REFEREE

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

3 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

The more I watch it, the more I am inclined to agree with you. It's certainly not natural the way that Sainz spins round and launches his feet upwards, though, so even though the contact was negligible (and certainly not using 'excessive force'), it's easy to see in the spur of the moment how the referee feels that Sainz has studded Howson's thigh and overreacted with the red.

Even knowing how much the panels tend to side with the ref where possible, I think we've got a decent chance of getting it overturned. A four-match ban for that seems ridiculous, especially if we can demonstrate that the tackle that caused the reaction was a red card offence in itself.

Whilst I think we should appeal and have a very good case, I doubt that the initial tackle would have any bearing on it. Even if a player gets hacked down with two feet, they'd still be sent off if they got up a pushed a hand towards the opponent's face.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

It could be argued that his legs were in that unnatural straight position because he was reacting to Howson having lunged into his leg as he did. He was almost reacting to being hurt. 

[AJ 1,221]

Absolutely crazy that Howson didn't get booked for that "challenge" in which he gets none of the ball and all of Sainz's leg just because he hobbles away. If Sainz was a red then Howson should surely have been shown a red too for the initial challenge. 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

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

Whilst I think we should appeal and have a very good case, I doubt that the initial tackle would have any bearing on it. Even if a player gets hacked down with two feet, they'd still be sent off if they got up a pushed a hand towards the opponent's face.

At the very least it could serve as mitigation that it's not a frivolous appeal. Although reading the Pinkun match report, the journo doesn't sound too optimistic about our chances:

"Sainz had already claimed one needless red card in the 1-0 loss to West Brom on Boxing Day, but his spat with former Canary Jonny Howson proved he’d learned nothing from that encounter. City skipper Grant Hanley’s furious reaction to the Spaniard’s kick out told the story, with no complaints from Sainz when Bobby Madley reached into his back pocket."

A really tough one to get my head around, this!

[Fen Canary 825]

55 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

I thought the same until I saw it from this angle.

Anybody who thinks that’s worthy of a card of either colour wants their head testing!

[Mason 47 1,379]

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

Whilst I think we should appeal and have a very good case, I doubt that the initial tackle would have any bearing on it. Even if a player gets hacked down with two feet, they'd still be sent off if they got up a pushed a hand towards the opponent's face.

Similarly however, the two foot hack shouldn't be considered null due to what happens afterwards.

Although I agree with you, I'd imagine if Howsons tackle has anything to contribute it would be questioning why a light touch by Sainz is dealt with much more harshly than a high + heavy two footed Howson challenge.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

Anybody who thinks that’s worthy of a card of either colour wants their head testing!

Nah, not really. There's plenty of nuance in this situation that makes it very difficult to come to a decision. I appreciate your hot take, though.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Sainz - "I mustn't react, I musn't react...ok just a little bit"

Howson feels a light scratch of studs on his thigh - "oi, ref did you see that" 

Ref - "I saw it, he reacted and made contact, red card"

Whichever way you look at that scenario, it starts with that slightest reaction by Sainz.

He will be finding it hard to hold back from reacting - and he may be learning - but he hasn't learned enough yet.

[Helsinki canary 242]

36 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Agree entirely. Howson’s tackle on the other hand is a red card offence, as possibly was the earlier one by Ayling which didn’t get a card. 
 

Agree howsons challenge from behind with studs up lunging into the back of Borjas right knee - straight red for howson imo

[sonyc 5,519]

Well, after an hour of thinking back on this, it's ruined an evening and I feel cheated. Cheated by Madley and cheated by Howson.

Bobby Madley joins Keith Stroud and Simon Hooper on the list of s*** referees who've cost us. Forgetting Ilderton of old too. Who's the worst? Stroud is perhaps the least worst and that's saying something.

I think Madley may well have cost us the play offs if the appeal is unsuccessful. Sainz looked dangerous every time he had the ball and he is just the proper 'Emi' type weapon we need. We can't afford to miss him for 4 matches.

As for Howson's lunge on Borja! How the hell is that not a foul? Let alone worthy of escaping punishment? The ref was 5 yards away watching.

 

Cheated. 

Edited March 6 by sonyc

[wr4sb 33]

From that picture, the ref is looking RIGHT at that tackle... How does he not see it as a red. I suspect as has been said, Howson has reacted to take the refs attention away from his tackle.

On the other angle video, you could argue that the force of Howson's tackle has spun Borja round and whilst holding his bent leg where he was caught, he straightens it at the wrong time as Howson is still there. 

