Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

No Calde red card appeal











Tarpon

Well-known member
Sep 12, 2013
3,785
BN1
An appeal on what basis of rule?

That it wasn't serious enough foul play to warrant a red? Maybe.

Lose the appeal and you're 1 game worse off, win and you're 3 games better off.
 




jcdenton08

Enemy of the People
NSC Patreon
Oct 17, 2008
10,473
Horrible tackle, just seen it on Player. Agree I don't think it was malicious or intentional, but a truly reckless and dangerous challenge, studs up, head height.

An appeal would've had no chance, and a shame for Calde as I'd have thought he'd realistically be pushing for Bruno's spot tomorrow if not sent off.

Annoying being 3-0 up in a little cup game on 88 minutes
 


sjamesb3466

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2009
5,182
Leicester
The reason there is no appeal is because it was a straight red card all day long. I know everyone is looking at this with their Calde tinted glasses on but you can't go in to a challenge studs up at head height even if it wasn't intending to injure the player. At the end of the day a player could lose an eye with that kind of challenge. If it was against Calde in front of the north stand we would have been going ballistic and rightly so. Poor tackle, end of.
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
I agree with the club an appeal would be pointless as it would be rejected. Common sense by the ref could have prevailed but as it didnt he was right in principal with his decision.
 




Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
The reason there is no appeal is because it was a straight red card all day long. I know everyone is looking at this with their Calde tinted glasses on but you can't go in to a challenge studs up at head height even if it wasn't intending to injure the player. At the end of the day a player could lose an eye with that kind of challenge. If it was against Calde in front of the north stand we would have been going ballistic and rightly so. Poor tackle, end of.

It wasn't a challenge, as such. The ball bounced and Calde went to kick it, (which he did) just as the Burton player arrived. If Calde had been watching the ball, he wouldn't have had time to spot the Burton player. It was a nasty accident which thankfully didn't result in any injury.
I agree it was reckless play, but it wasn't actually a tackle. The Burton match reporter thought it was a harsh red.
 


jcdenton08

Enemy of the People
NSC Patreon
Oct 17, 2008
10,473
I agree with the club an appeal would be pointless as it would be rejected. Common sense by the ref could have prevailed but as it didnt he was right in principal with his decision.

Common sense?

How is that not a red card regardless of whether we were winning 10-0 and it was Calderon's last day before retirement and his dog had just died?

Common sense does apply when reffing but not when a player almost takes another player's head off with a 6 foot high tackle foot first
 


Biscuit

Native Creative
Jul 8, 2003
22,205
Brighton
I must be the only one that thought it was harsh. He was watching the ball and had his leg up to catch it. He just turned into the player who ultimately was fine.

I accept I'm in the minority here, but not a red IMO, no malice what so ever
 




Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
Common sense?

How is that not a red card regardless of whether we were winning 10-0 and it was Calderon's last day before retirement and his dog had just died?

Common sense does apply when reffing but not when a player almost takes another player's head off with a 6 foot high tackle foot first

You are looking at it from the angle of it being a tackle. Calde was at the ball first, not tackling the Burton player. The red card was for a high boot not a tackle.
 


Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,212
Seaford
The reason there is no appeal is because it was a straight red card all day long. I know everyone is looking at this with their Calde tinted glasses on but you can't go in to a challenge studs up at head height even if it wasn't intending to injure the player. At the end of the day a player could lose an eye with that kind of challenge. If it was against Calde in front of the north stand we would have been going ballistic and rightly so. Poor tackle, end of.

I don't disagree with you but how many spectacular overhead kicked goals have we seen, 'none' of which get punished?

Didn't CMS pull one off v Burnley a couple of years ago?
 


It was accidental rather than a malicious tackle. The club have decided it was reckless anyway.

I don't think that the lack of deliberate intent to cause harm is likely to get you off what was, essentially, dangerous play.

That it wasn't serious enough foul play to warrant a red? Maybe.

Lose the appeal and you're 1 game worse off, win and you're 3 games better off.

I assume you're joking with this contention?
 




Algernon

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
2,931
Newmarket.
Watching the replay his foot was dangerously high.
I don't think an appeal would gain anything and there's the chance now for S.H. to give a different (younger?) player a reasonable spell to claim their place in the team.
 


sjamesb3466

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2009
5,182
Leicester
I must be the only one that thought it was harsh. He was watching the ball and had his leg up to catch it. He just turned into the player who ultimately was fine.

I accept I'm in the minority here, but not a red IMO, no malice what so ever

Unfortunately malice has nothing to do with it. If you endanger another player you will be sent off without fail. You can't raise your foot at head height when other players are going for the ball. Don't buy the 'didn't see him' argument, its his job to be aware of the players around him and the bloke ran straight at him, not from behind or the side sp I don't see how he didn't see him?! Agree he may not have realised he would get there that quickly but its a red card all day long IMO. The seagulls article basically says as much when it mentions we have approached some referee's who have all told us not to bother appealing.

Calde is prone to one or two of these challenges per season, not due to malice but an occasional lack of timing. Its what comes with being a defender.
 


sjamesb3466

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2009
5,182
Leicester
I don't disagree with you but how many spectacular overhead kicked goals have we seen, 'none' of which get punished?

Didn't CMS pull one off v Burnley a couple of years ago?

I'm guessing the fact that he didn't kick another player in the head had something to do with it. A high boot when no other players are within striking distance will not be given as a foul but if a defender had been attempting to head the ball as CMS struck the ball and a defenders head the goal (if the ball had still gone in which is unlikely if a player was kicked in the process) would not have stood and he would have been sent off.
 






edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 7, 2003
47,228
If you read the laws of the game, "malice" is nowhere to be found.

Did he place his foot in a dangerous position? Yes. Was there a risk of injuring the opponent? Yes.

Offence is therefore made out. Intent doesn't come into it here, it's a straight case of facts. I don't think he could appeal successfully in a million years. If it was the other player doing that to Calderon, we'd all be up in arms.
 


Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
The Burton player ran onto Calderon when Calde had played the ball, so there is a miniscule case for an accidental collision.
Several people, including myself, were astounded when Calde was sent off as he went up in the air, and we presumed that the Burton player had fouled him.
Admittedly, our angle from the seats was sideways on, which makes it difficult to see the whole thing.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here