Frankie
Put him in the curry
He should just send Taylor and Webb a email apologising and everything will be fine, that's how it seems to work the other way round.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Dunk - straight red?
- Thread starter AZ Gull
- Start date
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
I think you're just going to have to accept that there isn't consistency in this one. Cards for dissent and foul and abusive language are completely subjective and context-dependent, and maybe that's just fine. Dunks timing, words, manner of delivery and the match context all conspired against him in Taylors mind in that moment. Its not just the words - everyone is getting hung up on 'swearing being a red card' but there's way more nuance to it than just the words.
More i think about it and the more i read everyone contributions to the thread, the more i have changed my mind from being angered at the inconsistency and the impatience of the ref, to thinking that this is one of the very few cases where a red is deserved for this action.
Dunk isn't some kid, he's an experienced premier league player and captain. With that comes a higher bar of responsibility. It wasn't as if he hadn't been warned first, he'd got a yellow card immediately prior. Probably if he hadn't have booked him first that incident would just have been a yellow. The match situation was tense and BHA players were doing all the gamesmanship around the award of an opposition penalty that we normally hate to see when its United or someone doing it. And there was a controlled calmness about his abuse - it was measured, direct, dismissive, an absolute rejection of the refs authority 'you're just a compete bellend aren't you?'
So i don't think the offence is just the words, it depends on a lot of things and subjectivity comes into play, and that's fine.
- Oct 20, 2022
- 4,880
Yes, exactly my point.
Tbh I don’t think anyone has argued (afaia) that Dunk didn’t deserve a straight red for an OFFINABUS the problem with Taylor imo is, the situation shouldn’t have got to that point in the first place -
Yes
There is a difference between foul language and abusive language. ‘Foul’ language is more related to the actual words per se and the subjective response of the recipient - that’s where the lines can get blurred as what constitutes an OFFINABUS- ‘Abusive’ language, on the other hand (for which Dunk was apparently guilty) is directional and done to intentionally harm the recipient and is often relating to personal characteristics - you can be abusive without using foul language.
Well to do so would be a little ridiculous as nearly all of us have pointed out - clearly times have changed
It is foul language but it may not be abusive - it would depend on how it was said and the intention behind the words BUT this is actually not what was said anyway by all accounts so it is a moot point
No probably not but it might result in a YC and an IFK - the same if it was between two players
No - it is the opinion of the referee that matters - as to whether he deems language is abusive, insulting or offensive and whether he wants to enforce the rules - the OFFINABUS rules are already in place - they are not an ‘opinion’
LAW 12: FOULS AND MISCONDUCT
IFAB Laws of the Game 2023-24SENDING-OFF OFFENCE
“using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or action(s) ”
The standard is set in the rules - but clearly it has not been enforced and players have got away with it for years - I can only imagine either Taylor was particularly sensitised to being insulted or Dunk said something pretty shocking. It is unfortunate that Dunk has been made an early example of how the FA have initiated a crackdown this season on criticism of referees although they have been ‘cracking down on it for years’ - this season, perhaps with more fervour?
"Through stronger sanctions, leading innovations and a new three-year refereeing strategy coming soon, we are determined to tackle this issue and build a safer and more inclusive environment for our match officials to have happy and fulfilling long term experiences as referees."
But I would suggest that this is the prima facia reason that this is the first time in over a decade a PL player has been sent off for verbal abuse at a ref rather than any conspiracy theory of match fixing as you keep implying.
Players and manager face stricter punishments for bad behaviour
The football authorities are seeking a 'reset' in how those who play and watch the game conduct themselves, with a series of measures intended to tackle the issue set out.
The elephant in the room is the refs are relaxed about the possibility of their making mistakes, very relaxed indeed, but the same does not apply to mistakes made by players. Two cards in five seconds is petulance by the ref.
However they are the referees so they must be in charge. That's fine. If Dunk crossed a line, so be it.
Just make it look like you give a shit. This criticism applies most to the VAR men. Put the Jaffa cake down, stop looking at grindr on your phone, and ask the tea lady to save the blow job till after the final whistle, you feather-bedded salary-thief ****.
However they are the referees so they must be in charge. That's fine. If Dunk crossed a line, so be it.
Just make it look like you give a shit. This criticism applies most to the VAR men. Put the Jaffa cake down, stop looking at grindr on your phone, and ask the tea lady to save the blow job till after the final whistle, you feather-bedded salary-thief ****.
SeagullinExile
Well-known member
3 game ban now apparently. Twats.
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
Waxing chumps like candles since ‘75
- Oct 4, 2003
- 11,121
Can’t see this being reported anywhere at the moment?
FA website is still showing a two game ban at this time as well.
The only way it could be extended is if the FA have charged him with something, possibly related to him getting in the 4th officials face when leaving the pitch, but that wouldn’t have been sorted this quickly. Or the club have made what is deemed to be a frivolous appeal, but I don’t think we’d have done that.
At the moment I can see no reason for them extending his ban.
Last edited:
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 10,704
Sauce?
SeagullinExile
Well-known member
One of my punters said he just saw SSN say an extra game ban to be given.....however this COULD be extra to a one game ban thinking about it.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 10,704
No it's not a good example to set.
He didn't actually behave particularly differently than most other players would in similar circumstances.
The early reporting of it made it sound like he was raging at the ref and swearing in his face.
It was nothing of the kind.
He let slip a single curse, out of frustration, at a pretty poor decision. and a very harsh yellow card.
He was punished to a level that hasn't been meted out for 15 years.
He shouldn't have done it.
He knows that.
He has let the team down.
I expect a monster performance from him, on Thursday to make up.
Slum_Wolf
Well-known member
- May 3, 2021
- 549
Maupay's was three games with no appeal by BHAFC as it could have been deemed frivolous with an extra game ban thrown in for good measure. Perhaps we will find out what Dunk actually said if the Maupay case is anything to go by...
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 10,704
I am looking forward to this.
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
Waxing chumps like candles since ‘75
- Oct 4, 2003
- 11,121
Maupay had a two game ban extended to three after he faced a misconduct charge. He missed the West Ham (h), Man City (h) and Arsenal (a) games at the end of the 20-21 season. He then played and scored against Burnley in the opening game of the 21-22 season.
As I said above Dunk would need to be charged for them to extend the ban and as yet nothing has been announced.
Slum_Wolf
Well-known member
- May 3, 2021
- 549
Indeed. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if Dunk is charged...
American Seagle
Well-known member
- Jun 14, 2022
- 703
Nothing to see here. And people say the EPL refs are not biased in any way 
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
…move that on about ten seconds and Goldilocks definitely used the f word at the bald one
pocketseagull
Well-known member
- Dec 29, 2014
- 1,065
Isn't the issue that Dunk got personal by calling him a 'bald prick'? He knew that he'd crossed the line. Refs will accept players being angry and screaming just don't get personal with the abuse.
Do we actually know what he called him yet? Does the refs report ever get published?
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Yup. I remember when Elleray was miked up for an Arsenal game years and years ago. Arsenal gave him dogs abuse the whole game but he did not book anyone until Adams called him a cheat.
Think the difference is saying ‘f… off’ is deemed less ‘abusive’ than personalising it directly by saying ‘you’re a ****ing ****’ or whatever it was Dunk was supposed to have said.