The football league show - Rusty Red

[King Klose 0]

Well yeah, the ref will justify it because he''s an utter moron, and he proved yesterday his incompetence.

[morty 0]

[quote user="NCFCWebbo"]

Well yeah, the ref will justify it because he''s an utter moron, and he proved yesterday his incompetence.

[/quote]But if has genuinely got it wrong he can come out of this with some credit by holding his hands up.I think there are panels that view this sort of thing and gauge referee''s performance and they get bigger games to take charge of depending on their abilities.No one is perfect, and if he really has got it wrong then it will do him no good to try and hide behind rules.

[King Klose 0]

Yeah he can, but Lambert said on the radio afterwards that he had talked to the ref and he disagreed with what he said on the decision.

I guess he can have a look a replay few more times but I just get the impression from these sort of refs that they have too much pride to go back on their ''big'' decisions.

[King Klose 0]

*at the replay

[morty 0]

[quote user="NCFCWebbo"]

Yeah he can, but Lambert said on the radio afterwards that he had talked to the ref and he disagreed with what he said on the decision.

I guess he can have a look a replay few more times but I just get the impression from these sort of refs that they have too much pride to go back on their ''big'' decisions.

[/quote]I have just watched it 4 or 5 times and if a panel of people watch the same thing then I think they have no choice other than to rescind the red. It all depends how much they feel the need to uphold the fact that "Referee''s have a hard job and they can only call it as they see it, the game is so quick these day etc etc etc"

[Andy Larkin 15]

High foot my arse. It wasn''t even a foul FFS… the referee was a cock throughout the whole game. The Southampton player was not in Russell''s line of sight when he went to control the ball.We still would have lost but that decision was a joke of the highest

magnitude.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

The pictures on the TV to me proved that Russell didn''t see the Southampton player coming in on his blind side which makes the incident at most just a foul not even a yellow card!

 

Russell would not have gone in like that if he had seen the player!

 

Poor performance from us and and even poorer one from the ref who should of disallowed the 1st goal and not sent of Russell!

[morty 0]

[quote user="Andy Larkin"]High foot my arse. It wasn''t even a foul FFS… the referee was a cock throughout the whole game. The Southampton player was not in Russell''s line of sight when he went to control the ball.We still would have lost but that decision was a joke of the highest

magnitude.

[/quote]He hit the guy in the chest, which, unless he was a dwarf, counts as high in my book lol.

[city-till-i-die 7]

i still cant see why it was a red as was my first opinion at CR...the player was coming from behind Rusty so how he intentionally hurt the player is beyond me...apparently he was dismissed for violent conduct???? the mind boggles

[city-till-i-die 7]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Andy Larkin"]High foot my arse. It wasn''t even a foul FFS… the referee was a cock throughout the whole game. The Southampton player was not in Russell''s line of sight when he went to control the ball.

We still would have lost but that decision was a joke of the highest magnitude.

[/quote]

He hit the guy in the chest, which, unless he was a dwarf, counts as high in my book lol.
[/quote]i dont think it was in the chest, it looked more like high thigh area/stomach....the player was coming from behind so how it was intentional i cant see it

[King Klose 0]

But it doesn''t matter how high his foot was hence my comparison with the overhead goals!!!

If it was given JUST because his foot was high, Ward and Nelsons goals should have been disallowed along with any overhead goal.

[morty 0]

[quote user="city-till-i-die"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Andy Larkin"]High foot my arse. It wasn''t even a foul FFS… the referee was a cock throughout the whole game. The Southampton player was not in Russell''s line of sight when he went to control the ball.We still would have lost but that decision was a joke of the highest magnitude.[/quote]He hit the guy in the chest, which, unless he was a dwarf, counts as high in my book lol.[/quote]i dont think it was in the chest, it looked more like high thigh area/stomach....the player was coming from behind so how it was intentional i cant see it[/quote]Lots of differing opinions here and the Football league show footage doesn''t really confirm anything one way or the other. If it really wasn''t that high then we have even more of a case.

[morty 0]

[quote user="NCFCWebbo"]

But it doesn''t matter how high his foot was hence my comparison with the overhead goals!!!

If it was given JUST because his foot was high, Ward and Nelsons goals should have been disallowed along with any overhead goal.

[/quote]But if you attempt an overhead kick and boot someone in the process then chances are its going to be a foul.Had Darel Russel won the ball yesterday without catching the man then we wouldn''t even be having this debate.

[city-till-i-die 7]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="city-till-i-die"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Andy Larkin"]High foot my arse. It wasn''t even a foul FFS… the referee was a cock throughout the whole game. The Southampton player was not in Russell''s line of sight when he went to control the ball.

