Refereeing incompetence.

[Beetley Yellow 57]

2 minutes ago, Newtopia said:

On my referee course, they were clear, getting the ball first does not matter if the challenge endangers the opponent.  I think it should have been a straight red, and a penalty.

It left me very conflicted at the time, seeing it real time I immediately shouted for the penalty, studs up and reckless, that was obvious. Then the replay shows the WA player just nicking the ball before. Taking your reffing course guidelines, I can’t see how it could be anything other than a penalty and card. What has the ref seen there to not give it? 

[sonyc 5,519]

Just now, Beetley Yellow said:

It left me very conflicted at the time, seeing it real time I immediately shouted for the penalty, studs up and reckless, that was obvious. Then the replay shows the WA player just nicking the ball before. Taking your reffing course guidelines, I can’t see how it could be anything other than a penalty and card. What has the ref seen there to not give it? 

Studs up in the tackle and intent. Potential leg breaker.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,720]

1 minute ago, sonyc said:

Studs up in the tackle and intent. Potential leg breaker.

[ron obvious 1,502]

Shades of That Tackle (West Ham player, forgotten his name) on Zimbo.

[Robert N. LiM 4,356]

Would be very interested to know what any of the qualified refs on here thought of it. This probably makes no sense, but to my untrained eye I thought it was a possible penalty and a definite straight red card. Yes, he gets the ball first, but he's off his feet and it's the sort of tackle that could break an opponent's leg. So I kind of see why the ref didn't give the penalty, after all, he got the ball. But surely the ref's first duty, even above making the game fair, is to protect the players. That sort of tackle has got to be a red, hasn't it, or careers are going to be ended?

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

31 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

But Krul, and many others do the same when we  are winning. Possibly not a bad as Wigan, but unfortunately is all part of the modern game 

The point I’m making isn’t who gets away with what , it’s what the interpretation of the law is . It seems different in the 89th minute to the rest of the game. The law is consistent infringement which this is . 

A yellow card in the first half , for the third time the GK delays the restart , solves the whole issue . 

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

Ben Amos was taking his sweet time from the outset. It only got worse

I would love to see a ref yellow a keeper early and then threaten them again if they continued wasting time.

Also the Wigan players that went down so much would love a ref to simply walk up and flash a yellow with the line of, your on your feet in 5 seconds or it's a red.

Or if they get up like Lazarus after a good old tumble and roll to just yellow card them.

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

Yes guys. Let's blame the ref.

Only one person at fault today.

Sip that tea.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

On 06/08/2022 at 18:10, Robert N. LiM said:

Would be very interested to know what any of the qualified refs on here thought of it. This probably makes no sense, but to my untrained eye I thought it was a possible penalty and a definite straight red card. Yes, he gets the ball first, but he's off his feet and it's the sort of tackle that could break an opponent's leg. So I kind of see why the ref didn't give the penalty, after all, he got the ball. But surely the ref's first duty, even above making the game fair, is to protect the players. That sort of tackle has got to be a red, hasn't it, or careers are going to be ended?

It has to be a red. Look at the photo and you'll see Max's foot is just off the floor, if he's got weight on that leg then it snaps clean in two.

Yes the defender plays the ball first, and I don't think he intends to catch Max on the follow-through, but none of that matters. If you fly into a challenge at that speed with studs showing, you have to accept that a red card is a real possibility.

Given the ref's unobstructed view, it's an appalling decision. All I can think is that he's seen the defender play the ball and then looked away and somehow missed the follow-through. There's no way that a referee in the professional game can see that tackle and decide it isn't a red card, let alone decide it isn't even a foul.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Feedthewolf

[Greavsy 2,415]

I thought this as the time, and still do having seen that video. 

Aarons shapes for a shot, and defender gets the ball, as Aarons swings his leg to shoot and his leg connects with the underside of the defenders boot. 

A nasty cut, but not a foul in my view. 

Swap the players over, and ask yourself would you be saying the same? 

