Lessons of the Giannoulis red.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Oh spare me, there isn't a yellow spectacled bias here. I don't think anyone has said that Giannoulis deserved to get off scot free, have they?

I guess if the ref had decided to send Pearson off, for a reckless challenge, then Giannouulis would have stayed on the pitch?  Unless two players are squaring up to each other, I cannot recall a situation where 2 players have gone in for a tackle and both have been sent off, or both booked for that matter. One player is always deemed the culprit. What many many people are saying, is that Pearson's challenge was the more reckless (or whatever word you want to use, in conjunction with the Laws), so he should have had the stronger punishment, but because of his histrionics and the ref's inability to deduce what exactly went on, (until it seemed, he consulted Pearson!) he got away with it

If you look at a particular frame then there is no doubt that Giannoulis has his studs on Pearson's leg. That looks bad. It's everything else surrounding it that shapes this. There is a clear and obvious ball to be won, in what looks like at full speed a 50/50 challenge so Giannoulis has every thought that he could win that ball. Diallo's challenge on Sunday was worse than in our game, yet a yellow card was administered (because he 'overstretched'). Was that correct ? Was that a better referee correctly deciding the outcome of that challenge. I didn't see last night's challenge, but , were the Laws correctly applied? Was there a difference because there was no contact? Lots of people on here have mentioned the dive in, by Pearson, being wrong. It's not bias, it's just applying the Laws. There was no massive appealing and screaming from the Bournemouth players, (2 held their arms out, but did not run to the ref), Brooks even wanted to carry on the move). Perhaps that is because they are used to Pearson trying to con the ref? 🙂 

Giannoulis almost skips into that challenge, to create the block tackle. Why people are defending that Pearson's dive in should over ride Giannoulis's plan, and that he should just step away, is ridiculous. I keep saying, watch it at full speed. There was a ball to be won,  in a situation that Giannoulis , at the very least, felt he could block. There was definitely no seniority in winning that ball, that  you think Pearson had. Why should  Giannoulis back away from a 50/50 as that is his job, and he should always have the backing of the Ref and the Laws on his side, if his opponent decides to go off his feet. He didn't jump in too early (and certainly not with both feet 10 inches off the floor!) , he made a perfectly legitimate movement to a block tackle, and in that split second, would have reasonably expected Pearson, to make a similar tackle attempt as it was a 50/50. What he would not have put at the top of his priority list was that Pearson would launch himself at the situation. Any professional player can judge a tackle situation far better than any of us on here, because of the speed they play at. It's that speed that you fail to appreciate and acknowledge, from your stills.  

@Petriix, you have used influential words and phrases to try and heighten your case, but ultimately one player got sent off, and one got off scot free, yet you say both should have got the same punishment, so something went wrong didn't it? Have you seen the ref's actions yet? 

In isolation, either Scott got everything right, or the Ref on Sunday did. Which do you think was correct?

The appeal has been thrown out, but that was always going to happen, because that would then bring into question Pearson's challenge, and of course, that could not be dealt with retrospectively now. Oh well, either Scott is getting congratulatory messages or he is sitting at the back of the class at the Ref's training day, trying to keep a low profile.. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,783]

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

It comes down to interpretation but I don't think I've ever encountered such a yellow-spectacled reaction. 

This. It was most certainly unlucky and also harsh, but I don't really understand why so many on here are so flummoxed about it. He caught his opponent mid-shin with his studs, and most refs will give a red for that.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man

[Crabbycanary3 994]

2 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

This. It was most certainly unlucky and also harsh, but I don't really understand why so many on here are do flummoxed about it. He caught his opponent mid-shin with his studs, and most refs will give a red for that.

That's pretty much what people are saying.

Giannoulis made contact with Pearson. No question

Pearson's challenge was reckless (as in the eyes of the Laws) and he was so fortunate that he did not make contact with Giannoulis, because there would have been a high chance of a broken leg. 

