Will it be rescinded or not?

[Linz]

We should be getting a decision as to whether Killa's straight red card will be rescinded in about an hour and a half.

Do you reckon it'll be reversed or not?

I think it should, but I don't think it will be. We're not Chelsea and he isn't John Terry...

 

[Sensiblade]

Bloody should be!

 

[Billyblade]

It will definitely be rescinded.

I also said we would beat Wednesday 3-1 !!!

 

[Bladesman]

If they have any sense it will be.

Also they are looking at the incidents with Jermaine Johnson hopefully that prick gets a longer ban.

 

[butchaboy]

i think it will be yeh

 

[SRBlade]

Ref saw it, gave his judgement over the incident, the FA cannot do anything.

But as stated Killa is not John Terry - England Captain.

Valencia for Wigan put in a reckless high tackle into Alonso's ankle and gets a 1 match ban (2 yellows) That geordie tosspot Guthrie gets a 3 match ban for intentionally hurting Hulls Craig Fagan.

The FA have no idea.

 

[RIP Niftos]

It should be, but it won't be.

 

[matth]

I'm not sure it should be rescinded. It was a reckless challenge, and by the laws of the game, could have deserved a red. Personally, I think that given that it was in a derby match, it shouldn't have been punished thus, but I can't see that the circumstances will make any difference to the FA.

Overturning it may set a dangerous precedent, also.

I don't think it should have been given in the first place, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with it being overturned.

 

[Linz]

I'm not sure it should be rescinded. It was a reckless challenge, and by the laws of the game, could have deserved a red. Personally, I think that given that it was in a derby match, it shouldn't have been punished thus, but I can't see that the circumstances will make any difference to the FA.

Overturning it may set a dangerous precedent, also.

I don't think it should have been given in the first place, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with it being overturned.

Had it been a sending off for a second yellow, I'd have no arguments. But a straight red? If every reckless challenge, regardless of malice, was straight red carded... there'd be some games with no one left on the pitch!

 

[matth]

I agree, but it's up to the ref's interpretation. That it was a challenge is indisputable. That it was reckless is also indisputable. For these reasons, I think that, painful as it is, we have to respect the decision of the referee - if not, every time there's a challenge that has the slightest bit of subjectivity about it, there'll be an appeal.

I don't think it should have been a red, personally - especially not in the circumstances - but now it's been made, I think there has to be an element of respecting the decision, especially as it wasn't a completely innocuous challenge.

 

[Foxy]

I think one of the main issues in this decision is once again the consistency.... If the referee interprets it in such a way, he has to interpret Tudguys high foot as the same or worse, no two ways about it.

 

[Linz]

I don't think it should have been a red, personally - especially not in the circumstances - but now it's been made, I think there has to be an element of respecting the decision, especially as it wasn't a completely innocuous challenge.

But if we start going down this route, referees will believe they are untouchable. They aren't beyond getting it wrong and sometimes their decisions are upheld but I see no harm in bringing their snap judgements in front of a panel for a more considered approach.

I think it ought to be due diligence for every sending off to ensure that the laws are being followed correctly and every challenge that should have been a sending off but wasn't given on the day. I don't give a toss if referees feel like they are being undermined... who is more important in football - the football clubs providing the entertainment or the referees? Surely reviewing decisions more often would lead to a better and more consistent degree of refereeing?

Personally, I think the appeal process is also flawed. You don't take a company to court only for it to be presided over by the managing directors!

In the case of Killa, it was a waist-height challenge that the recipient over-acted by writhing around on the floor clutching his face. The red card was dished out by a dodgy referee whose colleagues have questioned his impartiality in the past.

 

[keenzy]

He couldn't wait to get the red card out. Some challenges were going in and he was loosing control so brandished that in a 50/50 to try and calm it down.

 

[Foxy]

What a surprise.... i'll be emailing the relevant bodies with the Tudgay and Killa photos shortly

Matthew Kilgallon, Sheffield United FC
Sheffield Wednesday v Sheffield United
Football League Championship, 19 October 2008
Dismissed for serious foul play

Result: Claim for wrongful dismissal rejected - 3 match suspension

 

[Linz]

Bugger....

Oh well, it's another referee on the Daz hitlist!

 

[keenzy]

What a surprise.... i'll be emailing the relevant bodies with the Tudgay and Killa photos shortly

so you should, Clearly point out that the ref did not award a card for the incident so they can step in and ban him for 3 games due to a worse challenge.
Mike Dean will be getting some abuse next time we meet.

 

[SRBlade]

Appeal was Rejected.

 

[Foxy]

Appeal was Rejected.

See a few posts further up!

 

[TonyAgana]

Wankers.

 

[matth]

But if we start going down this route, referees will believe they are untouchable. They aren't beyond getting it wrong and sometimes their decisions are upheld but I see no harm in bringing their snap judgements in front of a panel for a more considered approach.

I think it ought to be due diligence for every sending off to ensure that the laws are being followed correctly and every challenge that should have been a sending off but wasn't given on the day. I don't give a toss if referees feel like they are being undermined... who is more important in football - the football clubs providing the entertainment or the referees? Surely reviewing decisions more often would lead to a better and more consistent degree of refereeing?

Personally, I think the appeal process is also flawed. You don't take a company to court only for it to be presided over by the managing directors!