 

Edited August 6, 2022 by Greavsy

[yellowrider120 762]

3 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

I thought this as the time, and still do having seen that video. 

Aarons shapes for a shot, and defender gets the ball, as Aarons swings his leg to shoot and his leg connects with the defenders boot. 

A nasty cut, but not a foul on my view. 

Swap the players over, and ask yourself would you be saying the same? 

 

when one considers the penalties frequently given in the PL simply because VAR diagnosed the most minimal of 'contact' before the player flings himself to the ground, this 'tackle' on Air Rons is a 100% red card and a 100% penalty. It was reckless, out of control and studs up. My understanding is that the old adage of.........'he was going for the ball MLud' is no longer a valid excuse to escape punishment when the tackler is clearly reckless and out of control. Air Rons is lucky he's now not having surgery to fix a serious fracture of his leg. 

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

12 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

I thought this as the time, and still do having seen that video. 

Aarons shapes for a shot, and defender gets the ball, as Aarons swings his leg to shoot and his leg connects with the underside of the defenders boot. 

A nasty cut, but not a foul in my view. 

Swap the players over, and ask yourself would you be saying the same? 

 

Wow. Not a foul?

In the laws of the game and in all common sense to protect players health, that is a foul and a red card.

Completely irrelevant he gets the ball, completely. Could've been a leg breaker and so that sort of tackle cannot be allowed to be seen as acceptable. It's crazy its actually being debated. At least the infuriating VAR would have at least seen sense and have made the ref change his baffling on field decision.

Swapping the players over, I'd be saying Aaron's was very very lucky to get away with it and shouldve been sent off.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Fiery Zac

[hogesar 9,674]

36 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

It has to be a red. Look at the photo and you'll see Max's foot is just off the floor, if he's got weight on that leg.then it snaps clean in two.

Yes the defender plays the ball first, and I don't think he intends to catch Max on the follow-through, but none of that matters. If you fly into a challenge at that speed with studs showing, you have to accept that a red card is a real possibility.

Given the ref's unobstructed view, it's an appalling decision. All I can think is that he's seen the defender play the ball and then looked away and somehow missed the follow-through. There's no way that a referee in the professional game can see that tackle and decide it isn't a red card, let alone decide it isn't even a foul.

I appreciate you're guessing why the ref didn't give it here, but in the video replays on Sky he didn't look away. He watched the entire thing and was less than 10 yards out, with an unobstructed view.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

10 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

I thought this as the time, and still do having seen that video. 

Aarons shapes for a shot, and defender gets the ball, as Aarons swings his leg to shoot and his leg connects with the underside of the defenders boot. 

A nasty cut, but not a foul in my view. 

Swap the players over, and ask yourself would you be saying the same? 

 

Exactly, it was a last-ditch tackle that landed. If he had missed it then it was a clear straight red. 

[hogesar 9,674]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly, it was a last-ditch tackle that landed. If he had missed it then it was a clear straight red. 

Eh? He got a bit of the ball but followed through studs up. It's a straight red all day long.

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

Those saying or insinuating because he got the ball it isn't a red or even a foul...

These perfectly acceptable too?

 

Unbelievable Jeff

[Monty13 2,234]

1 hour ago, Nexus_Canary said:

I would love to see a ref yellow a keeper early and then threaten them again if they continued wasting time.

I agree with this, but all teams do it. Only way to stop game management is to address it though. 

The one thing I thought the ref did well today was immediately book Power for kicking the ball away.

I think professional fouls to stop attacks and kicking balls away/blocking players from taking quick free kicks to allow teams to regroup should always result in yellows personally. Games would be much better for it IMO.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Monty13

[Greavsy 2,415]

13 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I appreciate you're guessing why the ref didn't give it here, but in the video replays on Sky he didn't look away. He watched the entire thing and was less than 10 yards out, with an unobstructed view.

I saw it at the ground, albeit at the opposite end to a where I sit, so hard to see any details. I haven't seen the sky replays as yet, just the one video I posted. 

