[Albion] That red card for Biss'

[banjo]

In the words of Mickey Flanagan. It was a red. Not a red red.

 

[clapham_gull]

So every overhead kick should be a red then as a player swinging a boot around in the box at head height is risking players eye's?

Whataboutism.

He forceably connected with a players face with his studs duriing open play (not in the box) and potentially damaged his eyesight. Risking? Blimey, watch it again.

Accidental, but clearly very very dangerous. I'm happy he got the red card on the basis it sends out a message you don't do that.

As others have mentioned

.. I don't care.

 

[Yoda]

Yes, there was not intent or malice in what Biss did, but at the end of the day it was dangerous and unfortunately the correct decision.

What IS stupid is, that under the current laws of the game, it is deem as violent conduct and he will get a three match ban for it. Hopefully the PL panel may look at it and decide to reduce the suspension due to the fact there was no intent or malice involved.

 

[Seasider78]

Was it violent conduct? In which case a three-game ban, instead of one for serious foul play.

FA defines violent conduct as follows. Surely doesn't apply to Biss?


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.

If that’s the definition in the rules then it is neither of those things and should be appealed

 

[highflyer]

This must be a first.

Pundits speak out in Brighton's favour: 'they were hard done by there, ref and VAR were wrong'
Majority of Brighton fans: 'nope, it was a fair cop, deserved to be sent off, VAR got it right'.

I think when the ref saw the slow motion footage, he knew how that still photo was going to look on the websites and back pages, and decided that image wasn't something he wanted to have to defend.

Red card for me though. Not malicious, but reckless and dangerous.

Fingers crossed we beat Preston and only lose him for the single league game. He's fast becoming one of our most important players.

 

[227 BHA]

Can it be deemed as not violent and reduced to a one game ban (And do we have to lodge an appeal?) or am I clutching at straws?

 

[Seagull]

Only red coz the other lad got his head in there and in looked terrible as a still. Wild, but no intention, not violent. Yellow sufficient.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Was it violent conduct? In which case a three-game ban, instead of one for serious foul play.

FA defines violent conduct as follows. Surely doesn't apply to Biss?


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.

It will more than likely be considered serious foul play rather than violent conduct going by the FA website -

https://www.thefa.com/football-rule...OUS FOUL PLAY,sanctioned as serious foul play.

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

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.​

The first part of the law covers it as the challenge endangered the safety of the Newcastle player in the view of the ref (after watching the slow motion replay).

3 game ban for serious foul play as the image below taken from the FA Players handbook covers. I don't think we will appeal it and just hope that Biss will only miss the Man Utd Premier League game if we can beat Preston in midweek.

 

[jackanada]

Think the referee for it right first time, but only IF you're going back pre-VAR where referee's were allowed some discretion.
Under the rules it is clearly a red though so the VAR have told him to upgrade it. His looking at the monitor is a bit of a sham because he's seen the incident, knew it was dangerous play and just didn't feel it was worth a red card. The Voice in his ear has just said "Oi forget spirit of the game rules is rules" and then he has to change it.

 

[peterward]

This must be a first.

Pundits speak out in Brighton's favour: 'they were hard done by there, ref and VAR were wrong'
Majority of Brighton fans: 'nope, it was a fair cop, deserved to be sent off, VAR got it right'.

I think when the ref saw the slow motion footage, he knew how that still photo was going to look on the websites and back pages, and decided that image wasn't something he wanted to have to defend.

Red card for me though. Not malicious, but reckless and dangerous.

Fingers crossed we beat Preston and only lose him for the single league game. He's fast becoming one of our most important players.

Friend was 2 yards and looking straight at it, and gave a yellow......he saw it........ Like you intimated and i said before, that as soon as the "just have another look at that on VAR" is put out, now the pressure ramps up on friend. Pawson in the control room is now effectively challenging his decision, the easy way out for friend is to submit to VAR. It becomes riskier to stick by original conviction having been openly challenged (see the ref who didn't give the pen v Man U, then bottle it and give that ridiculous decision when challenged to "have another look").

It felt like red to me, but the motd2 pundits suggest by the rules it isn't. Deliberately elbowing someone in the face, is not the same as a flailing high leg challenging for the ball with the back turned. It is careless, it def is a yellow, there was zero intent.

If Biss did same accidentally but boot just missed his head, is it still a red?

If Biss boot caught Lewis on the chest and he gets up straight away is that a red?

Then it can't be a red simply because boot caught face. It's the action (in context of playing for ball or not) that's yellow or red not where the boot finishes.

Lamptey breaks Wilson leg with that tackle, is that a red?

Clash of heads, trying to head ball, lands in opponent face, blood everywhere, is that red?

It's about intent. And action. If it wasn't dangerous enough to warrant red if his boot missed face or struck somewhere else...... The fact it did accidentally strike face (which everyone agrees) doesn't change the action or intent.

