Red card rule

[BanderSerge]

I thought it would be a red card at the time and it was no surprise at all, the only thing I was waiting to see was whether they'd call Watkins offside - which he wasn't.

On balance you can say it may have been six-of-one-and-half-a-dozen-of-another but there are different opinions about most incidents and in reality it was, not for the first time, an exposure of our defence's achilles heel, a long ball over the top down the middle. Playing a high line has its benefits but with that you have to accept we will get caught out.

When we do it's crackers to put yourself in a position where your challenge can be interpreted as a last-man foul, far better to let things run their course and I hope they learn from that this time.

I see nothing wrong with the rule which is there for a good reason, and the decision was reviewed anyway. I was much more annoyed about the length of time it took to confirm the penalty which directly disadvantages the side taking it.

What an absolute pile of bollocks.

 

[PokerBlade]

It looked to me like he hadn`t a clue Basham was there, and that actually he was expecting to shepherd it out/back to the keeper.

He wasn`t attempting to play the ball at all - its a nailed on red card.

We are certainly not (and haven`t been for a long time) getting the rub of the green from VAR/refs. You'd think it has to turnaround at some point - but by that time we may be in trouble at the bottom of the table.

I saw it it similarly, and if you're right then it certainly wouldn't be a professional foul if he's trying to shepherd it back, so refs probably reasonably interpret the rules to mean that's a yellow. That's my understanding of the law and the spirit of the rules, that it was deemed too harsh to give a penalty, a red card, and an automatic suspension for defenders that didn't intend to foul a player. Targett didn't slide in to catch the ankles of a player who's through on goal, he just clashed with a player as he turned back to goal. I'd be livid if we got a red for that.

 

[Caveblade]

What an absolute pile of bollocks.

Concur completely, utter Bollocks. That is never a red card. As others have said the continual interference of refs and VAR is suffocating the game. A great ref was one you didn't notice not the attention seeking matadors we have today!

 

[Barney Rubble]

For the Egan sending off VAR should have insisted that the ref went to the pitchside monitor because it
1) Wasn't a clear cut foul by Egan (I thought Watkns was just as guilty)
2) Wasn't a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity
If he still thought it was a sending off then Egan would have to go.

On the penalty incident it seemed at the time that VAR was trying all ends up to find Basham guilty of diving since they checked it from every angle. With hindsight I think they may have been looking at whether it was a red card offence. It didn't help us and penalties tat take an age to happen often seem to get missed,, probably because more pressure builds on the penalty taker.

 

[gordoncharles]

What an absolute pile of bollocks.

You've won me over with your point by point rebuttal.

 

[Beans]

Seeing as I looked this up earlier, here's what the laws say:

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 offending player 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.

I would argue that Targett had no possibility to play the ball (it was nowhere near him when he made the challenge, and Basham has his entire body between him and the ball). This is the point of contact:



I can understand why the ref didn't immediately give a red (for a few seconds I thought he wasn't even going to give a penalty!) but I was expecting VAR to at the very least tell him to have another look. I just don't see at all how this can be construed as a) an attempt to play the ball, and b) having the possibility to play the ball. It was almost like they forgot to look at that part having spent two minutes faffing about trying to find a way to overturn a penalty decision that was obvious to the naked eye and certainly within 5 seconds of a replay.

 

[Selly]

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention as yet is why Bash didn't shoot first time.

A more instictive finisher may have left the penalty, and therefore red card, decision null and void by burying the ball into the back of the net.

 

[petcharlie]

I'm still confused as to why the foul on Bash had to be reviewed for about 5 mins with about 46 camera angles, making lundstrum hang around for what seemed like ages. It only needed one look at a replay. Not content with all that fuckin about the ref then spent a few more seconds making sure everyone was outside the box, even though they already were. cheers ref, twat.

Where were the 46 cameras last year?

 

[petcharlie]

For the Egan sending off VAR should have insisted that the ref went to the pitchside monitor because it
1) Wasn't a clear cut foul by Egan (I thought Watkns was just as guilty)
2) Wasn't a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity
If he still thought it was a sending off then Egan would have to go.

On the penalty incident it seemed at the time that VAR was trying all ends up to find Basham guilty of diving since they checked it from every angle. With hindsight I think they may have been looking at whether it was a red card offence. It didn't help us and penalties tat take an age to happen often seem to get missed,, probably because more pressure builds on the penalty taker.

According to one news paper report it was VAR that made the decision to show a red card and who was operating the VAR? Mike Dean.

 

[Guesty]

Egan's was a red card all day, we'd be furious if that wasn't given the other way.

It was his fault, and he's got form for that sort of brainlessness.

 

[BanderSerge]

Egan's was a red card all day, we'd be furious if that wasn't given the other way.

It was his fault, and he's got form for that sort of brainlessness.

You are brainlessness if you think that’s a red card.

 

[Guesty]

You are brainlessness if you think that’s a red card.

That doesn't make sense, on top of being wrong.

 

[BanderSerge]

That doesn't make sense, on top of being wrong.