The players foot was high, but he got the ball (I accept that on its own doesnt decree it's not a foul) and Aarons then kicked the bottom of his boot, being committed to getting the shot away. 

We shouldnt be reliant on getting a pen, or not, to beat teams like that but that's another point. 

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

2 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Aarons then kicked the bottom of his boot

I don't see this at all.

Aarons goes to shoot, the ball is gone so Aarons ends up kicking nothing because his leg is being forced back from the dangerous and reckless tackle that results in the defenders studs scraping into his leg.

[Mason 47 1,379]

He's high and not really in control, there's a very simple block tackle to be made there but he's opted for the straight-leg breaker challenge- I hold that if that tackle happens on halfway then it's at least a yellow and likely a red.

If Hanley makes that challenge in the Premier League he is WALKING and there can be no arguing that.

[Newtopia 517]

1 hour ago, Beetley Yellow said:

It left me very conflicted at the time, seeing it real time I immediately shouted for the penalty, studs up and reckless, that was obvious. Then the replay shows the WA player just nicking the ball before. Taking your reffing course guidelines, I can’t see how it could be anything other than a penalty and card. What has the ref seen there to not give it? 

It would be nice to hear how the ref saw it.  I do have yellow and green glasses on

 

[hogesar 9,674]

31 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

I saw it at the ground, albeit at the opposite end to a where I sit, so hard to see any details. I haven't seen the sky replays as yet, just the one video I posted. 

The players foot was high, but he got the ball (I accept that on its own doesnt decree it's not a foul) and Aarons then kicked the bottom of his boot, being committed to getting the shot away. 

We shouldnt be reliant on getting a pen, or not, to beat teams like that but that's another point. 

Watch the replays when you get a chance. I've not come across a Norwich, Wigan or neutral who has seen them and not thought it was a straight red!

[WD40 720]

Any word on whether the club are asking for an explanation from the refs on why it wasn’t given?

[Greavsy 2,415]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Watch the replays when you get a chance. I've not come across a Norwich, Wigan or neutral who has seen them and not thought it was a straight red!

I reserve the right to change my mind when having seen further footage - which at time of writing I am yet to do. 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

19 hours ago, hogesar said:

I appreciate you're guessing why the ref didn't give it here, but in the video replays on Sky he didn't look away. He watched the entire thing and was less than 10 yards out, with an unobstructed view.

His eyes could have moved slightly without his head moving perhaps? I didn't see the replays other than of the tackle itself. But yeah, whichever way you dress it up, given that his positioning was excellent there's no excuse for not giving a red, let alone not even giving a foul/penalty. Absolute shocker.

[Canary dwarf 221]

21 hours ago, ron obvious said:

Shades of That Tackle (West Ham player, forgotten his name) on Zimbo.

Haller

[ron obvious 1,502]

23 minutes ago, Canary dwarf said:

Haller

Ta. I'd actually remembered it by this morning. Brain getting more random by the day.

[Mike w 46]

1 hour ago, Feedthewolf said:

His eyes could have moved slightly without his head moving perhaps? I didn't see the replays other than of the tackle itself. But yeah, whichever way you dress it up, given that his positioning was excellent there's no excuse for not giving a red, let alone not even giving a foul/penalty. Absolute shocker.

It was a penalty and red card all day long but we shouldn't use it as an excuse for not getting three points.  Better performance but need to be more clinical. It is not the foul that cost us 3 points.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

If it wasn’t for the referee we would have won = coping mechanism

we deserved a penalty, given our track record on goals how likely is it we would have scored it?

who takes the penalty?

[Virtual reality 707]

21 hours ago, Greavsy said:

I thought this as the time, and still do having seen that video. 

Aarons shapes for a shot, and defender gets the ball, as Aarons swings his leg to shoot and his leg connects with the underside of the defenders boot. 

A nasty cut, but not a foul in my view. 

Swap the players over, and ask yourself would you be saying the same? 

 

The 1970s called and wants your knowledge of the laws of football back…