McLean’s red card

[CANARYKING 715]

Just watching the Spurs Villa game, I’ve now lost count of the number of similar challenges, some worse, that have received a yellow

Edited November 3, 2024 by CANARYKING

[Ken Hairy 4,312]

Thought exactly the same, still think it was criminal he got sent off for that and beggars belief there are Norwich fans who still think it was right.

[yellowrider120 932]

15 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Thought exactly the same, still think it was criminal he got sent off for that and beggars belief there are Norwich fans who still think it was right.

Our manager + his boss saw fit not to appeal the red card. That tells you all you need to know.

[Ken Hairy 4,312]

That Martinez challenge there is miles worse, VAR....yellow 

[Ken Hairy 4,312]

35 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

Our manager + his boss saw fit not to appeal the red card. That tells you all you need to know.

It tells you they had no confidence in the idiots running the game. I said we wouldn't appeal but not because I thought it was a red 

[Daz Sparks 1,578]

18 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

It tells you they had no confidence in the idiots running the game. I said we wouldn't appeal but not because I thought it was a red 

This ^^

[Virtual reality 862]

19 hours ago, yellowrider120 said:

Our manager + his boss saw fit not to appeal the red card. That tells you all you need to know.

No, that tells you that in order to get a card overturned it has to be a clear and obvious error. McCleans ‘red’ in reality was a yellow but in real time it’s easy to see why the ref gave it as a red. Any appeal will always see the ref backed in that situation 

Edited November 4, 2024 by Virtual reality

[hogesar 10,935]

57 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

It tells you they had no confidence in the idiots running the game. I said we wouldn't appeal but not because I thought it was a red 

Yep

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,700]

It was a red card. I can’t believe this is still being debated. If it was an obvious injustice as a worryingly amount of fans on here believe, the club would have appealed it. The fact they didn’t has nothing to do with the so called ‘idiots’ in charge, but the rational conclusion that a red was not an injustice or a harsh decision.

[Iwans Big Toe 384]

5 hours ago, yellowrider120 said:

Our manager + his boss saw fit not to appeal the red card. That tells you all you need to know.

It was a late challenge, he was off the ground, sometimes it's a yellow, but when it's a red under the laws of the game you can't win an appeal.

What's strange is that if the ref had given a yellow card, it is not possible to argue that it should have been a red, but if he hasn't been booked.....then a suspension can be given.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2024 by Iwans Big Toe

[canarydan23 4,817]

12 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

It was a red card. I can’t believe this is still being debated. If it was an obvious injustice as a worryingly amount of fans on here believe, the club would have appealed it. The fact they didn’t has nothing to do with the so called ‘idiots’ in charge, but the rational conclusion that a red was not an injustice or a harsh decision.

Did you even read the opening post? It refers to a match that featured several challenges that were objectively worse than McLean's tackle that were not punished with a red card, even after a VAR check.

So they were all wrong but the Kenny one was correct?!

Cool story bro.

The only reason there was any debate on here about Kenny's red was because it was Kenny. Any other player gers sent off and there would have been, correctly, universal damnation of what was an absolute shocker of a decision from the ref and a pathetic dive (one of many) from the Boro player.

Even the Boro fans were shocked; there were no howls of indignation and no chanting for a red card or for Kenny to be sent off as always follows particularly nasty challenges.

Edited November 4, 2024 by canarydan23

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,700]

11 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Did you even read the opening post? It refers to a match that featured several challenges that were objectively worse than McLean's tackle that were not punished with a red card, even after a VAR check.

So they were all wrong but the Kenny one was correct?!

Cool story bro.

The only reason there was any debate on here about Kenny's red was because it was Kenny. Any other player gers sent off and there would have been, correctly, universal damnation of what was an absolute shocker of a decision from the ref and a pathetic dive (one of many) from the Boro player.

Even the Boro fans were shocked; there were no howls of indignation and no chanting for a red card or for Kenny to be sent off as always follows particularly nasty challenges.

*You mean subjectively.

[Capt. Pants 5,145]

Thanks to Kenny's gobbing off there would have been no point in appealing. Had the red been changed to a yellow, he would still face a 1 match ban. Add to that at least 2 games for mouthing off it becomes pointless.

Unfortunately presumably his yellow card cumulative stays in place and he doesn't restart with a clean slate, therefore is 1 yellow card away from another suspension.

What's done is done, we move on.

[canarydan23 4,817]

1 hour ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

*You mean subjectively.

No. I don't.