Reds are for action and intent not end results

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Friend was 2 yards and looking straight at it, and gave a yellow......he saw it........ Like you intimated and i said before, that as soon as the "just have another look at that on VAR" is put out, now the pressure ramps up on friend. Pawson in the control room is now effectively challenging his decision, the easy way out for friend is to submit to VAR. It becomes riskier to stick by original conviction having been openly challenged (see the ref who didn't give the pen v Man U, then bottle it and give that ridiculous decision when challenged to "have another look").

It felt like red to me, but by the rules it isn't. Deliberately elbowing someone in the face, is not the same as a flailing high leg challenging for the ball with the back turned. It is careless, it def is a yellow, there was zero intent.

If Biss did same accidentally but boot just missed his head, is it still a red?

If Biss boot caught Lewis on the chest and he gets up straight away is that a red?

Then it can't be a red simply because boot caught face. It's the action (in context of playing for ball or not) that's yellow or red not where the boot finishes.

Lamptey breaks Wilson leg with that tackle, is that a red?

Clash of heads, trying to head ball, lands in opponent face, blood everywhere, is that red?

It's about intent. And action. If it wasn't dangerous enough to warrant red if his boot missed face or struck somewhere else...... The fact it did accidentally strike face (which everyone agrees) doesn't make change the action or intent.

Reds are for action and intent not end results

You're right, but they've realised, especially in the age of VAR, that intent is very difficult to judge. Who can really say whether Hemed meant to land on Lascelles leg 3 years ago or it was just an accident? So intent has gone, just like deliberate or accidental handball. And relatedly, the concept of being 'onside if level' has also fallen by the wayside. And all too regularly therefore we get daft decisions.

We were supposed to be seeing a big review of VAR this off season, I thought, but Covid-19 has put paid to that it seems, and we're stuck with these new fangled interpretations of the laws so that they fit with VAR.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I disagree. Accidental or not, you have to "red card out" high kicks that could lead to a player losing an eye. Shearer was wrong when he said he didn't realise the player was behind him.

Best ban overhead kicks then?

 

[warmleyseagull]

Slightly ironic that he misses only one game he would actually have played in assuming we beat Preston. I have always thought that 3 match ban is OTT for most serious and violent offences; one seems about right. He was stupid; it is the rules; but no great harm done.

 

[Palacefinder General]

^ I guess one match would be deemed insufficient to deter teams from talking out rival players.

 

[Monkey Man]

I suspect if a Brighton player had caught a boot in the face like that from an opposition player I'd be saying it was a red. Definitely no malice from Biss but it was reckless, did hurt the player, and you can see why Friend went for the colour upgrade. No complaints from me Clive.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Best ban overhead kicks then?

By the same logic some are applying to this incident, you should also ban heading, or send off both players when they clash heads because they've both been wreckless in slamming their heads together.

It was an accident. It was worth a booking. The referee gave a yellow because in the context of the game he knew it was an accident. Once VAR forced him to review it, he didn't have a lot of choice I suppose faced with seeing studs in face, however he knew while in the flow of the game that it wasn't endangering an opponent, it wasn't particularly wreckless, just unfortunate.

VAR is changing very good instinctive referring decisions and turning them on their head.

 

[clapham_gull]

Best ban overhead kicks then?

For the simplistically minded if you are struggling to see the difference between a mad kick out like that (that connects) and one that doesn't.

 

[The Wizard]

For the simplistically minded if you are struggling to see the difference between a mad kick out like that (that connects) and one that doesn't.

‘Dangerous play’ So flicking your boot high and backwards and accidentally connecting is a red, but launching yourself into the air and hurling your boot backwards towards a blind ball at head height isn’t dangerous play also? Hmmmm

For me, if what happened yesterday is a red as many say, an overhead kick is equally if not more dangerous, I’ve seen far more defenders booted in the head from a player attempting an overhead kick than I have incidents like yesterday.

 

[Bold Seagull]

For the simplistically minded if you are struggling to see the difference between a mad kick out like that (that connects) and one that doesn't.

I’m struggling to see the difference with any high boot whatsoever? There is nothing in the rules about ‘connecting’. By the logic Bissouma’s is a red card, then every high boot that is even remotely close to another player, whether they make contact or not must be a red because it is endangering an opponent. That is the logic being applied by everyone backing the application of the rules in this case.

Ask yourself had Bissouma just missed his head, no harm done, still a red!?

No, likely not even a yellow, and yet there is nothing in the rules that the ref should differentiate between him just missing or making contact because the judgement is ‘endangering an opponent’ not ‘making contact with an opponent’.

 

[Farehamseagull]

At the time I thought it was harsh but on reflection it was the correct decision.

Absolutely gutted he is missing the Man Utd game, he is crucial to us and we don't have any players who can come in and do the job he does. Make's the Preston game massive now as if we win that he's back for the Everton game otherwise he'll miss that too.