You make tackles, hoping (expecting?) that any outcome will be influenced by the Refs applying the Laws of the game. On a sliding( 🙂 )  scale, Pearson's tackle was 'worse' than Giannoulis's. The Laws of today were not applied correctly in this particular situation. If Pearson hadn't slid in, or replicated Giannoulis's block type attempts, nothing would have happened and the game would have continued. The lunge in by Pearson created the red card.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,783]

1 minute ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

That's pretty much what people are saying.

Correct, but a lot are also saying that it was never a red.

Giannoulis' studs came down on his opponent's leg, mid-way up the shin. Obviously it was never his intention, but if a referee sees that then the player will be sent off in the vast majority of cases.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

3 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Correct, but a lot are also saying that it was never a red.

Giannoulis' studs came down on his opponent's leg, mid-way up the shin. Obviously it was never his intention, but if a referee sees that then the player will be sent off in the vast majority of cases.

I agree, that in isolation that would be the case if you look at that still, but the Pearson lunge 'over rides' that offence, in the eyes of the Law. It's Pearson's reaction that has definitely influenced the Ref (see the highlights and watch the ref all the way through to when the card is administered). He took his time, because he was not 100% certain what had happened, and even talked to Pearson, signalled for the physio before getting the card out. If he was that certain the card would have come out straight away

Edited April 20, 2021 by Crabbycanary3

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Pearson's tackle is more reckless, he is off the ground with his tackling foot. But he also goes into the ball not over it, his standing leg is still on the ground and he gets the ball very cleanly far before Giannoulis arrives. IMO not a red card. 

In contrast, Giannoulis' tackle was not reckless in the slightest, it was an attempt to stop Pearson playing the ball to the Bournemouth player on the Norwich left, but he mis-timed it not realising that Pearson was going to slide in (perhaps a lapse in concentration). Because of this Pearson ends up getting caught probably quite painfully (not justifying his reaction though). 

If Pearson didn't slide in like that and went with his toe, as anticipated by Giannoulis, then the attempted pass either would've been blocked or Giannoulis would've trod on Pearson's foot and maybe not even been booked! So hard to see how a red card is fair for him.

You can understand why the ref gave it and why it hasn't been overturned, I just wish there was a bit more common sense applied. Sometimes studs catch other players in painful spots, it doesn't make it a red card offence automatically.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Crabbycanary3

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

5 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Giannoulis' studs came down on his opponent's leg, mid-way up the shin. Obviously it was never his intention, but if a referee sees that then the player will be sent off in the vast majority of cases.

They catch him high up his leg sure, but his leg is totally on the ground at the point of contact, so Giannoulis' foot isn't high off the ground. As mentioned above it would be akin to an accidental trod on the foot if Pearson didn't slide in like that at the last second. 

Maybe Giannoulis could've reacted differently in that split second but I don't think he had much time - perhaps Pearson's aggression took him by surprise? A lapse in concentration? Either way I think he's really unfortunate.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,783]

13 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

They catch him high up his leg sure, but his leg is totally on the ground at the point of contact, so Giannoulis' foot isn't high off the ground. As mentioned above it would be akin to an accidental trod on the foot if Pearson didn't slide in like that at the last second. 

Maybe Giannoulis could've reacted differently in that split second but I don't think he had much time - perhaps Pearson's aggression took him by surprise? A lapse in concentration? Either way I think he's really unfortunate.

I don't think anyone is denying that it's unfortunate.

My post was purely aimed at those who can't understand why a red was given. Accidental or not, this will be a red card in most instances if the ref sees it.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man

[Petriix 2,834]

8 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I don't think anyone is denying that it's unfortunate.

My post was purely aimed at those who can't understand why a red was given. Accidental or not, this will be a red card in most instances if the ref sees it.

And this is exactly what I've been saying. You have to accept that Pearson's challenge is borderline: I actually think it's really well timed tackle but probably a little too robust for the modern game, but the referee obviously thought it was OK. Sometimes those tackles are allowed and other times they will attract a yellow card. The only time that tackle would induce a red card is if the opponent gets to the ball first then gets caught by it. Definitely not a red card for Pearson in this case.