We still would have lost but that decision was a joke of the highest magnitude.

[/quote]

He hit the guy in the chest, which, unless he was a dwarf, counts as high in my book lol.
[/quote]i dont think it was in the chest, it looked more like high thigh area/stomach....the player was coming from behind so how it was intentional i cant see it[/quote]

Lots of differing opinions here and the Football league show footage doesn''t really confirm anything one way or the other. If it really wasn''t that high then we have even more of a case.
[/quote]i just cant see how it was a red in either case high foot or not, the ref sent him off for violent conduct...how it was violent conduct i will never know???  the player was coming in from behind as he was controlling the ball, so no intention for me and hopefully it will rightfully get overturned

[King Klose 0]

Exactly! Thats the point isnt it, he didnt know because the guy was behind him and he doesnt have eyes in the back of his head!! Therefore no intention.

[NCFC_Thain 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="NCFCWebbo"]

But it doesn''t matter how high his foot was hence my comparison with the overhead goals!!!

If it was given JUST because his foot was high, Ward and Nelsons goals should have been disallowed along with any overhead goal.

[/quote]

But if you attempt an overhead kick and boot someone in the process then chances are its going to be a foul.

Had Darel Russel won the ball yesterday without catching the man then we wouldn''t even be having this debate.
[/quote]

 

Yes it would be a foul but it wouldn''t be a sending off. I often view the ref''s decisions differently to others and can see why the decision was madebeing a qualified ref myself (I would be out reffing atm if the weather was better), I have watched the tackle 7 times now as well as seeing it from the lower barclay. Foul - Yes, Yellow Card - Could be justified, Red Card - No way

[morty 0]

[quote user="NCFC_Thain"][quote user="morty"][quote user="NCFCWebbo"]

But it doesn''t matter how high his foot was hence my comparison with the overhead goals!!!

If it was given JUST because his foot was high, Ward and Nelsons goals should have been disallowed along with any overhead goal.

[/quote]But if you attempt an overhead kick and boot someone in the process then chances are its going to be a foul.Had Darel Russel won the ball yesterday without catching the man then we wouldn''t even be having this debate.[/quote]

 

Yes it would be a foul but it wouldn''t be a sending off. I often view the ref''s decisions differently to others and can see why the decision was madebeing a qualified ref myself (I would be out reffing atm if the weather was better), I have watched the tackle 7 times now as well as seeing it from the lower barclay. Foul - Yes, Yellow Card - Could be justified, Red Card - No way

[/quote]I am playing Devil''s advocate here, I don''t think it warranted a red either on further look.But I can see to some extent why the ref, from his position, could have thought it was.Perhaps there was also Darel''s previous reputation creeping in too.

[Sing Up The South Stand 0]

I think it was a foul, those things usually are. Maybe a yellow at best. But certainly not a red, never in a million years.

Would Leeds have got a red for that at Elland Road? Of course not!

[Yellowfuture 71]

[quote user="NCFC_Thain"][quote user="morty"][quote user="NCFCWebbo"]

But it doesn''t matter how high his foot was hence my comparison with the overhead goals!!!

If it was given JUST because his foot was high, Ward and Nelsons goals should have been disallowed along with any overhead goal.

[/quote]

But if you attempt an overhead kick and boot someone in the process then chances are its going to be a foul.

Had Darel Russel won the ball yesterday without catching the man then we wouldn''t even be having this debate.
[/quote]

 

Yes it would be a foul but it wouldn''t be a sending off. I often view the ref''s decisions differently to others and can see why the decision was madebeing a qualified ref myself (I would be out reffing atm if the weather was better), I have watched the tackle 7 times now as well as seeing it from the lower barclay. Foul - Yes, Yellow Card - Could be justified, Red Card - No way

[/quote]

 

 

 

Absolutely correct, it was a very very poor decision, he got it completely wrong.  

[Divs crew! 0]

The way i see it the ball was there to be won.....russel being the player he is went for it............yes it was high and maybe a yellow card........but the southampton player did make a meal of it........just my version.

[Divs crew! 0]

If radio solent say it wasn''t a red then it must be true!

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,050]

There seemed to be a lot of red cards yesterday, across all of the divisions, you have to wonder if referees received some form of instruction to be tough on any infringements. I thought the straight red card for Rusty was harsh at th time and having seen the tackle again on the TV my opinion has not changed. Whilst we were poor against Southampton the red card came at a time when we were just getting back into the game and Lambert was about to make a change.