I mean, if you're going to tell me that the challenge Ken Hairy (Lisandro Martinez) referred to earlier isn't objectively worse than Kenny McLean's challenge then you're being deliberately disingenuous. Similarly, Romero only got a yellow for a challenge that was nowhere near the ball and with his feet up and blatantly intended to hurt Rogers, that was reviewed by VAR and was objectively worse than McLean's.

Bentacaur nearly injured Onana and didn't even get a yellow (the Boro player was more likely to be injured by his dive to the floor than the minimal brushing of McLean's heel against the top of his foot). Udogie performed a Rugby tackle on one of the Villa players and didn't even get booked.

The only thing more ridiculous than the referee's decision to produce a red to Kenny was that some Norwich "fans" defended it. I don't think I'll ever get my head around that.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,700]

3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

No. I don't.

I mean, if you're going to tell me that the challenge Ken Hairy (Lisandro Martinez) referred to earlier isn't objectively worse than Kenny McLean's challenge then you're being deliberately disingenuous. Similarly, Romero only got a yellow for a challenge that was nowhere near the ball and with his feet up and blatantly intended to hurt Rogers, that was reviewed by VAR and was objectively worse than McLean's.

Bentacaur nearly injured Onana and didn't even get a yellow (the Boro player was more likely to be injured by his dive to the floor than the minimal brushing of McLean's heel against the top of his foot). Udogie performed a Rugby tackle on one of the Villa players and didn't even get booked.

The only thing more ridiculous than the referee's decision to produce a red to Kenny was that some Norwich "fans" defended it. I don't think I'll ever get my head around that.

Review the definition. Nothing in your post above is objective.

I understand you don’t agree with the referees decision, but ultimately it is the correct one as that’s what was given and it hasn’t been overturned. So time to move on. Refereeing by its nature will always be inconsistent, because, guess what, it's largely subjective.

Also there is a clear distinction between accepting and defending, fyi.

Edited November 4, 2024 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[ged in the onion bag 964]

Not even a debate.    McLean's was a red card all day long, what happens in any other match is irrelevant.   He was out of control and the rules are clear on that.   

 

[shefcanary 3,062]

15 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

It was a red card. I can’t believe this is still being debated. If it was an obvious injustice as a worryingly amount of fans on here believe, the club would have appealed it. The fact they didn’t has nothing to do with the so called ‘idiots’ in charge, but the rational conclusion that a red was not an injustice or a harsh decision.

And the debate should really be about why did Kenny try and make that tackle from more than 10 feet away in the first place. The more appropriate thing to do would have been to turn, then run and chase the player down; even if the player had more pace Kenny was central and that player was wide, so at the very least would have been heading toward the corner flag, not the penalty box. Kenny was also on a yellow already, so he couldn't even take one for the team then either, so that really should have entered into his thought process. Yet another very poor decision from Kenny, backed up by trying to argue with the ref about it afterwards.

The ref at the end of the day is the one on the pitch, not the one at White Hart Lane or wherever. You have to play to what that ref is doing, not think you are playing at White Hart Lane! Wrong debate.

[GRB2 104]

It's a red if it's an oppo player against one of ours and it's a yellow if one of ours does it against an oppo player. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,726]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

I mean, if you're going to tell me that the challenge Ken Hairy (Lisandro Martinez) referred to earlier isn't objectively worse than Kenny McLean's challenge then you're being deliberately disingenuous. Similarly, Romero only got a yellow for a challenge that was nowhere near the ball and with his feet up and blatantly intended to hurt Rogers, that was reviewed by VAR and was objectively worse than McLean's.

Bentacaur nearly injured Onana and didn't even get a yellow (the Boro player was more likely to be injured by his dive to the floor than the minimal brushing of McLean's heel against the top of his foot). Udogie performed a Rugby tackle on one of the Villa players and didn't even get booked.

The only thing more ridiculous than the referee's decision to produce a red to Kenny was that some Norwich "fans" defended it. I don't think I'll ever get my head around that.

No two incidents in football are the same.

Offsides and whether the ball crossed the line are matter-of-fact (well, just about) but incidents like penalties and red cards when borderline will always cause arguments and can never be consistent. 

The Martinez and McLean tackles were similar. Martinez was higher, but McLean went charging in at full speed and hadn't slowed down before lunging in, whereas Martinez had slowed considerably. Both were borderline; I reckon that had Martinez been sent off on-field then it wouldn't have been overturned, and had VAR been in operation for our game against Middlesbrough, then the decision probably would've stood regardless of whether it was yellow or red.

Lots of fans, players and coaches are regularly biased towards their own clubs, as has been shown last week and this week in the threads on McLean's red card. The club needs a big restock on yellow-and-green tinted glasses, I feel.

[Mason 47 1,994]

This is why refereeing debates have no end.