Or of course he tapped his leg to say look where you caught me...

[Taylor324 36]

When studs deliberately come in contact with a thigh, there would be marks, there were none

The referee based his decision on Howson's facial reaction and play acting

Some bad defending when down to ten

But the referee's incompetence and naivety cost Norwich 3 points tonight 

[hogesar 9,676]

Look, it's Madley.

A proven failure of a ref who is looking straight at it and gives a red so thinks he's seen "excessive force"

I.e he doesn't know what he's seen.

As per usual.

Useless c*nt.

Sainz also an idiot by the way, but one is a young player in a new country learning the game and the other is pretending to be an experienced ref. He is f*cking useless like most of them.

[Google Bot 3,278]

Just now, Taylor324 said:

The referee based his decision on Howson's facial reaction and play acting

Gibson walking over making praying signals didn't help either, that probably made the ref think there was something more in it, too.

In hindsight if there wasn't a reaction it's likely it would've just blown over, as I think our players originally came over to protest against Howson and that raised the levels.

[sgncfc 1,228]

41 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Well, after an hour of thinking back on this, it's ruined an evening and I feel cheated. Cheated by Madley and cheated by Howson.

Bobby Madley joins Keith Stroud and Simon Hooper on the list of s*** referees who've cost us. Forgetting Ilderton of old too. Who's the worst? Stroud is perhaps the least worst and that's saying something.

I think Madley may well have cost us the play offs if the appeal is unsuccessful. Sainz looked dangerous every time he had the ball and he is just the proper 'Emi' type weapon we need. We can't afford to miss him for 4 matches.

As for Howson's lunge on Borja! How the hell is that not a foul? Let alone worthy of escaping punishment? The ref was 5 yards away watching.

 

Cheated. 

One refereeing decision won't cost us the playoffs. Our completely inept reaction to being down to 10 men might, as will our excuse for a coaching team who did nothing to assist in terms of tactics or formation or substitutions. Just imagine if we'd stopped whining and come through that type of adversity by playing with some intelligence and guts instead of totally capitulating - but that would require leadership and we don't have any of that.

[Yobocop 1,099]

2 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

I thought the same until I saw it from this angle.

Yes this was the ‘conclusive’ angle for me too

theres no hiding that he’s reacted to the challenge from howson and there is movement into howsons thigh regardless of how minimal 

the challenge from ayling says to me that they were targeting sainz and he’s fallen into their trap 

absolute 0 point contesting it as they’ll chuck another game onto the ban for a frivolous appeal 

Sainz needs to go and see a sports psychologist to cut out this petulance, no words im afraid, I wouldn’t be disappointed if he fúçked off in the summer 

[Harry53 209]

9 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

I thought the same until I saw it from this angle.

That's NEVER  red!! Yes his studs touched Howson and probably didn't even mark him.  Alying or whatever his name is,  was a yellow and probably a red for some refs

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

8 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Anybody who thinks that’s worthy of a card of either colour wants their head testing!

Agree, he's spun around holding the leg that Howson has just studded, it's the spin (bit of play acting) that then catches Howson, not a violent act 

[Jim Smith 2,319]

6 hours ago, Yobocop said:

Yes this was the ‘conclusive’ angle for me too

theres no hiding that he’s reacted to the challenge from howson and there is movement into howsons thigh regardless of how minimal 

the challenge from ayling says to me that they were targeting sainz and he’s fallen into their trap 

absolute 0 point contesting it as they’ll chuck another game onto the ban for a frivolous appeal 

Sainz needs to go and see a sports psychologist to cut out this petulance, no words im afraid, I wouldn’t be disappointed if he fúçked off in the summer 

Minimal contact is not a red card though. I’m not even sure there was minimal contact. But even if it is the case it’s not violent conduct unless there is excessive force or it is considered “brutality”. I do not see how either can rationally be said to apply. We absolutely should appeal. 

[Yobocop 1,099]

5 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Minimal contact is not a red card though. I’m not even sure there was minimal contact. But even if it is the case it’s not violent conduct unless there is excessive force or it is considered “brutality”. I do not see how either can rationally be said to apply. We absolutely should appeal. 