Once you accept that Pearson is not being penalised, you have to take Giannoulis's challenge in isolation. Again, I think it's a yellow card offence because he was late and high, but the choice for the ref is yellow or red. Red is definitely harsh, but totally understandable in the context of the jump that Giannoulis did. Watch the replay in full speed over and over again. If you can't see Giannoulis jump then you need your eyes testing.

[AJ 1,218]

As I've said on multiple threads - really not surprised they haven't overturned the refs decision. Whilst a red at the time was probably harsh, whatever way you look at it Dimi's studs stamp on Pearson's leg, they were never going to overturn it.

[jaberry2 550]

24 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I don't think anyone is denying that it's unfortunate.

My post was purely aimed at those who can't understand why a red was given. Accidental or not, this will be a red card in most instances if the ref sees it.

I dont think there is much to debate or learn from here. What wacky is saying is correct. It was either a straight red (dependent on ref) or a yellow.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

34 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I don't think anyone is denying that it's unfortunate.

My post was purely aimed at those who can't understand why a red was given. Accidental or not, this will be a red card in most instances if the ref sees it.

Yep I think we agree on everything here. I just think specifically referencing the fact he catches him 'midway up the shin' isn't particularly fair considering his leg was totally on the ground at the point of contact.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

1 hour ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

Oh spare me, there isn't a yellow spectacled bias here. I don't think anyone has said that Giannoulis deserved to get off scot free, have they?

I guess if the ref had decided to send Pearson off, for a reckless challenge, then Giannouulis would have stayed on the pitch?  Unless two players are squaring up to each other, I cannot recall a situation where 2 players have gone in for a tackle and both have been sent off, or both booked for that matter. One player is always deemed the culprit. What many many people are saying, is that Pearson's challenge was the more reckless (or whatever word you want to use, in conjunction with the Laws), so he should have had the stronger punishment, but because of his histrionics and the ref's inability to deduce what exactly went on, (until it seemed, he consulted Pearson!) he got away with it

If you look at a particular frame then there is no doubt that Giannoulis has his studs on Pearson's leg. That looks bad. It's everything else surrounding it that shapes this. There is a clear and obvious ball to be won, in what looks like at full speed a 50/50 challenge so Giannoulis has every thought that he could win that ball. Diallo's challenge on Sunday was worse than in our game, yet a yellow card was administered (because he 'overstretched'). Was that correct ? Was that a better referee correctly deciding the outcome of that challenge. I didn't see last night's challenge, but , were the Laws correctly applied? Was there a difference because there was no contact? Lots of people on here have mentioned the dive in, by Pearson, being wrong. It's not bias, it's just applying the Laws. There was no massive appealing and screaming from the Bournemouth players, (2 held their arms out, but did not run to the ref), Brooks even wanted to carry on the move). Perhaps that is because they are used to Pearson trying to con the ref? 🙂 

Giannoulis almost skips into that challenge, to create the block tackle. Why people are defending that Pearson's dive in should over ride Giannoulis's plan, and that he should just step away, is ridiculous. I keep saying, watch it at full speed. There was a ball to be won,  in a situation that Giannoulis , at the very least, felt he could block. There was definitely no seniority in winning that ball, that  you think Pearson had. Why should  Giannoulis back away from a 50/50 as that is his job, and he should always have the backing of the Ref and the Laws on his side, if his opponent decides to go off his feet. He didn't jump in too early (and certainly not with both feet 10 inches off the floor!) , he made a perfectly legitimate movement to a block tackle, and in that split second, would have reasonably expected Pearson, to make a similar tackle attempt as it was a 50/50. What he would not have put at the top of his priority list was that Pearson would launch himself at the situation. Any professional player can judge a tackle situation far better than any of us on here, because of the speed they play at. It's that speed that you fail to appreciate and acknowledge, from your stills.  

@Petriix, you have used influential words and phrases to try and heighten your case, but ultimately one player got sent off, and one got off scot free, yet you say both should have got the same punishment, so something went wrong didn't it? Have you seen the ref's actions yet? 

In isolation, either Scott got everything right, or the Ref on Sunday did. Which do you think was correct?

The appeal has been thrown out, but that was always going to happen, because that would then bring into question Pearson's challenge, and of course, that could not be dealt with retrospectively now. Oh well, either Scott is getting congratulatory messages or he is sitting at the back of the class at the Ref's training day, trying to keep a low profile.. 

