match thread *official lappinitup match thread Baggies V Canaries*

[Capt. Pants 4,240]

4 minutes ago, Ian said:

Wonder if all these people making excuses for Sainz would also be making excuses for Kenny or Idah had they done the same thing?

🤔

Quite, especially Idah who some would have wanted run out of the club in the exact same situation.

[RobJames 881]

Just now, Ian said:

So nobody has said it was poor refereeing/harsh/the wrong decision/not a yellow card offence then?

Is English your first language ?

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

6 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

So you're saying Sainz could have given the w@nker sign and escaped punishment?

I need to revisit a couple of my Sunday League fines...

I shouldn't have been sin-binned for pulling a moonie at a ref after a shocker of a penalty decision against me then.

[Ian 1,129]

Just now, RobJames said:

Is English your first language ?

Yes, perhaps I just progressed passed Primary School levels of comprehension?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

6 minutes ago, Ian said:

Wonder if all these people making excuses for Sainz would also be making excuses for Kenny or Idah had they done the same thing?

🤔

It's fair to say he was in contravention of the rules and thus open to be being booked. However, both of the yellows were for very trivial things that amounted to a decision that basically ended the whole game at 33 minutes. The referee does have discretion on what he does and there has been plenty of inconsistency this season, which means it's entirely justifiable to criticise the referee for killing the game unnecessarily.

It's apparently accepted that consistency can't be expected, in which case sensible discretion should be. What the referee did today doesn't stand up either in terms of consistency throughout the game or for sensible application of discretion.

Edited December 26, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

10 minutes ago, RobJames said:

As stated, it is subjective not absolute, as being claimed on here.

Sending someone off in those circumstances was not proportionate, and had he merely 'lectured' Sainz there was no rule broken.

If all refs took the action, you are suggesting the game would be a six a side game with the first half.

He made the wrong decision.

Due to the first statement in bold, the second one can only be subjective. Dissent is entirely down to the subjective discretion of the individual, and I don't think that anyone is really arguing that Sainz waving an imaginary card at the referee is NOT a show of dissent.

Harsh in the circumstances, perhaps, but not 'wrong'.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Feedthewolf
Added word in bold, which makes a marked difference to what I intended to say! :)

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

44 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

So we end up with a never-ending cycle of confirmation bias where we analyse referees' mistakes in minute detail, gladly tot up all those inconsistencies and errors, and universally see the officials as bloodsport on a Saturday afternoon. How can the standards improve from grassroots upwards in that kind of environment?

I've said this for a while. The current anti-referee agenda is just putting more stress and pressure on them, which is only going to make their decision-making harder, because people seem to forget they are human beings at times. Player, coach, fan and even media behaviour has to improve before refereeing standards can. 

[ricardo 7,395]

Ref made a weak decision that decided the game.

 

[king canary 7,609]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's fair to say he was in contravention of the rules and thus open to be being booked. However, both of the yellows were for very trivial things that amounted to a decision that basically ended the whole game at 33 minutes. The referee does have discretion on what he does and there has been plenty of inconsistency this season, which means it's entirely justifiable to criticise the referee for killing the game unnecessarily.

It's apparently accepted that consistency can't be expected, in which case sensible discretion should be. What the referee did today doesn't stand up either in terms of consistency throughout the game or for sensible application of discretion.

I can see some argument against the second, even if I dosagree but the first was about as clear a yellow card as you'll see, nothing remotely trivial there. He lunged in and chopped down a player who was past him without being close to the ball. 100% of refs give a yellow for that.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

Just now, king canary said:

I can see some argument against the second, even if I dosagree but the first was about as clear a yellow card as you'll see, nothing remotely trivial there. He lunged in and chopped down a player who was past him without being close to the ball. 100% of refs give a yellow for that.

A grassroots ref might opt to have a chat instead depending on the 'game temperature', but at the professional level that was an absolutely nailed-on yellow.

[RobJames 881]

1 minute ago, Feedthewolf said:

Due to the first statement in bold, the second one can only be subjective. Dissent is entirely down to the subjective discretion of the individual, and I don't think that anyone is really arguing that Sainz waving an imaginary card at the referee is a show of dissent.

Harsh in the circumstances, perhaps, but not 'wrong'.

in the context of the game at that point it was wrong. Previous posters in the thread have claimed there was some new law that required the ref to show a yellow card. There NO new law My usage of wrong was it being unjust.

[Ian 1,129]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's fair to say he was in contravention of the rules and thus open to be being booked. However, both of the yellows were for very trivial things that amounted to a decision that basically ended the whole game at 33 minutes. The referee does have discretion on what he does and there has been plenty of inconsistency this season, which means it's entirely justifiable to criticise the referee for killing the game unnecessarily.