The law is strike or attempt to strike the opponent, pretty clear cut unfortunately 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

41 minutes ago, Yobocop said:

The law is strike or attempt to strike the opponent, pretty clear cut unfortunately 

Nope, that's one of the criteria for the award of a direct free-kick, it's nothing to do with the red card. The sanction is dependent on the severity/force of said action, as follows:

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

So, yes, you could make a case for 'kicks or attempts to kick an opponent', but I'm struggling to see how it's reckless, let alone using excessive force. The only way the referee can give a red for that is if he deems it's violent conduct, for which the criteria are as follows:

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made. In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

Only the bit in bold is relevant here; Madley must have believed that Sainz was using, or attempting to use, 'excessive force or brutality' against Howson. I think we can clearly demonstrate that not to be the case, so I would expect it to be overturned.

Addendum – regarding Howson's tackle, it clearly meets the criteria for serious foul play (and thus a red card) in my eyes:

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.

Edited March 7 by Feedthewolf

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

Anyone interpreting that as Violent Conduct under Law 12 really needs to go and do something else at weekends. 
 

Any movement is indiscernible-the fact that people are watching it 20 times and still don’t know says it all. 
 

The law states

VIOLENT CONDUCT Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball .

There is no excessive force, and no endangering an opponent 

 

Of course as it is Norwich the refs will protects Madley so unlikely to be rescinded. If it was Liverpool it would have been in the 10 o’clock news and Madley would be on Div 4 on Sat. 
 

Madley got sacked for 4 years after mocking disabled people. Just for the record . 
 

Did one game on the prem this year - the eye catching Brentford Bournemouth . Stank the place out and hasn’t been back the prem since. Sounds about right. 

[Robert N. LiM 4,358]

17 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Madley got sacked for 4 years after mocking disabled people. Just for the record . 

Seriously?

[mccanary 84]

Anyone think that the refs birthplace had anything to do with this???

 

 

He was born in Middlesbrough to save you googling!!

[norfolkngood 1,087]

10 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

The more I watch it, the more I am inclined to agree with you. It's certainly not natural the way that Sainz spins round and launches his feet upwards, though, so even though the contact was negligible (and certainly not using 'excessive force'), it's easy to see in the spur of the moment how the referee feels that Sainz has studded Howson's thigh and overreacted with the red.

Even knowing how much the panels tend to side with the ref where possible, I think we've got a decent chance of getting it overturned. A four-match ban for that seems ridiculous, especially if we can demonstrate that the tackle that caused the reaction was a red card offence in itself.

That’s how I see it sainz could of stopped contact with howson if he wanted 

I also agree there was hardly any contact but he did that extra roll movement to connect with howson not straighten his leg in a lunge but did roll into howson 

I think we will get a ban overturned as it did not happen as it looked

i think if we had VAR he woul of come back and changed card for a yellow ,

sainz has been targeted by Middlesbrough as a weak link a red waiting to happen and that’s exactly why howson has done what he has done 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

35 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Seriously?

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,358]

2 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

 

Thanks. Just looked it up. What a piece of work.

[hogesar 9,676]

9 hours ago, sgncfc said:

One refereeing decision won't cost us the playoffs. Our completely inept reaction to being down to 10 men might, as will our excuse for a coaching team who did nothing to assist in terms of tactics or formation or substitutions. Just imagine if we'd stopped whining and come through that type of adversity by playing with some intelligence and guts instead of totally capitulating - but that would require leadership and we don't have any of that.

I think this is an odd take when we have one of the best records in the league for coming back from behind. 

[hogesar 9,676]

1 hour ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Of course as it is Norwich the refs will protects Madley so unlikely to be rescinded. If it was Liverpool it would have been in the 10 o’clock news and Madley would be on Div 4 on Sat. 
 

Madley got sacked for 4 years after mocking disabled people. Just for the record . 
 

Did one game on the prem this year - the eye catching Brentford Bournemouth . Stank the place out and hasn’t been back the prem since. Sounds about right. 

Yep, if it was a prem game he'd be no where matchday this saturday but because it's the championship, it's apparently ok.

He is a dreadful ref, and as you rightly mention why he got sacked, he's also the c*nt I described him as.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

8 hours ago, Yobocop said:

Yes this was the ‘conclusive’ angle for me too

theres no hiding that he’s reacted to the challenge from howson and there is movement into howsons thigh regardless of how minimal 

the challenge from ayling says to me that they were targeting sainz and he’s fallen into their trap 

absolute 0 point contesting it as they’ll chuck another game onto the ban for a frivolous appeal 

Sainz needs to go and see a sports psychologist to cut out this petulance, no words im afraid, I wouldn’t be disappointed if he fúçked off in the summer 

Never in a million years red. Targeted by Boro and given zero protection.