This is how I see it 100%.  I can "understand" the ref giving the red card, but think Pearson's side of the challenge was worse and therefore I think the ref was conned by Pearson's antics and got it wrong- there's no way that Giannoulis should get a straight red and Pearson gets nothing out of that.

[horsefly 4,287]

CC just posted this vid on another thread. Gives a different perspective on the foul (around 11.40). Most interesting is the fact that the official with the best and uninterrupted view of the incident (the linesperson) doesn't even raise his flag.

 

[Petriix 2,834]

1 hour ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

Oh spare me, there isn't a yellow spectacled bias here. I don't think anyone has said that Giannoulis deserved to get off scot free, have they?

I guess if the ref had decided to send Pearson off, for a reckless challenge, then Giannouulis would have stayed on the pitch?  Unless two players are squaring up to each other, I cannot recall a situation where 2 players have gone in for a tackle and both have been sent off, or both booked for that matter. One player is always deemed the culprit. What many many people are saying, is that Pearson's challenge was the more reckless (or whatever word you want to use, in conjunction with the Laws), so he should have had the stronger punishment, but because of his histrionics and the ref's inability to deduce what exactly went on, (until it seemed, he consulted Pearson!) he got away with it

If you look at a particular frame then there is no doubt that Giannoulis has his studs on Pearson's leg. That looks bad. It's everything else surrounding it that shapes this. There is a clear and obvious ball to be won, in what looks like at full speed a 50/50 challenge so Giannoulis has every thought that he could win that ball. Diallo's challenge on Sunday was worse than in our game, yet a yellow card was administered (because he 'overstretched'). Was that correct ? Was that a better referee correctly deciding the outcome of that challenge. I didn't see last night's challenge, but , were the Laws correctly applied? Was there a difference because there was no contact? Lots of people on here have mentioned the dive in, by Pearson, being wrong. It's not bias, it's just applying the Laws. There was no massive appealing and screaming from the Bournemouth players, (2 held their arms out, but did not run to the ref), Brooks even wanted to carry on the move). Perhaps that is because they are used to Pearson trying to con the ref? 🙂 

Giannoulis almost skips into that challenge, to create the block tackle. Why people are defending that Pearson's dive in should over ride Giannoulis's plan, and that he should just step away, is ridiculous. I keep saying, watch it at full speed. There was a ball to be won,  in a situation that Giannoulis , at the very least, felt he could block. There was definitely no seniority in winning that ball, that  you think Pearson had. Why should  Giannoulis back away from a 50/50 as that is his job, and he should always have the backing of the Ref and the Laws on his side, if his opponent decides to go off his feet. He didn't jump in too early (and certainly not with both feet 10 inches off the floor!) , he made a perfectly legitimate movement to a block tackle, and in that split second, would have reasonably expected Pearson, to make a similar tackle attempt as it was a 50/50. What he would not have put at the top of his priority list was that Pearson would launch himself at the situation. Any professional player can judge a tackle situation far better than any of us on here, because of the speed they play at. It's that speed that you fail to appreciate and acknowledge, from your stills.  

@Petriix, you have used influential words and phrases to try and heighten your case, but ultimately one player got sent off, and one got off scot free, yet you say both should have got the same punishment, so something went wrong didn't it? Have you seen the ref's actions yet? 

In isolation, either Scott got everything right, or the Ref on Sunday did. Which do you think was correct?

The appeal has been thrown out, but that was always going to happen, because that would then bring into question Pearson's challenge, and of course, that could not be dealt with retrospectively now. Oh well, either Scott is getting congratulatory messages or he is sitting at the back of the class at the Ref's training day, trying to keep a low profile.. 

You obviously feel quite strongly about this so we're unlikely to agree. What I will say is that a lot of what you are asserting as fact is actually quite a one-sided opinion. You don't seem to be able to spot the moment when Giannoulis jumps and keep claiming that it didn't happen and I really don't know how to respond to that; I know that opinions can differ, but facts can't and I can clearly see him jump off the ground with both feet, so far in advance of the tackle that he lands with his right foot well before Pearson arrives. The way you are denying such a crucial part of the incident even happened throws the rest of your 'analysis' into doubt.