In the case of Killa, it was a waist-height challenge that the recipient over-acted by writhing around on the floor clutching his face. The red card was dished out by a dodgy referee whose colleagues have questioned his impartiality in the past.

I do agree on the one hand, and I do feel like a traitor, but the very fact that the challenge was a potential red card, based on the subjectivity of the official, negates any arguments - for me - about the circumstances. In the match, I feel as though he shouldn't have given it, and I think that the reaction of McAllister was despicable. However, the fact remains that as a challenge, it was not outside the realms of possibility that a red card could have been given. The recklessness of the challenge wasn't debatable, nor was the fact that a player going in studs-up at above waist height (and it was, just - nowhere near the head, but above the waist) is at risk of getting a red card.

For these reasons, the red card was never going to be overturned; nor should it be, as it was a potential red card, and other referees in other games may have given it.

From a supporter's point of view, I don't think it should have been given in the first place, and with my Blade hat on, I'd have liked it to have been overturned as Killa could be back in the squad then. However, it was given, the tackle was punishable by a red card (amongst other potential punishments), and that should be the end of the matter.

Legally, at least. I realise that there's a lot of mileage in debating it, and there are other questions, not least what would have happened had it been a player for a team like Manchester United.

 

[Linz]

Legally, at least. I realise that there's a lot of mileage in debating it, and there are other questions, not least what would have happened had it been a player for a team like Manchester United.

I think the answer to your last point would be blindingly obvious!

Sometimes, I rather feel that the FA take the view that they're doing the leagues a big favour by lending their referees across and that we should all be bloody well grateful for it.

They seem to want to portray themselves as poor and lowly grafters who work hard to uphold the morals of the game and protect and nurture the national team in the face of the nasty corporate world the league system has become.

More and more however, they come across to me as an old-boys network of overpaid tosspots.

Opinions, wonderful things aren't they Mike Dean?

 

[beightonblade]

The truth is the Blades should be able to over run teams like the pigs...........that is if we are Promotion candidates. My opinion its looking more like a mid table finish hence the result and the bleating about poor refereeing.

 

[Foxy]

My opinion its looking more like a mid table finish hence the result and the bleating about poor refereeing.

Poor refereeing is poor refereeing, I'd still be saying the same if we'd have gone on to beat them 5-0.

It isn't an excuse, it's a point regarding the game, which continues to have an effect on the next 3 games unfortunately

 

[SRBlade]

See a few posts further up!

ffs, i thought i posted that as soon as i read it on Newsnow

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Football/Championship/Sheffield+United

 

[beightonblade]

Poor refereeing is poor refereeing, I'd still be saying the same if we'd have gone on to beat them 5-0.

It isn't an excuse, it's a point regarding the game.

Yep but your honest.

 

[Foxy]

ffs, i thought i posted that as soon as i read it on Newsnow

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Football/Championship/Sheffield+United

Newsnow doesn't always aggregate that quickly, as we well know, having had the main side feeds displayed on there for a few years

 

[matth]

I think the answer to your last point would be blindingly obvious!

Sometimes, I rather feel that the FA take the view that they're doing the leagues a big favour by lending their referees across and that we should all be bloody well grateful for it.

They seem to want to portray themselves as poor and lowly grafters who work hard to uphold the morals of the game and protect and nurture the national team in the face of the nasty corporate world the league system has become.

More and more however, they come across to me as an old-boys network of overpaid tosspots.

Opinions, wonderful things aren't they Mike Dean?

I agree with you totally there; refereeing standards are remarkably poor, and even by those standards Mike Dean didn't have a good day on Sunday. It's not the rules that are at fault, though - it's the application of the rules.

It's no wonder people chant obscenities at the referees!

 

[Foxy]

I agree with you totally there; refereeing standards are remarkably poor, and even by those standards Mike Dean didn't have a good day on Sunday. It's not the rules that are at fault, though - it's the application of the rules.

It's no wonder people chant obscenities at the referees!

The sad thing is, as per usual, whilst I think it was a poor decision, I'd be more inclined to accept it if his application of the rules was consistent.

If you are going to be a crap referee, at least make it a level playing field and be consistently crap

Then, we get onto the fact that there is no proper method of making people accountable/explain their decisions! Yet we are expected to "respect" the referee which means not questioning them.

 

[Linz]

I agree with you totally there; refereeing standards are remarkably poor, and even by those standards Mike Dean didn't have a good day on Sunday. It's not the rules that are at fault, though - it's the application of the rules.

It's no wonder people chant obscenities at the referees!

The thing is, until the referees and the FA are shown up to be doing a piss poor job, they will carry on getting away with it.

One of the only ways to lodge a protest against them is to appeal a decision. It's not like people can speak out against referees... you get fined and banned for that.

Who else is so protected from criticism in a job? (Which despite the fact that many referees view themselves as semi-deities... it is just a job.)

 

[matth]

Oh, absolutely. Respect is a two-way thing; they can't expect it if they don't give it. I can only see the problem getting worse, to be honest - the more mistakes the referees make, and the longer they are unaccountable for them, the more fans and indeed players will get wound up and abuse them.

I wouldn't expect Dean to come out and explain that he'd got the decision wrong, but I feel that if he'd explained why he'd given the red card it would have gone a long way in stifling the debate about its legitimacy and the vitriolic outbursts aimed at him.