It's apparently accepted that consistency can't be expected, in which case sensible discretion should be. What the referee did today doesn't stand up either in terms of consistency throughout the game or for sensible application of discretion.

Both decisions were justified yellows. The referee didn't break any rules or make any wrong decisions, both were made in accordance with the laws of the game.

If you want to obfuscate and say it was harsh, or players don't always get booked, or this player did the same thing and avoided punishment, then I am sure you are correct, but that's completely besides the point.

The fact is that Sainz is supposed to be a professional footballer and simply let his team-mates down today by acting as he did, particularly after receiving a yellow card just a few minutes before.

Hopefully this is a lesson he will learn quickly, as there's no question he has great abilities and is one of our best attackers.

[king canary 7,609]

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

I've said this for a while. The current anti-referee agenda is just putting more stress and pressure on them, which is only going to make their decision-making harder, because people seem to forget they are human beings at times. Player, coach, fan and even media behaviour has to improve before refereeing standards can. 

I'm something of an absolutist about this issue because I have friends who've refereed at lower levels who quit because of the constant abuse they get for a job they get **** all money for and that football couldn't function without. Part of the reason we're so short of qualified refs is that they keep quitting before they get anywhere because there is a climate in football where constant abuse and physical threats are considered ok.

There is a very direct pipeline from things people see on sky sports to what happens on Sunday league pitches. Sometimes it's harmless stuff like a 20 stone lardarse trying a rabona, but often it's people getting up in refs faces because Haaland does it. The top of the game needs to crack down hard and lead by example.

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

5 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Ref made a weak decision that decided the game.

 

Seems so - though the chances are we’d have not won anyway.  It certainly ruined the game as a ‘fair’ competition.  I’m all in favour of a sinbin for such lesser offences. 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

1 minute ago, RobJames said:

in the context of the game at that point it was wrong. Previous posters in the thread have claimed there was some new law that required the ref to show a yellow card. There NO new law My usage of wrong was it being unjust.

Fair comment. I think it was harsh in the context of the game, but ultimately the interpretation of dissent is down to the individual referee. In my opinion it's 50% the referee being overly officious when a bit of commonsense would have been a better solution, and 50% Sainz's fault for waving an imaginary card at the referee which he knows full well could result in a second yellow. To get a first yellow for doing that is daft; to get a second is absolute madness.

[Well b back 3,208]

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

I've said this for a while. The current anti-referee agenda is just putting more stress and pressure on them, which is only going to make their decision-making harder, because people seem to forget they are human beings at times. Player, coach, fan and even media behaviour has to improve before refereeing standards can. 

The problem is consistency. How many premier league players ( especially those already yellow carded ) will be given a second yellow card for doing the same thing ? Or kicking the ball away ?. What made it even worse today was a referee, based on the Sainz decision that would be following the rules to the letter, but then didn’t book two of their players for kicking the ball away.

A stupid thing to do though when on a yellow card, in case that ref is the one who wants to make a name for himself.

[king canary 7,609]

4 minutes ago, RobJames said:

in the context of the game at that point it was wrong. Previous posters in the thread have claimed there was some new law that required the ref to show a yellow card. There NO new law My usage of wrong was it being unjust.

Not a new law but a clear point of emphasis that refs have been encouraged to crack down on, both from UEFA and PGMOL. 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

4 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Seems so - though the chances are we’d have not won anyway.  It certainly ruined the game as a ‘fair’ competition.  I’m all in favour of a sinbin for such lesser offences. 

This already works like a charm at grassroots level. With the sin bin rules currently in operation there, Sainz would've got 10 minutes in the bin and been able to come back on (and possibly got pulled at half time for being an idiot). I really don't understand why we can't at least trial this in the professional game.

EDIT: This is how it works, for anyone who's interested.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Feedthewolf

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

13 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Ref made a weak decision that decided the game.

 

Regardless of whether you agree with the decision or not, surely it was a very strong decision rather than a weak one? 

[king canary 7,609]

19 minutes ago, RobJames said:

What an absurd comment.

How so?

Loads of people have been complaining the ref isn't consistent. Him having previously given a second yellow to a player for dissent suggests he actually is pretty consistent in his application of the dissent law.

[Capt. Pants 4,240]

Wagner saying it was the correct decision and not a lot of sympathy with Sainz and will be speaking to him...

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Capt. Pants

[RobJames 881]

Just now, Feedthewolf said:

Fair comment. I think it was harsh in the context of the game, but ultimately the interpretation of dissent is down to the individual referee. In my opinion it's 50% the referee being overly officious when a bit of commonsense would have been a better solution, and 50% Sainz's fault for waving an imaginary card at the referee which he knows full well could result in a second yellow. To get a first yellow for doing that is daft; to get a second is absolute madness.