The absolute bottom line is that Pearson got the ball cleanly, got there first, and used just the right amount of force and control to get away with it; a borderline decision in his favour. Claiming that it was so wild as to be a certain red card which the referee has somehow missed is very far-fetched. I've not heard any credible journalist, commentator or pundit suggest that Pearson deserved a red card when reflecting on the incident.

Take a look at what Farke said about it. I absolutely 100% agree with him. I'm not sure why you don't...

Quote

"Football is not black and white," he said. "You could find some arguments why it was a red card, some arguments why it wasn't. We were so disappointed with the whole situation.

"You want two teams going toe-to-toe, under the lights, on Sky and then we are left talking about the decisions of the referee.

"The decisions of the referee were in the spotlight. I don't say it was an unbelievably clear mistake but you would hope the referees can feel the development of a game. There was no nastiness or bad intentions. 

"It was a tackle between two players. No bad intention. Pearson, I rate. I like him. He is aggressive and no complaints about him but even he would agree he is not out for the Nobel Peace Prize when he plays.

"Dimitris has many skills but maybe in one topic he is still too soft for English football and has to deal with the physicality of the league. He is probably the fairest left back in this league.

"It was two players and one got their a fraction earlier than the other one.

"If Pearson was a moment late you would not say it was necessary to send him off. There was no nastiness in the whole game. It is always a bad sign after the game when we are speaking about the referee. 

"Mike Riley is doing a great job bringing them onto the top level but you would hope some times referees can sense how the game is developing.

"Grant Hanley played further on when he got injured and not even a foul was given. I don't want a red or a yellow card. But my player touched the ball first. I understand they can't come out and say it was a mistake but some consistency in those decisions would be better." 

 

[Petriix 2,834]

This is an even better view of how high Giannoulis jumped. I'd say his left foot is about 14 inches off the ground and his right foot about 8 inches...

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

Again, this is frame-by-frame refereeing, not using common sense and looking at the whole as it happened in real time.

Frame-by-frame is useful for matters of fact such as balls on or over the line, and for close offside calls. It is close to useless for determining the motivation / perception of players. Many red card tackles "hit" you instantly as the spectator as they're that forceful / mistimed / brutal. This wasn't even close to being one of those cases.

Farke's summary is accurate. This was a case of two players coming together and one edged it by going absolutely flat out. However, the criticisms of Scott in general are that:

1. He bought Pearson's reaction, and 
2. Hanley was whacked by another very hard tackle, but this was a late one, and the perpetrator got no card at all.

I've watched that about ten times in real time now, and frankly, I don't think it's even worth a card. FK to Bournemouth and that's it.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

52 minutes ago, Petriix said:

And this is exactly what I've been saying. You have to accept that Pearson's challenge is borderline: I actually think it's really well timed tackle but probably a little too robust for the modern game, but the referee obviously thought it was OK. Sometimes those tackles are allowed and other times they will attract a yellow card. The only time that tackle would induce a red card is if the opponent gets to the ball first then gets caught by it. Definitely not a red card for Pearson in this case.

Once you accept that Pearson is not being penalised, you have to take Giannoulis's challenge in isolation. Again, I think it's a yellow card offence because he was late and high, but the choice for the ref is yellow or red. Red is definitely harsh, but totally understandable in the context of the jump that Giannoulis did. Watch the replay in full speed over and over again. If you can't see Giannoulis jump then you need your eyes testing.

I have said that Pearson's challenge is borderline (by my old school take on it) BUT it is not acceptable by the Laws of the game (no one cares two hoots if I think the Laws are wrong or right, they are there for everyone to see).

Again, you cannot have been watching much football if you have never seen someone sent off, even though they have got to the ball first, but, as part of that, have acted in a dangerous manner (I personally think it is a ridiculous rule, but again, dems da rools) 

I absolutely see why Giannoulis has been punished, but it's because Pearson wasn't for a more high profile challenge that brought that into play. 2 fouls in the same contact situation. Pearson's was 'worse' that is all, aided by his pathetic play acting.

