Greenlizard0 Premier League Football Thread ** spoilers ** [28th - 30th September 2024]

Stu999 said:
I don’t get how people don’t understand this.
Click to expand...
I've seen the Dermot video now too...totally this, regardless of the slip (and inability to seriously harm the player) he is clearly raising his boot and studs towards the player - by the letter of the law (which seems to be applied randomly) it's a red. Not sure why so many are defending it. You could say due to the slip it's a little harsh, but it's a red.
 
Last edited:
Nobody thinks Fernandes is a **** more than me and it was hilarious that he was sent off (because you know that if rolls were reversed he'd have been rolling around appealing for a red) but that was never a red card. The 'letter of the law' requires the challenge to use excessive force and or seriously endanger the safety of an opponent for it to be a red and he done neither. It was petulant, it was stupid but it was only a yellow.

The fact that Dermot Gallagher, who will defend the indefensible, is saying the ref and VAR got it wrong tells you all you need to know. It's not just him though, Dale Johnson done his weekly VAR review and he too has said that VAR should have overturned the decision and that he believes Utd have a good chance of appealing the suspension.
 
BaZ87 said:
Nobody thinks Fernandes is a **** more than me and it was hilarious that he was sent off (because you know that if rolls were reversed he'd have been rolling around appealing for a red) but that was never a red card. The 'letter of the law' requires the challenge to use excessive force and or seriously endanger the safety of an opponent for it to be a red and he done neither. It was petulant, it was stupid but it was only a yellow.

The fact that Dermot Gallagher, who will defend the indefensible, is saying the ref and VAR got it wrong tells you all you need to know. It's not just him though, Dale Johnson done his weekly VAR review and he too has said that VAR should have overturned the decision and that he believes Utd have a good chance of appealing the suspension.
Click to expand...
He came in high, off the ground, with studs showing, and went in a motion down the leg - could have been nasty and had plenty of opportunity to pull out (not thrust his leg towards the player), but decided to move his boot towards the player while out of control. Maddison acting like he had a broken leg probably didn't help though and I wouldn't have been surprised at a yellow, but as I said previously, what goes around...

And don't get me started on Mr inconsistent, I get sick and tired of the inconsistency, but it explains why all these decisions are so inconsistent when you watch these people spinning all the time.
 
Last edited:
NF7-S said:
He came in high, off the ground, with studs showing, and went in a motion down the leg - could have been nasty and had plenty of opportunity to pull out, but decided to move his boot towards the player while out of control.

Don't get me started on Mr inconsistent, I get sick and tired of the inconsistency, but it explains why all these decisions are so inconsistent.
Click to expand...
His foot was high and his studs were showing, I'm not sure about going in a 'motion down the leg' but none of that equals a red card or you'd be sending players off for challenging for high balls every 20 minutes. For the challenge to be considered serious foul play and therefore a red card it would need to use excessive force and seriously endanger the safety of the opponent and he does neither. There was no force in the challenge and he doesn't endanger Maddison's safety. He throws out his leg petulantly, like the **** he is, but there is no force and he doesn't make contact with his studs, he catches him with his ankle.

As for Gallagher's inconsistent views, that's because he (wherever possible) looks for reasons to defend the referee's decision and in this case even he cannot. It just wasn't a red card.
 

From 1:22, anyway, we can argue all day, if you do what he did you run the risk - ref thought it was a red, VAR thought it was a red and Gallagher didn't think it was a red which just shows what a mess and how inconsistent refs are lol
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
therefore a red card it would need to use excessive force or seriously endanger the safety of the opponent
Click to expand...
fixed

And, i saw a post from a level 6 ref on another website regarding the 'tackle' and he had this to say:

Attempt to play ball ? No
Foot raised above ball? Yes
Studs exposed ? Yes

Serious foul play. Red card

He's been sent off becusae he hasnt attempted to play the ball, hes tried to do the player. He might have got away with it if the football wasnt 5 yards away
 
Last edited:
Change it to or, it makes no difference because he does neither. I'm not sure who this 'level 6 ref on another website is' but Dale Johnson is a qualified ref and here is his take on the challenge.
 
