerous play has nothing to do with intent, it is purely a question of if the play was dangerous or not.

My understanding is that the card should only be rescinded if it is a clear error by the referee, two footed, both feet off the ground, through the back of the player, at an absolute minimum I can't see how the threshold for "clear error" is met in this case.
 
Simonized said:
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.
It stinks of Dog Shit ....
Click to expand...
That for me was the worst red card decision I've ever seen and subsequently the worst failed appeal I've ever seen. The Blades bloke went up to Lavery grabbed him by or near his throat and threw him to the ground. And gets a red? Absolutely corrupt.
 
voyeur said:
I think people are unaware of the latest rules...

"The double-jeopardy law states: "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off."
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought initially then thought maybe it was a prem rule, big f*ck up from the ref that, one job. But I am not complaining we got our 3 points. UTMP 🍊
 
Lost Seasider said:
Dangerous play has nothing to do with intent, it is purely a question of if the play was dangerous or not.

My understanding is that the card should only be rescinded if it is a clear error by the referee, two footed, both feet off the ground, through the back of the player, at an absolute minimum I can't see how the threshold for "clear error" is met in this case.
Click to expand...
The review panel obviously decided that his intent was to play the ball. I've said this a few times now.

"the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball."
 
voyeur said:
The review panel obviously decided that his intent was to play the ball. I've said this a few times now.

"the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball."
Click to expand...
And I've said a few times, that rule does not override the rules about serious foul play.

The only explanation I can think of is that the referee did not in fact send him off for SFP (which he certainly could have) and his report instead referred to DOGSO, in which case the referee erred twice, in sending him off for something that should've been yellow, and not sending him off for something that should've been red.
 
Lost Seasider said:
And I've said a few times, that rule does not override the rules about serious foul play.

The only explanation I can think of is that the referee did not in fact send him off for SFP (which he certainly could have) and his report instead referred to DOGSO, in which case the referee erred twice, in sending him off for something that should've been yellow, and not sending him off for something that should've been red.
Click to expand...
Well have to disagree. I saw it differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top