You are the one who tried to imply that Giannoulis almost created a hatchet job situation with how you previously over exaggerated the parts of the process, not me. That was what I was responding to 

22 minutes ago, Petriix said:

You obviously feel quite strongly about this so we're unlikely to agree. What I will say is that a lot of what you are asserting as fact is actually quite a one-sided opinion. You don't seem to be able to spot the moment when Giannoulis jumps and keep claiming that it didn't happen and I really don't know how to respond to that; I know that opinions can differ, but facts can't and I can clearly see him jump off the ground with both feet, so far in advance of the tackle that he lands with his right foot well before Pearson arrives. The way you are denying such a crucial part of the incident even happened throws the rest of your 'analysis' into doubt.

The absolute bottom line is that Pearson got the ball cleanly, got there first, and used just the right amount of force and control to get away with it; a borderline decision in his favour. Claiming that it was so wild as to be a certain red card which the referee has somehow missed is very far-fetched. I've not heard any credible journalist, commentator or pundit suggest that Pearson deserved a red card when reflecting on the incident.

Take a look at what Farke said about it. I absolutely 100% agree with him. I'm not sure why you don't...

 

So if his right foot lands before Pearson get's there,, then that isn't a stamp using both feet as you previously claimed, right?

Pearson may have touched the ball first, but that in no way means he got it cleanly (see my South Stand comment). See where I am going with this?

The referee decided on the outcome because Giannoulis is an honest player and did not indulge in the histrionics of Pearson, as he (Ref) took his time. I'll ask again, have you seen the camera angles of the Ref's timing/actions, once he blew his whistle? That wasn't a Ref who knew exactly what happened and how to deal with it, until he talked to Pearson.

By the laws of the game, Pearson' s challenge should be interpreted as a red. That's not me being far fetched, that 's the Laws of the game! I can understand that Ref's/Linos get unsighted, it happens, but if Giannoulis had rolled around, I would put my mortgage on nobody being sent off. The Ref was not sure and was influenced by Pearson's actions. That's the way some footballers are these days (it stinks, but hey ho, that's the bed they lie in, but doesn't make it right or challengeable) . In isolation, I can see why a card would be issued to either player, it's just that Pearson conned the Ref (there is no other way of saying it) to tilt the outcome in his favour. 

Do you honestly think Farke is going to throw his toys out of the pram at this juncture?  I totally understand why DF has said what he has said, and how he has said it. He can't change anything about the Bournemouth game now. There are many ways to skin a cat.

Talking about eyes testing (as you brought it up) 8"/10/"/14". Wow, your good lady must be impressed 😉 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

This is an even better view of how high Giannoulis jumped. I'd say his left foot is about 14 inches off the ground and his right foot about 8 inches...

You’re making yourself look daft here, Pearson isn’t even on the ground at this point.

[Petriix 2,834]

21 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

I have said that Pearson's challenge is borderline (by my old school take on it) BUT it is not acceptable by the Laws of the game (no one cares two hoots if I think the Laws are wrong or right, they are there for everyone to see).

Again, you cannot have been watching much football if you have never seen someone sent off, even though they have got to the ball first, but, as part of that, have acted in a dangerous manner (I personally think it is a ridiculous rule, but again, dems da rools) 

I absolutely see why Giannoulis has been punished, but it's because Pearson wasn't for a more high profile challenge that brought that into play. 2 fouls in the same contact situation. Pearson's was 'worse' that is all, aided by his pathetic play acting.

You are the one who tried to imply that Giannoulis almost created a hatchet job situation with how you previously over exaggerated the parts of the process, not me. That was what I was responding to 

So if his right foot lands before Pearson get's there,, then that isn't a stamp using both feet as you previously claimed, right?

Pearson may have touched the ball first, but that in no way means he got it cleanly (see my South Stand comment). See where I am going with this?

The referee decided on the outcome because Giannoulis is an honest player and did not indulge in the histrionics of Pearson, as he (Ref) took his time. I'll ask again, have you seen the camera angles of the Ref's timing/actions, once he blew his whistle? That wasn't a Ref who knew exactly what happened and how to deal with it, until he talked to Pearson.

