Football - John Terry's red card fiasco...

NeilF · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:35

So he man handles a player to the ground. The ref gives him a red card as he was possibly the last man between the goal.

Now the tackle was cynical, and by the England captain no less... But it's now been rescinded!

So it's OK to foul other players on purpose! Great example for young players! And a great advert for the 'professional game'!

The risk of a red card might just have made these professional players play a bit more professionally :rolleyes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/16/chelsea.premierleague?gusrc=rss&feed=football

aslco · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:36

Sports Forum and everyone knows the world isnt fair and biased. Lolage. in the 1940's Terry would have been made player of the month for a tackle like that i guess haha.

Anyway im a chelsea fan and i sthink maybe it was a bit silly, but oh well all the red devils are whining now and scared.

Gooner14 · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:37

So we have a Sport Arena for a reason...

That aside the ref sent him off for serious foul play, look at the laws of the game, and that never fits serious foul play.

Caseh · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:37

Wrong forum, and correct decision by the FA in this case. And i cant even stand JT.

Greenlizard0 · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:37

Good that it was rescinded, though he should have been given a yellow for it.

NeilF · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:39

Gooner14 said:
So we have a Sport Arena for a reason...

That aside the ref sent him off for serious foul play, look at the laws of the game, and that never fits serious foul play.

TBH, a calculated foul is pretty serious IMHO... Makes a mockery of the game. If it risks upsetting the balance of a game (ie: a scoring chance which this may have been) that risks a red card for me...

Honestly, the England Captain behaving this way in a PROFESSIONAL sport :rolleyes:

He was playing rugby for a second there!

Majago · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:41

I thought it was recinded on a technicality because the referee sent him off for serious foul play (which it wasn't) as opposed to a professional foul (which it was).

Had the ref put the reason down differently the outcome of the appeal would have been different.

nikebee · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:41

Greenlizard0 said:
Good that it was rescinded, though he should have been given a yellow for it.

Indeed, I understand he's gone completely free now. It was worth a yellow for sure, I mean he rugby tackled him to the floor!

Gackt · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:43

NeilFawcett said:
TBH, a calculated foul is pretty serious IMHO... Makes a mockery of the game. If it risks upsetting the balance of a game (ie: a scoring chance which this may have been) that risks a red card for me...

Honestly, the England Captain behaving this way in a PROFESSIONAL sport He was playing rugby for a second there!

What team do you support?

platypus · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:44

Greenlizard0 said:
Good that it was rescinded, though he should have been given a yellow for it.

Can you tell me why what amounts to a rugby tackle does not warrant a red card? Not to mention further disciplining. How is that within the spirit of the game, or a good example?

Knubje · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:49

In before the move to sport forum?

P.S - Football is a game for chavs, posers, kids and generally bad sportsmen (not bad as in ability bad as in sore losers, gloating winners, etc)

CrimsonAvenger · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:50

I support neither, not interested in the premiership particularly.

The FA made the correct decision. A yellow would have been the correct decision.

CrimsonAvenger · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:50

Knubje said:
In before the move to sport forum?

P.S - Football is a game for chavs, posers, kids and generally bad sportsmen (not bad as in ability bad as in sore losers, gloating winners, etc)

Troll alert.

escape sanity · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:52

NeilFawcett said:
TBH, a calculated foul is pretty serious IMHO... Makes a mockery of the game. If it risks upsetting the balance of a game (ie: a scoring chance which this may have been) that risks a red card for me...

Believe it or not, a referee does not make the decision to send a player off on a whim. There are rules and the rules of the game disagree with you. Therefore, the FA made the correct decision. The fact that he is the England captain is irrelevant to the severity of the offence.

And I can't stand Chelsea or John Terry.

Knubje · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:53

No, this is my honest opinion.

I appreicate there are football fans there who enjoy the odd game (even I watch international games) but as a sweeping generalisation most people, who's life revolves around it, is one of the aforementioned.

Tom0 · 17 Sep 2008 at 16:57

Knubje said:
In before the move to sport forum?

P.S - Football is a game for chavs, posers, kids and generally bad sportsmen (not bad as in ability bad as in sore losers, gloating winners, etc)

KEYBOARD WARRIOOOORRR

Knubje · 17 Sep 2008 at 17:01

I forgot to mention Thugs as well

Gooner14 · 17 Sep 2008 at 17:07

NeilFawcett said:
TBH, a calculated foul is pretty serious IMHO... Makes a mockery of the game. If it risks upsetting the balance of a game (ie: a scoring chance which this may have been) that risks a red card for me...

Honestly, the England Captain behaving this way in a PROFESSIONAL sport He was playing rugby for a second there!

Serious foul play is classed as when a player "uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is play"

Now he certainly didn't use excessive force. The ref got it wrong end of story.

Abraham · 17 Sep 2008 at 17:07

Majago said:
I thought it was recinded on a technicality because the referee sent him off for serious foul play (which it wasn't) as opposed to a professional foul (which it was).

Had the ref put the reason down differently the outcome of the appeal would have been different.

as far as I'm aware this is the reason why, on the day the commentators were all over him being red carded because it was directly stopping a scoring opportunity, but they did then say that it had been for serious foul play. I am a bit shocked if there's not a way that would be a red card, but that's not what's been said, the appeal doesn't say he didnt deserve a red card, just that the red card he was given for serious foul play was wrong.

Greenlizard0 · 17 Sep 2008 at 17:10

platypus said:
Can you tell me why what amounts to a rugby tackle does not warrant a red card? Not to mention further disciplining. How is that within the spirit of the game, or a good example?

nikebee said:
Indeed, I understand he's gone completely free now. It was worth a yellow for sure, I mean he rugby tackled him to the floor!

Wait a second - it's not been downgraded to a yellow? :/ Thought it had for some reason.

And tactical fouls are dealt with yellow cards most of the time. I don't think it was as bad as a rugby tackle - just that he stood his ground. I haven't been able to find a replay of it though.