That’s because I’ve copied the nonsense you wrote! Not one person of any standing in the game has said it was a red card. Even Dermott Gallagher this morning, who I have never seen go against a fellow ref decision on SSN, said Scott was wrong to send him off.

 

[Guesty]

That’s because I’ve copied the nonsense you wrote!

Don't be daft mate. Leaving aside the issue of whether is was a red card, I said Egan 'has form for that sort of brainlessness'. 'Brainlessness' being a trait, the fact or condition of being brainless.

Saying someone 'is brainlessness' makes no sense.

 

[BanderSerge]

Don't be daft mate. Leaving aside the issue of whether is was a red card, I said Egan 'has form for that sort of brainlessness'. 'Brainlessness' being a trait, the fact or condition of being brainless.

Saying someone 'is brainlessness' makes no sense.

Jesus wept!

 

[Guesty]

Jesus wept!

Can you not see how we've used the word differently?

I used it as an adjective, you used it as a noun. That's what I mean but it not making sense.

EDIT: I've just noticed you've edited your last post to include something about the red card decision, which wasn't there before (my last post included the whole of your post as it was at the time).

Now if you'd say to me 'you are brainless', that would have made sense from a grammar point of view, and it's certainly an argument that could be made.

 

[S12Kane]

You are brainlessness if you think that’s a red card.

First of all, Egan prevented a clear chance on goal, you must be blind if you think that’s not a red card. Secondly, a red card got given. Therefore, there’s no argument, it’s a fucking red card. The only brainless one here is you, talking your shit.

The PL are looking into overturning the red card, however, because BanderSerge on S24SU said it wasn’t from the view of his armchair. BEHAVE.

 

[BanderSerge]

I’ll repeat again for the uneducated. Not one person of any standing in the professional game has said it was a sending off, bar the odious cretin, Smith. Or closet on here.

 

[Bladesman]

Egan's was a red card all day, we'd be furious if that wasn't given the other way.

It was his fault, and he's got form for that sort of brainlessness.

PL have called Chris this week and said they were wrong about the red card for Egan. Never got the call from Mike Riley to make an appeal though.

 

[Champagneblade]

I don't understand this double jeopardy.

We missed the pen, he only got booked and he's available for the next game.

Egan's tussle, despite being 35 yards from goal and Watkins hasn't even touched the ball, is ruled 100% against the defender, he misses 82 minutes and then the next 90 vs Leeds where they score with a header in the centre of the goal.

If the aim of double jeopardy is to not punish a player twice, then Egan has had 2 punishments and Targett precisely none and Basham was far more likely to convert from 6 yards than Watkins was from 35.

The rule hasn't been well thought out at all.

 

[Bladesman]

I don't understand this double jeopardy.

We missed the pen, he only got booked and he's available for the next game.

Egan's tussle, despite being 35 yards from goal and Watkins hasn't even touched the ball, is ruled 100% against the defender, he misses 82 minutes and then the next 90 vs Leeds where they score with a header in the centre of the goal.

If the aim of double jeopardy is to not punish a player twice, then Egan has had 2 punishments and Targett precisely none and Basham was far more likely to convert from 6 yards than Watkins was from 35.

The rule hasn't been well thought out at all.

More worrying is the lack of communication about these things. We have essentially lost Egan today because of it.

 

[Niceguyeddie]

First of all, Egan prevented a clear chance on goal, you must be blind if you think that’s not a red card. Secondly, a red card got given. Therefore, there’s no argument, it’s a fucking red card. The only brainless one here is you, talking your shit.

The PL are looking into overturning the red card, however, because BanderSerge on S24SU said it wasn’t from the view of his armchair. BEHAVE.

Most pundits ex refs and even the pgmol are surprised that was given as a red

 

[Tynemouth Blade]

 

[mattbianco1]

Absolutely ridiculous. Looking at the stats, want even a booking. Was it even a foul?

 

[Hague Blade]

What about Mane last night? Pre-meditated forearm to fend off Tierney. Isn’t that a red (apart from the fact that he plays for Liverpool, obviously)?

 

[Blade56]

Pre-meditated forearm to fend off Tierney.

Bet Paul Tierney weren’t impressed

 

[Houston_Blade]

Bet Paul Tierney weren’t impressed

If any player elbows Paul Tierney they deserve a medal, not a red card. Odious little c*nt.

 

[PLAIN BLADE]

Watkins knows what he is doing , he is not interested in getting the Ball .

 

[blade67]

Isn't it supposed to be a "clear" goalscoring opportunity? Yes, it could have resulted in a goal but he was 30 yards out, at an angle and the keeper was rushing out to meet the ball.

Can you imagine if Harry McGuire or Virgil van Dijk had done the same thing? Would it have been a straight red?

No. Haven't they agreed it was an error

 

[Rochdaleblade]

Kyle Walker didn't get booked for pulling back a Leicester player clean through on goal. Definitely made no attempt to play the ball. Wouldn't mind stupid rules if they were consistent. As I suspected last Monday, plenty of similar incidents will go unpunished. It's all very well people saying the ref made an error, but why aren't referees punished for not knowing the fucking rules.