By the laws of the game, Pearson' s challenge should be interpreted as a red. That's not me being far fetched, that 's the Laws of the game! I can understand that Ref's/Linos get unsighted, it happens, but if Giannoulis had rolled around, I would put my mortgage on nobody being sent off. The Ref was not sure and was influenced by Pearson's actions. That's the way some footballers are these days (it stinks, but hey ho, that's the bed they lie in, but doesn't make it right or challengeable) . In isolation, I can see why a card would be issued to either player, it's just that Pearson conned the Ref (there is no other way of saying it) to tilt the outcome in his favour. 

Do you honestly think Farke is going to throw his toys out of the pram at this juncture?  I totally understand why DF has said what he has said, and how he has said it. He can't change anything about the Bournemouth game now. There are many ways to skin a cat.

Talking about eyes testing (as you brought it up) 8"/10/"/14". Wow, your good lady must be impressed 😉 

The truth is rather different from your perception. Please find a link to anyone with any credibility (not just a Norwich fan) publicly stating that Pearson's tackle deserved a red card, I've not seen anything like that.

I never claimed Giannoulis made a two-footed stamp, just that his jump (do you accept that he jumped now?) was what gave the perception of it being a dangerous tackle. The stamping motion was one-footed while the other knee flexed. I don't think he deserved a red card. I just think that jumping like that was naive because it gave the referee the possibility to misinterpret it in the way that he did.

[ged in the onion bag 854]

56 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Again, this is frame-by-frame refereeing, not using common sense and looking at the whole as it happened in real time.

Frame-by-frame is useful for matters of fact such as balls on or over the line, and for close offside calls. It is close to useless for determining the motivation / perception of players. Many red card tackles "hit" you instantly as the spectator as they're that forceful / mistimed / brutal. This wasn't even close to being one of those cases.

Farke's summary is accurate. This was a case of two players coming together and one edged it by going absolutely flat out. However, the criticisms of Scott in general are that:

1. He bought Pearson's reaction, and 
2. Hanley was whacked by another very hard tackle, but this was a late one, and the perpetrator got no card at all.

I've watched that about ten times in real time now, and frankly, I don't think it's even worth a card. FK to Bournemouth and that's it.

I agree with this and the point of the thread wasn't to debate the tackle, whats the point of that Petrix.... the tackle was instinctive.    As Farke said '"Football is not black and white," he said. "You could find some arguments why it was a red card, some arguments why it wasn't. We were so disappointed with the whole situation.   This gets to the core of using common sense for each situation..... refs rarely do and they are contributing to the ruination just like the cheating players.     The common sense would have been a free-kick.    

The ref had no idea what happened, (I thought real time Pearson was out of order / control) and pretty certain the ref made his decision by the two players reactions...... if your going to analyse anything in detail, analyse the reaction of Dimitris whilst Pearson is writing around (playacting), had Dimitris shown some anger at the challenge, he would be playing tonight!   He looked bemused as if he didn't mean it (which he didn't) but that was enough to suggest guilt.   My point is that 'WE' have a tendency to be 'nice' when it seems everyone else is focused on the dark arts.    We're not competing on a level playing field and unless referees make decisions based on common sense (have any understanding of the dynamics of these incidents) then we will have to start being much cuter.    

[Petriix 2,834]

5 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

You’re making yourself look daft here, Pearson isn’t even on the ground at this point.

The photo proves my point. Someone denied that Giannoulis ever jumped, that photo show that he did. It was a mistake which got him (harshly) sent off.

It's embarrassing seeing all these claims of being the victim of a refereeing howler when it was simply a marginal call that went against us. It shows a real lack of class. We're better than that.

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

9 minutes ago, Petriix said:

The truth is rather different from your perception. Please find a link to anyone with any credibility (not just a Norwich fan) publicly stating that Pearson's tackle deserved a red card, I've not seen anything like that.