There was a nasty little tackle on Forsyth on Saturday, the Cardiff man was stretching, out of control and met Gabe halfway up the shin. He got a booking, personally I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned anywhere further as if taken in tandem with the McLean tackle they're at least on the same level.

Unfortunately it hasn't been included in any highlights so I can't put a selective screenshot in to show how right I am.

[canarydan23 4,817]

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

The Martinez and McLean tackles were similar. Martinez was higher, but McLean went charging in at full speed and hadn't slowed down before lunging in, whereas Martinez had slowed considerably. Both were borderline; I reckon that had Martinez been sent off on-field then it wouldn't have been overturned, and had VAR been in operation for our game against Middlesbrough, then the decision probably would've stood regardless of whether it was yellow or red.

You're misremembering the McLean foul. The contact was between McLean's heel and the top of the Boro player's foot, and the movement was downwards, the momentum from the lunge had already dissipated and the impact would not have endangered the structure of an Easter Egg, never mind an adult human. Martinez's studs caught the knee of Cole Palmer and was a far, far, far more dangerous challenge than what Kenny McLean did. That's not subjective, that's not opinion, that's a straight up fact, and it's bizarre that anyone would argue against it.

[Google Bot 3,993]

4 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

There was a nasty little tackle on Forsyth on Saturday, the Cardiff man was stretching, out of control and met Gabe halfway up the shin. He got a booking, personally I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned anywhere further as if taken in tandem with the McLean tackle they're at least on the same level.

Not seen a replay of that actually, but you're right, I thought Forsyth had broken something as it looked really nasty.  In fact, didn't someone then try and take him out a minute or so afterwards?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,726]

41 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

You're misremembering the McLean foul. The contact was between McLean's heel and the top of the Boro player's foot, and the movement was downwards, the momentum from the lunge had already dissipated and the impact would not have endangered the structure of an Easter Egg, never mind an adult human. Martinez's studs caught the knee of Cole Palmer and was a far, far, far more dangerous challenge than what Kenny McLean did. That's not subjective, that's not opinion, that's a straight up fact, and it's bizarre that anyone would argue against it.

That's simply not true, is it?

If we're judging the tackles by result, impact and whether they were dangerous then both were barely fouls, as contact was minimal in both cases.

You could say the one by Martinez was more dangerous because it was higher. You could say McLean's was more dangerous because he was running faster when he jumped in and was more 'out of control'. 

But ultimately, neither would've caused an injury based on the impact alone. The punishment is based purely on the manner of the tackle and whether they were 'reckless' (yellow card) or 'dangerous' (red card).

I do however refer you to my previous point:

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

No two incidents in football are the same.

Offsides and whether the ball crossed the line are matter-of-fact (well, just about) but incidents like penalties and red cards when borderline will always cause arguments and can never be consistent. 

 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,700]

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

That's simply not true, is it?

If we're judging the tackles by result, impact and whether they were dangerous then both were barely fouls, as contact was minimal in both cases.

You could say the one by Martinez was more dangerous because it was higher. You could say McLean's was more dangerous because he was running faster when he jumped in and was more 'out of control'. 

But ultimately, neither would've caused an injury based on the impact alone. The punishment is based purely on the manner of the tackle and whether they were 'reckless' (yellow card) or 'dangerous' (red card).

I do however refer you to my previous point:

 

Any minute now he's going to work out he can use Google to educate himself on the difference between subjective and objective. Any minute, I have absolute faith. 

Edited November 4, 2024 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[rock bus 1,099]

It was a red and we didnt appeal so that's all done and dusted.

I'm more interested to know when we hear about the FA charge and if that will result in a further ban?!

[Ken Hairy 4,312]

6 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

Not even a debate.    McLean's was a red card all day long, what happens in any other match is irrelevant.   He was out of control and the rules are clear on that.   

 

Sorry, but that's just nonsense 

[Yobocop 1,467]

The laws are up for interpretation given any set situation which is the main problem for me 

99% of the time the decision is correct (in McLean’s case it was) but that 1% can be argued against and is why Sky Sports stay on air for another 3 hours after a game. 

[canarydan23 4,817]

8 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Any minute now he's going to work out he can use Google to educate himself on the difference between subjective and objective. Any minute, I have absolute faith. 

I'm going to need an address to send the invoice for the repairs to my irony klaxon for that one, old boy.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,700]

10 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I'm going to need an address to send the invoice for the repairs to my irony klaxon for that one, old boy.

My faith was misguided 😔

[ged in the onion bag 964]

On 04/11/2024 at 17:40, Ken Hairy said:

Sorry, but that's just nonsense 

Only nonsense if your understanding of the game is flawed!    Sorry!