As an aside what do you chaps think about our penalty shout, I was dead in line with the incident and it looked a clear penalty to me, interestingly similar offences outside of the penalty box resulted in the ref giving a freekick.....

[ZLF 284]

Is intent an issue?  If it is then it should be a 10-12 match ban for any player,  not 3  

From where I was Rusty looked as if he could see the soton player coming (otherwise why jump and not just take the ball with his head or chest and run on facing the soton goal?) so he went to take the ball in a competetive situation.  I have no doubt he did not intend to injure or even foul the soton player.   However he chose to take the ball in a dangerous manner,  with studs showing (my initial reaction only,  not able to tell from TV) and caught the soton player in the chest with them.   Studs up is a red,  same with high studs up.  Unintentional,  but reckless and dangerous and simply a poor choice of tackle with bad timing.  That accounts for 90% red cards.

If there is a camera view that shows my initial impression was wrong about studs, height or contact then I will accept that my view was wrong and we will succeed with an appeal. 

As far as this thread was concerned all I said was that the camera angle did nothing to support a successful appeal. 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

Ok say the scenario was different and say Rickie Lambert made that challenge on Holt and hadnt been sent off.....you would have been saying it was a blatant red card.

[? 20]

I''m sticking to my guns on this one. I thought it was a red when it first happened, and the replay does nothing to change my mind.

It''s a simple fact of football, that raising your foot that high, with your studs showing, is dangerous play.

Rusty was stupid, and the card was deserved.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,050]

Nonsense, if you had a foot raised high to lump a clearance into Row Z and an attacker that was closing down ran onto/into your boot it would not be a red card!!

[grantroederdisaster 0]

[quote user="?"]

I''m sticking to my guns on this one. I thought it was a red when it first happened, and the replay does nothing to change my mind.

It''s a simple fact of football, that raising your foot that high, with your studs showing, is dangerous play.

Rusty was stupid, and the card was deserved.

 

 

Rubbish!

 

The Southampton player came in Russells blind side, so Russell couldn''t of seen the player coming!

 

And it is a competitive professional League we''re talking about!

 

So your saying that every time someone raises their leg up high which would include defensive clearances, overhead volleys etc the player should be sent off!

Russell was unfortunate certainly not stupid like he has been in the past!

 

It should be recinded although I don''t think the ref would be man enough to admit he got it badly wrong!

[? 20]

[quote user="grantroederdisaster"]

Rubbish!

 

The Southampton player came in Russells blind side, so Russell couldn''t of seen the player coming!

 

And it is a competitive professional League we''re talking about!

 

So your saying that every time someone raises their leg up high which would include defensive clearances, overhead volleys etc the player should be sent off!

Russell was unfortunate certainly not stupid like he has been in the past!

 

It should be recinded although I don''t think the ref would be man enough to admit he got it badly wrong!

[/quote]

 

Don''t be facetious, you know that''s not what i meant.

But, i''m sorry, when a player gets kicked in the chest, then yes, it should be a red card.

Rusty could''ve easily have headed the ball instead. He''s been playing long enough to be aware of the ''high foot'' rule. So, yes, he was stupid.

And as for this ''Russell didn''t mean to'' garbage: it doesn''t matter! A two footed lunge at the ball is still a red card whether the player meant to break someone''s leg or not, isn''t it? Just like waving your foot around at chest height with your studs up is dangerous play. Intent doesn''t come into it.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

My son in the Barclay upper thought it was a studs up foul whereas I, in the Cathedral Lounge thought Russell couldn''t see the incoming player to intentionally foul him.

As has been sai already, the position you see it from dictates and the replays on TV didnt'' help.

I don''t think it changed the game as we never looked like causing them problems but Rusty is a key player and will be missed if banned for three games.

Earlier in the match Rusty was almost kicked in the head when he went in for a header. That was at least as dangerous IMO and the ref played on.

Up to this point I thought the ref looked strong, he was certainly vocal and was giving Grant Holt everything. I was as surprised by his red for the fact he seemed to have a grip on the game and wasn''t flashing the cards.

[Webbo118 0]

? wrote the following post at 21/02/2010 1:36 PM:

I''m sticking to my guns on this one. I thought it was a red when it first happened, and the replay does nothing to change my mind.

It''s a simple fact of football, that raising your foot that high, with your studs showing, is dangerous play.

Rusty was stupid, and the card was deserved.

 

 

How can you say that? I will refer again back to earlier in the thread. Nelson And Wards overhead goals should both be disallowed then?! And perhaps even a red?!