I never claimed Giannoulis made a two-footed stamp, just that his jump (do you accept that he jumped now?) was what gave the perception of it being a dangerous tackle. The stamping motion was one-footed while the other knee flexed. I don't think he deserved a red card. I just think that jumping like that was naive because it gave the referee the possibility to misinterpret it in the way that he did.

A referee who had understood the game / dynamics and the scenario would have quickly realised that there was nothing in it and that Pearson was trying to play him. As you said, you don't think Dimi deserved a red card, and as you also said, the referee misinterpreted it.

I think there may be an argument that Dimi not kicking off with Pearson was naïve in that he placed too much trust in the referee's judgement, but not in terms of his leap when looking at the tackle in real time.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

2 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Correct, but a lot are also saying that it was never a red.

Giannoulis' studs came down on his opponent's leg, mid-way up the shin. Obviously it was never his intention, but if a referee sees that then the player will be sent off in the vast majority of cases.

"SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

Its only a red if its serious foul play. I think there is plenty of scope for argument as to which of those challenges fits the above definition. Certainly Dimi's tackle did not involve excessive force or brutality. Whether it "endangered Pearson's safety" is open to debate as is whether pearson was "lunging with one or both legs with excessive force or in a way which endagered his opponant."

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

4 minutes ago, Petriix said:

The photo proves my point. Someone denied that Giannoulis ever jumped, that photo show that he did. It was a mistake which got him (harshly) sent off.

It's embarrassing seeing all these claims of being the victim of a refereeing howler when it was simply a marginal call that went against us. It shows a real lack of class. We're better than that.

His little hop is completely irrelevant. The other pictures show that by the time he made contact his other leg was grounded and his leg that made contact was simply continuing along the trajectory it was previously in an attampt to block the ball. Pearson just slid in at such speed he managed to get underneath his foot. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,783]

11 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

"SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

Its only a red if its serious foul play. I think there is plenty of scope for argument as to which of those challenges fits the above definition. Certainly Dimi's tackle did not involve excessive force or brutality. Whether it "endangered Pearson's safety" is open to debate as is whether pearson was "lunging with one or both legs with excessive force or in a way which endagered his opponant."

 

I agree with everything you've said there.

Whilst all tackles are different and you can't have a 'one size fits all' approach, I maintain that the majority of refs will automatically deem a player bringing his studs down onto an opponent's shin as 'serious foul play' and give a red card.

[kirku 1,332]

Rubbish decision, ruined the game. Dimi unjustly has to sit out for three games now. Not surprising that it wasn't overturned, they almost never are, but it doesn't stop the injustice of it all.

[Petriix 2,834]

14 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

His little hop is completely irrelevant. The other pictures show that by the time he made contact his other leg was grounded and his leg that made contact was simply continuing along the trajectory it was previously in an attampt to block the ball. Pearson just slid in at such speed he managed to get underneath his foot. 

I don't think you can objectively claim that it's irrelevant; it may seem insignificant to you, but I believe that it gave the impression of jumping into the tackle two-footed, even though that's not what he actually did. The ref didn't have a great view and acted on instinct and that jump made it look far worse.

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

3 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I don't think you can objectively claim that it's irrelevant; it may seem insignificant to you, but I believe that it gave the impression of jumping into the tackle two-footed, even though that's not what he actually did. The ref didn't have a great view and acted on instinct and that jump made it look far worse.

That's even more reason to be critical of the officiating then, particularly in such a big game. Making such a decision based on "instinct" certainly ranks as brave, but often can end up as misguided.

Here's something: I was a qualified referee for years (stopped in 2005-6 due to a litany of ankle injuries) and even got as far as refereeing county finals at junior level. And arguably the biggest dictum I refereed by was this: if it was about a card or a penalty, if I wasn't 100% certain, I would not give it. I had a reputation as a referee that kept his cards in his pocket and didn't give many penalties. The only time I ever showed a red card was a handball on the line. Couldn't miss it, I was stood on the same post that defender was, just the other side of it!

If, and I appreciate that it is a fair old "if", Scott's giving a red card based on a combination of hearsay and trying to read the players instead of a great view of the incident (or speaking with his assistants) then that's another justified reason to be critical of the decision he made.