This is another example of one law for one etce. Whereby in this case the ref can be shown to be acting tough whereas when 5/6 players crowd round him in PL trying to intimidate the ref there never is a booking.

Sainz was more silly than anything and likely felt aggrieved when the WBA player was not booked where he was earlier. Any decent ref would have understood that, and calmly pointed to his pocket (yellow card, and instructed the corner to be taken.

Dissent is usual sanctioned when it is persistent. Refs write a report of the game. Sainz behaviour could have been included and further action take, off field.

[king canary 7,609]

5 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Seems so - though the chances are we’d have not won anyway.  It certainly ruined the game as a ‘fair’ competition.  I’m all in favour of a sinbin for such lesser offences. 

Sinbins are likely the way forward but it'll be a painful implementation.

[RobJames 881]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

Not a new law but a clear point of emphasis that refs have been encouraged to crack down on, both from UEFA and PGMOL. 

err yes

But that was not what was being claimed and still is. ie a new law

[Monty13 2,235]

26 minutes ago, RobJames said:

As stated, it is subjective not absolute, as being claimed on here.

Sending someone off in those circumstances was not proportionate, and had he merely 'lectured' Sainz there was no rule broken.

If all refs took the action, you are suggesting the game would be a six a side game with the first half.

He made the wrong decision.

 

 

Or maybe players showing zero respect to referees would change?

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13029613/clampdown-on-player-and-coach-behaviour-paying-off-with-increased-bookings-for-dissent-reducing-incidents

[RobJames 881]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

How so?

Loads of people have been complaining the ref isn't consistent. Him having previously given a second yellow to a player for dissent suggests he actually is pretty consistent in his application of the dissent law.

eh ?

That makes no sense whatsoever

[canarydan23 4,060]

Ref was right "by the rules".

Sainz was stupid.

A second yellow was a stupid outcome.

All of these things can be, and are in this instance, true.

It might not be in the rules, but it's absolutely the case by precedent that there is a higher bar for a second yellow than a first. Anyone who actually watches football will have seen literally hundreds of examples of players on a yellow doing something that would 100% have got them booked if they did not already have a yellow card.

Today should have been one of those instances but for a traffic warden with a whistle, picked last in PE, loser of an official.

Sainz was an idiot to give a pathetic little ghoul like that an opportunity to flex.

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by canarydan23

[RobJames 881]

1 minute ago, Monty13 said:

Or maybe players showing zero respect to referees would change?

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13029613/clampdown-on-player-and-coach-behaviour-paying-off-with-increased-bookings-for-dissent-reducing-incidents

So you post up something that refutes your claims, and backs mine

I see no evidence of this supposed 'new law'.

[Ian 1,129]

"Nothing will change in regards to players showing dissent until players are sent off for this kind of thing..."

Disappointing when this happens to your own player, but I am sure lots of people would be saying what a great decision it was had the shoe been on the other foot.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

1 minute ago, RobJames said:

This is another example of one law for one etce. Whereby in this case the ref can be shown to be acting tough whereas when 5/6 players crowd round him in PL trying to intimidate the ref there never is a booking.

Sainz was more silly than anything and likely felt aggrieved when the WBA player was not booked where he was earlier. Any decent ref would have understood that, and calmly pointed to his pocket (yellow card, and instructed the corner to be taken.

Dissent is usual sanctioned when it is persistent. Refs write a report of the game. Sainz behaviour could have been included and further action take, off field.

This is why I agreed with @littleyellowbirdie's comment from earlier about having a zero-tolerance approach to dissent as in rugby. Only the captains may speak with the referee, and they may only speak respectfully. If they implemented that in English professional football it would be absolute bedlam for a few weeks, but before long you'd have players hauling each other AWAY from officials rather then encircling them like a pack of hyenas.

Coupled with the 10-minute sin bin rule for dissent, it would be a breath of fresh air for the game. Sadly the most senior decision-making bodies in the game have turned a blind eye to rabid dissent for too many years now, and they'll never do anything other than skirt around the edges of the issue and double down on the status quo.

As for your last point, if a referee was encouraged to report acts of dissent separately to be dealt with off-field later, their notebook would be full after 15 minutes. Sadly it's part of the tapestry of the modern game that elite-level referees are instructed (and programmed) to ignore all but the most obvious and heinous examples of dissent/abusive language. A few weeks ago Lewis Dunk became the first PL player to be given a straight red for abusing a referee for fifteen years. How can that possibly be an acceptable example to set?