Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

That was NOT ared card

Recommended Posts

I can see what Dijks was trying to do - step in front of Emnes to get to the ball. BUT, he got it dreadfully wrong and led with a high foot over the top of the ball and endangered Emnes. As many have said, if a Blackburn player had done the same, all NCFC fans would have been screaming for a red.

I agree there is too much play acting in the game, which will only stop when players get retrospective bans for simulation, however in this case, I don''t believe there was any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What annoys me, in addition to the play acting, is the pundits saying to draw the foul from the opposition, a foul is a foul, but the player shouldn''t have to do anything to have it awarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol Kingo.  Old men can''t help shouting at clouds. I regularly spend time with a couple of players from the 50s/60s and they shout at clouds about how easily players went go over now. And to be fair there''s definitely a more exaggerated reaction to contact if it''s in the penalty box. Although this has been going on for much longer than many old men like to admit. At our forum last year Terry Allcock commented on how surprised he was to see players practicing winning penalties when he went to coach Man City in the 70s.
Back to the red card my comment that it was a red at 5pm meant it was a genuine red. But I think it''s a shame the crowd don''t bother to put pressure on the refs anymore during the games. The players obviously knew it was a red but Russ Martin still went to the ref to complain about it. And if we had that togetherness with the crowd getting on to the ref too it wouldn''t have changed his decision but might have made him more prone to even things up later in the game. I can''t get away too often now but I went to Brentford a couple of season''s ago. We won the game but the partizan crowd made it a very uncomfortable evening for our team. Wish we could get back to that but I guess Brentford were in a good place and right at this moment we''re not. So for now us partizan fans are happy clappers and others are realists. I''m shouting at clouds again but whenever did realism be part of supporting your team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed NN, but a lot of that is to do with the ''meh'' attitude we have at the club at the moment, given the acceptance that we can''t reach the playoffs any more, regardless of how incorrect that is mathematically. The atmosphere was flat to say the least on Saturday.

If we''d had something to play for, I''m sure the crowd would have been howling for decisions all day - especially the one at the end that had Jerome pounding the ground in frustration.

I do agree that in general we are a fairly laid back ground that don''t exert enough pressure on refs unless its a very high profile game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowd were sort of spaced out, more were interested in the fat man in a jacket harranging a lad in the lower Barclay than watching the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]"Love how so many modern day fans are spoon fed opinions by the media. Back in the dark ages only those close enough to the action could make the call. Probably three quarters of the crowd didn''t know. So rule of thumb took place where if it was in our favour it was a good decision and anything against us was a bad decision. The subsequent pressure on refs was part of home advantage.

Then I remember the advent of sky sports and mobile phones. There was a guy in the Barclay who''d phone home. Those around him would wait for "mum''s verdict". "Mum said the bloke on the telly said it was a pen/red card/offside". Now folk see for themselves on smart phones. So instead of a tirade of abuse at the ref there''s a bit of a pause whilst phones are checked and knowing nods exchanged. "

''Old Man Yells at Cloud''[/quote]That is why so many ''make the call'' they have a phone with which to do so. As to the red card the laws of the game state -12.1 "...Serious foul play is a foul committed using excessive force (i.e., "the player...is in danger of injuring his opponent")..ie that rule is deliberately subjective so as to allow the referee to use his judgement ......which supposedly are based on numerous variables then and prior to the offenceso, what is deemed excessive, similarly ''in danger'' or injuring'' ? The referee''s opinion, nothing else.I would argue that much of what we see as a dangerous tackle is one where the offender should (or is) well away of the likely results of his action. A two footed dive towards a player has a very high percentage of making contact with the opponent, much as jumping at the opponent with foot high and studs showing will.This was neither, it was an attempt the place his leg between Elmnes and the ball. There was no actual stamping on the foot either. This was not a result of an ongoing feud (Mings/ Ibrahimovic), or what is termed as ... following through.Refereees will continue to make ''bad'' decisions, just as players will continue to miss open goals, goalies fluff saves and clubs make dreadful player/manager signings.And if nothing changes .....

..... then the game will remain the one we love. And not become some sort of choreographed costume drama as someidiocys are that try to pass of as sport.So roll on Barnsley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez Flashy, you''re starting to sound a bit LDCish,  defending the indefensible. If that very same tackle had happened the other way round, would you see it the same, really, honestly? if so, then you are deluded. It was a red , maybe we should have a poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On one side we have...

The referee

The Norwich manager

The local media

The national media

Norwich City F.C (based on the lack of appeal)

On the other we have....

Some bloke on the pinkun who changes his username every couple of weeks.

I wonder who is right....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tim Dawson"]Mmm never changed my name[/quote]In which case, in the words of the immortal City 1st, late of this parish,you are either a simple Suffolk farmhand or terminally dim.[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what the debate is about: it was a red card. Whittaker should have been sent off too. Thanks to Mr Hooper we have a left back for the next three matches. No thanks to Neil that the squad is so unbalanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricardo am surprised at the wise owl being so against someone having an opinion.

And Jamie after the Brady appeal for his idiotic sending off why would we appeal knowing we will never win one ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="king canary"]On one side we have...

The referee

The Norwich manager

The local media

The national media

Norwich City F.C (based on the lack of appeal)

On the other we have....

Some bloke on the pinkun who changes his username every couple of weeks.

I wonder who is right....[/quote]why not read what I actually posted ?a clue is in ....................that the rules are written to be interpreted ie subjectiveie the above claims are therefore not any more right than I am, as both are subjective - there is no right as such merely a rulingsomething I explained in the previous postnot that difficult .... is it ?(though someone who believes that a poster''s name is a clinching point in any argument, may struggle with reasoned thought )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought in real time it was a clear and obvious red card. Having seen the club highlights on YouTube I still think it''s a clear and obvious red card.

It''s not a malicious tackle. Djiks tries to step over the ball and protect it. But the execution is awful and in trying to protect the ball he effectively stamps downwards on his opponents shin. It''s a very dangerous and reckless challenge which could have caused serious damage.

Alan Irvine thought it was a red card. I also thought Pritchard''s reaction was an indicator. He was right on the spot and knew Djiks was in trouble straight away. Our local journalists also think it was a clear red card with zero chance of success on appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"]Nothing to appeal against. Djyks red was bang to rights. Accept it and move on.[/quote]Whereas you claimed on your match report that the sending off was due to Dijks ''going over the top'' something that[quote user="ricardo"]I sit in the River End Upper and everyone around me agreed it was an obvious red.[/quote]Whereas most sitting in the River End would have their view obscured by two City players and Elmnes himself. Dijks barely makes contact with his shin and does not land on his foot either. Shin pads are actually there to do just that, protect the shin.So do we see Elmnes writhing about holding his shin. NoDo we see the physio rushing on to attend to his shin. NoNow watch the clip and see what does actually happenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7zgfgT2e7k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The physio was with Emnes within (approx) 4 seconds, which from a sitting position, (approx) 15 metres away, and not being Usain Bolt, was quite quick.

I was in the River End, and I had an unhindered view, Ricardo , I believe sits in the Upper Tier (?), and I would argue that the majority of the Community Stand had a hindered view, but not the RE. Anyway, Ricardo''s view sits with the Referees, the other 3 sides of the ground , and the vast majority of people on here.

The ''writhing'' around is not relevant, to the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

City 1st is actually mental.
It''s a blatant red card which even our own interim manager bloody agreed with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is by no means black and white. I have read countless times that he "went over the ball" or "mistimed" the tackle. Giving a red card implies that what he did was reckless and/or dangerous. Having seen it clearly in real time and watched the replay many times, I am certain that all he did was put his body between the player and the ball. He accidentally made a tiny amount of contact with the player. It looked worse than it was because it was unexpected and unusual.In my opinion it was not violent, dangerous or reckless so it was not worthy of a red card. However, I can see how people would interpret it as a deliberate stamp and this is certainly why the red card was given and why any appeal would be pointless. It is subjective and there is obviously no way of being 100% sure either way. To talk about it in objective terms is a bit ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A key word you use here, Frank, is ''deliberate''.

There are lots of challenges that are not deliberate, but because they are reckless, deserve a red. This was one of those, for me. Not a hatchet job, just careless/reckless, but still ''could'' of been a lot worse for Emnes.

There isn''t time to effect a medical diagnosis, just make a decision. Still a red all day long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Crabbycanary3"]The physio was with Emnes within (approx) 4 seconds, which from a sitting position, (approx) 15 metres away, and not being Usain Bolt, was quite quick.

I was in the River End, and I had an unhindered view, Ricardo , I believe sits in the Upper Tier (?), and I would argue that the majority of the Community Stand had a hindered view, but not the RE. Anyway, Ricardo''s view sits with the Referees, the other 3 sides of the ground , and the vast majority of people on here.

The ''writhing'' around is not relevant, to the challenge.[/quote]Let''s hope nobody is defended in court with that level of defence.What Ricardo claimed to have seen was Dijks going over the top with a tackle, something the clip shows he clearly did not.Have you asked what the views of the '' the other 3 sides of the ground'' are. I very, very much doubt.To further claim that "

The ''writhing'' around is not relevant, to the challenge" is patently absurd given the video evidence. Anyone who has seen a player with a leg injury or suffered it themselves are well aware of the reaction. The part of younbody is the focus, where in this action it clearky was not. Why ? Could it be that Elmnes was not injured there at all ?Similarly I would expect the physio to be on the pitch quickly, given waht he thought was the injury and what Elmnes actions were. To base the supposed injury on the speed of the physio over 10 yards, is again, absurd........''the ref had not hesitation in showing the red card when he saw the speed of the physio across the pitch, but changed it to a yellow when the physion ran out of puff after around 40 yards and slowed down a bit''

However we had these comments  (in chronological order)
"He went over the top, missed the ball and came down on the blokes shin/ankle""Straight red, over the top tackle, leg breaker, red card all day long!""I

wasn''t at the game but listened to it on Radio Norfolk
and the

commentary said that it was the right decision as Dijks could have

broken Emnes'' leg""It was a clear red card. Dijks doesn''t even get close to the ball""Stupid, stupid stupid, on a par with Gary ONeills v W Brom"Lucky it didn''t break his leg" I thought Dijks had caught him high on his leg, and missed the ball completely

So all these witnesses didn''t actually see what happened, but are happy to claim they did. Even though the clip of the game was freely available."and in trying to protect the ball he effectively stamps downwards on his opponents shin."Still we are making progress of some kind, albeit a bit confused. "There isn''t time to effect a medical diagnosis, just make a decision."Whereas that is the whole point. So many are making a decision despite the evidence to the contrary, which also allows them the time.An action seen from a distance can be difficult to judge, but to the make rather silly and false claims afterwards against the eevidence does bring into question what some folk base the arguments decisions upon.Elmnes reaction is not one of somebody who has been hurt in the leg. Upon hitting the ground he clutches his face/head. It is that area the physio immediately goes to... not his leg, which if we are to believe what is claimed on here (by ''reliable'' eye witnesses) was hit on the shin and/or high on the leg. If the jet heeled physio had seen it all and arrived there in seconds surely he would have gone direct to the shin, top of the leg etc. So why didn''t he ? Could it be that Elmes was clutching his head to feign injury ?We are left with the thought that Dijks was send of for an action that saw him approach Elmes. with his studs showing. So would he have been sent off were there to have been no contact, as the rules state that ""the player...is in danger of injuring his opponent". He hit the ground because of bumping into Dijks, not through any supposed attack on his leg... be it shin or upper legSo we are back to the point made. These decisions are subjective, not absolute as many on here have been claiming, albeit most cannot even agree on what they saw either, or how Elmnes played after this supposed leg breaking challenge.But as with Dijks, once you have stuck your foot out, it can be very hard to retract it - even though you may have days in which to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only person who''s opinion matters is Simon Hooper''s, who pulled a red card out of his pocket within 2 seconds of seeing Dijks leading with his studs above the ball in the direction of Emnes'' lower leg - with the imminent ''...danger of injuring his opponent.'' And yes, I did see it live, with a clear view from my seat in the South Stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if this video has been posted;

http://www.carrowroadtalk.co.uk/norwich-city-videos

Pause at 1.07 and then view by frame through 1.08. I saw it from almost directly behind in the City and immediately thought, "He''ll be lucky to get away with that." Was not surprised in the least it was a red, given that the referee only sees it once at full speed.

Their player copped a whack across the chops too.

How he reacted is irrelevant, at full speed it looks dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×