BaZ87 said:
Change it to or, it makes no difference because he does neither. I'm not sure who this 'level 6 ref on another website is' but Dale Johnson is a qualified ref and here is his take on the challenge.
Click to expand...
Yeah I've read his take, and he gets plenty wrong. This is no different.

Studs high at knee level is endangering the opponent, it's irrelevant thst he didn't connect- just like the 'butcher' should have got a straight red for that 2 footed jump thing he did the other game.

Tbh Mount should have got a 2nd yellow for telling the ref to **** off aswell, seems that rule is no longer applicable.
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
Change it to or, it makes no difference because he does neither. I'm not sure who this 'level 6 ref on another website is' but Dale Johnson is a qualified ref and here is his take on the challenge.
Click to expand...
I think all this does it prove how no-one is actually right! You have the 100% qualified ref and VAR saying it's a red, you have the level 6 saying it's a red, you get Gallagher and Johnson saying it's not.

I still think his action - look at how he puts his foot down with force, it's an attempt to stomp on the foot - a desperate lunge when not in control of his body and both feet off the ground...could have been dangerous. Nothing like the 2 footed stomp last week though, crazy tackle that IMHO.
 
Last edited:
NF7-S said:
I think all this does it prove how no-one is actually right! You have the 100% qualified ref and VAR saying it's a red, you have the level 6 saying it's a red, you get Gallagher and Johnson saying it's not.
Click to expand...
The point about the decision by the ref and VAR needs context. The ref (well the lino actually) saw the incident once in real time so their ability to make a completely accurate call is limited. You then have VAR and how it works. The VAR's job isn't to decide whether it was a red card but whether the decision was sufficiently wrong for them to overturn. They could (and I'm sure it was the case) have decided that it wasn't a red but providing they could justify why the ref made the made the error then they won't overturn the decision. It's madness I know but that's how VAR works.

As for the supposed level 6 ref, until I see evidence of this and who it is, I'm probably not going to believe it. From Dermot Gallagher (who will always try to agree with officials), Dale Johnson to Keith Hackett (the former head of the PGMOL), every qualified official I have seen comment on the challenge has made it clear it was the wrong decision.
 
BaZ87 said:
The point about the decision by the ref and VAR needs context. The ref (well the lino actually) saw the incident once in real time so their ability to make a completely accurate call is limited. You then have VAR and how it works. The VAR's job isn't to decide whether it was a red card but whether the decision was sufficiently wrong for them to overturn. They could (and I'm sure it was the case) have decided that it wasn't a red but providing they could justify why the ref made the made the error then they won't overturn the decision. It's madness I know but that's how VAR works.

As for the supposed level 6 ref, until I see evidence of this and who it is, I'm probably not going to believe it. From Dermot Gallagher (who will always try to agree with officials), Dale Johnson to Keith Hackett (the former head of the PGMOL), every qualified official I have seen comment on the challenge has made it clear it was the wrong decision.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, and I already said it was a little harsh - but he does run that risk challenging like that. Anyway, we're going round in circles - I do agree it was harsh, but his actions didn't help.

I thought VAR would advise the ref to re-review if they didn't agree? Seems to be the best option, the ref then can see the incident fully. The refs view was not great, and I can totally see why a red was given (feet off ground, foot high, player actions like a leg broken) - probably another example of gathering all the evidence before deciding to show a card...could have walked over, checked where Maddison's fracture was and then dealt with the ****.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re how VAR works, VAR cannot get involved for simply disagreeing with the onfield call. They're only meant to intervene when the decision is clearly and obviously wrong and it's that phrase that results in some of the farcical decisions we see. A qualified official can spend 2 minutes looking at a decision with multiple replays and camera angles and still end up awarding the wrong decision, despite determining that it was the wrong decision, because in their opinion it wasn't quite wrong enough.

As Dale mentions in his article there were 26 incidents last season where the VAR didn't intervene when they should have and it's entirely down to this nonsensical 'clear and obvious' rule. It just confuses the situation and rather than allowing a qualified official to just make the right decision, they're instead having to decide whether the decision was clearly wrong enough, which is of course entirely subjective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom