Buendia’s sending off...

[hogesar 9,677]

7 minutes ago, paul moy said:

No it was not soft as it was dangerous play,  and if he had made contact it could have been a straight red but for the previous yellow.

The first yellow was soft, the second was a yellow but never, ever in football a red.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

14 hours ago, lake district canary said:

We obviously want him to be fired up and playing at his utmost but things like sticking your foot up like he did was asking for trouble.

 

And you can do ANY-THING fired up... but don't do that. (to the tune of Meat Loaf)

I think its probably quite difficult to separate the two, we need him on the edge with the ball at his feet - taking risks in possession and feisty in the tackle (how often does he win the ball back in advanced positions with his tenacity). If we try to water him down we lose a part of him that also makes him great.

It'd be like trying to eat curry without getting the ****s the next time you go to the toilet, if you want to take away the ****s you will inadvertently rip out the heart of the curry too.

I personally thought the red was extremely unfortunate, absolutely never a yellow for the first incident and although the second did warrant the yellow it was an unfortunately position in the pitch for him to be in (with the opposition player coming to head the ball from his blind side). Sounds like Farke wasn't too upset about it either.

 

 

[unique 435]

Grealish looks to have improved immeasurably since Villa’s promotion and has been outstanding for England. However, you still get the impression that he ‘buys’ a lot of free kicks.

You never get that impression with Buendia. His over-riding intention always seems a genuine attempt to either beat the man, make a killer pass, or win the ball back as soon as possible. He sits on the pitch from time to time at frustration at himself or at the inability of referees to protect him.

Maybe I am being naive, but Buendia seems to play with youthful exuberance as opposed to Grealish, who plays with more cunning professionalism.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

9 minutes ago, paul moy said:

No it was not soft as it was dangerous play,  and if he had made contact it could have been a straight red but for the previous yellow.

No way, there is a huge difference between the Buendia incident and a high foots that would justify a straight red - i.e. see that Portuguese (?) player on Harry Kane for England a few years ago, Mane versus Ederson a couple of seasons back, those incidents involved the player knowing where their opponent was and then also being reckless with the high foot. Buendia was just trying to caress the ball down and clearly only had eyes for the ball.

[lake district canary 4,533]

2 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

No way, there is a huge difference between the Buendia incident and a high foots that would justify a straight red - i.e. see that Portuguese (?) player on Harry Kane for England a few years ago, Mane versus Ederson a couple of seasons back, those incidents involved the player knowing where their opponent was and then also being reckless with the high foot. Buendia was just trying to caress the ball down and clearly only had eyes for the ball.

I bet VAR would have seen that as a straight red - foot up, studs showing.  Sad but true.

[ncfcstar 292]

1 minute ago, lake district canary said:

I bet VAR would have seen that as a straight red - foot up, studs showing.  Sad but true.

No it wouldn't.

[lake district canary 4,533]

Just now, ncfcstar said:

No it wouldn't.

Yes it would. 🙂

[paul moy 235]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

I bet VAR would have seen that as a straight red - foot up, studs showing.  Sad but true.

As it did last season when Son of Spurs was sent off for softly poking studs into an opponent's chest, and the height of his foot was well below Buendia's. Too many here are defending Buendia against all logic. They really should take off the yellow and green specs and be more objective.

Edited November 26, 2020 by paul moy

[paul moy 235]

1 hour ago, ncfcstar said:

No it wouldn't.

I direct you to Son's sending off last season, so you are very wrong.

Edited November 26, 2020 by paul moy

[ncfcstar 292]

1 minute ago, paul moy said:

I direct you to Son's sending off last season, so you are very wrong.

Buendia didn't touch Powell.

[paul moy 235]

3 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

Buendia didn't touch Powell.

Exactly, and that is why it was a yellow. We are arguing that if he had it would have been a red. However, VAR could well have given it as a red as it was reckless and dangerous play.

Edited November 26, 2020 by paul moy

[ncfcstar 292]

1 minute ago, paul moy said:

Exactly, and that is why it was a yellow. We are arguing that if he had it would have been a red.

I'm not disputing it's a yellow or arguing with you, Lakey said VAR would have seen it as a red.

[paul moy 235]

1 minute ago, ncfcstar said:

I'm not disputing it's a yellow or arguing with you, Lakey said VAR would have seen it as a red.

Yes, VAR could well have seen it as a red.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

21 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I thought exactly the same. Nothing wrong with letting play continue but no reason why the ref couldn't give a card later.

Baath did get yellow-carded for that, didn't he? I'm sure the referee cautioned him afterwards.

[ncfcstar 292]

Just now, paul moy said:

Yes, VAR could well have seen it as a red.

We aren't going to agree on this.  I accept that VAR would have given a red if his foot had even tickled Powell's face, but there was no intent and nothing reckless about it.

[paul moy 235]

1 minute ago, ncfcstar said:

We aren't going to agree on this.  I accept that VAR would have given a red if his foot had even tickled Powell's face, but there was no intent and nothing reckless about it.

Farke said that Buendia did not know the player was there. Therefore it is reckless and dangerous as a player should not raise his foot to that height if he is unaware of where opponents are.

[ncfcstar 292]

1 minute ago, paul moy said:

Farke said that Buendia did not know the player was there. Therefore it is reckless and dangerous as a player should not raise his foot to that height if he is unaware of where opponents are.

Utter rubbish.  I'd better not shoot just in case a defender I didn't realise was tracking back has tried to tackle me and my foot might hit his head in the process.

[paul moy 235]

Just now, ncfcstar said:

Utter rubbish.  I'd better not shoot just in case a defender I didn't realise was tracking back has tried to tackle me and my foot might hit his head in the process.

If an opponent's head is at foot level then of course that is a different argument altogether and you know that.

[ncfcstar 292]

Just now, paul moy said:

If an opponent's head is at foot level then of course that is a different argument altogether and you know that.

Should Cameron Jerome have been booked, or even in your world potentially sent off, when he scored that disallowed goal against Palace?  He clearly wasn't aware the player was there when he went for the overhead kick.

[horsefly 4,301]

Is anybody else perplexed by the fact that a club can appeal a suspension for a straight red, but not a suspension for two yellows. Seems completely inconsistent to me.

[paul moy 235]

11 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

Should Cameron Jerome have been booked, or even in your world potentially sent off, when he scored that disallowed goal against Palace?  He clearly wasn't aware the player was there when he went for the overhead kick.

I think the goal should have stood as he was not that close to the player.  Reckless or dangerous play is up to the ref to decide and perhaps the ref was contradicting himself there.

I would also add that it was an overhead kick whereas Buendia's was a straight leg up, so different scenarios.

Of course another thing to consider is studs and the action of an overhead kick does not apply studs in the same way as a lifted foot would.

Edited November 26, 2020 by paul moy

[paul moy 235]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Is anybody else perplexed by the fact that a club can appeal a suspension for a straight red, but not a suspension for two yellows. Seems completely inconsistent to me.

The reason I would believe is that there would be too many appeals, but I don't think he would win that one anyway.

[horsefly 4,301]

5 minutes ago, paul moy said:

The reason I would believe is that there would be too many appeals, but I don't think he would win that one anyway.

Well, there really aren't that many sending offs for two yellows in a typical weekend of football so it can't be for that reason. It remains an obvious inconsistency.

Also I think Bs first yellow was indeed dodgy as he didn't raise his foot in the collision, quite the contrary he was caught on the shin by the opponents foot.

[paul moy 235]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Well, there really aren't that many sending offs for two yellows in a typical weekend of football so it can't be for that reason. It remains an obvious inconsistency.

Also I think Bs first yellow was indeed dodgy as he didn't raise his foot in the collision, quite the contrary he was caught on the shin by the opponents foot.

Appeals on yellows would open up another can of worms, could lead to what would be considered frivilous appeals and result in longer bans being applied. Emi has only got a one game ban and hopefully he will learn a bit more self-control to avoid further recurrences.   He did not learn after the earlier three match ban so I don't hold out much hope personally. He reminds me a lot of a certain Oliveira unfortunately, temperamentally.

[horsefly 4,301]

6 minutes ago, paul moy said:

Appeals on yellows would open up another can of worms, could lead to what would be considered frivilous appeals and result in longer bans being applied. Emi has only got a one game ban and hopefully he will learn a bit more self-control to avoid further recurrences.   He did not learn after the earlier three match ban so I don't hold out much hope personally. He reminds me a lot of a certain Oliveira unfortunately, temperamentally.

No, I'm not talking about appealing against yellow cards,  I'm only talking about appealing against suspensions that are the result of accruing two yellow cards. It seems inconsistent to be prepared to overturn a suspension based on reviewing one incident (straight red), but not be prepared to overturn a suspension based on reviewing two incidents (two yellows).

[paul moy 235]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

No, I'm not talking about appealing against yellow cards,  I'm only talking about appealing against suspensions that are the result of accruing two yellow cards. It seems inconsistent to be prepared to overturn a suspension based on reviewing one incident (straight red), but not be prepared to overturn a suspension based on reviewing two incidents (two yellows).

Yes, I know but the basis of the appeal is on the first yellow card, and it could well be argued that if a player gets a first, no matter how unjust it may appear, then it is his responsibility to ensure he does not warrant a second. Emi failed in basic self-responsibility and i really hope he learns from this as we need his talent on the pitch and not serving silly bans.

[horsefly 4,301]

37 minutes ago, paul moy said:

Yes, I know but the basis of the appeal is on the first yellow card, and it could well be argued that if a player gets a first, no matter how unjust it may appear, then it is his responsibility to ensure he does not warrant a second. Emi failed in basic self-responsibility and i really hope he learns from this as we need his talent on the pitch and not serving silly bans.

I'm not really concerned about the specific case of Buendia or any other particular case. My point is about the general process of appealing against suspensions. It seems to me that if it is appropriate to overturn the punishment of a suspension by reviewng one incident, then it should also be appropriate for overturning a suspension resulting from two incidents. If it's appropriate for the authority concerned to judge that a player's suspension should be anulled because, "He didn't deserve the red card" then surely it's equally  appropriate to judge that a player's suspension should be anulled because, "He didn't deserve at least one of the yellow cards". I fail to see what is supposed to be the significant judicial or moral difference between the two cases.

Edited November 26, 2020 by horsefly

[Jersey Canary 143]

To be fair as harsh as the decision was the 1 game rest will do Emi good.  It will set him up for the Christmas rush of games.  Luckily it's Coventry and not Bournemouth or Watford for our next game.

[paul moy 235]

38 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I'm not really concerned about the specific case of Buendia or any other particular case. My point is about the general process of appealing against suspensions. It seems to me that if it is appropriate to overturn the punishment of a suspension by reviewng one incident, then it should also be appropriate for overturning a suspension resulting from two incidents. If it's appropriate for the authority concerned to judge that a player's suspension should be anulled because, "He didn't deserve the red card" then surely it's equally  appropriate to judge that a player's suspension should be anulled because, "He didn't deserve at least one of the yellow cards". I fail to see what is supposed to be the significant judicial or moral difference between the two cases.

VAR will solve it !! 🤣

[horsefly 4,301]

1 minute ago, paul moy said:

VAR will solve it !! 🤣

If only we had some recent experience of that!