[Albion] Red Card

[Uh_huh_him]

They weren't. Duffy's was a clear sending off. He went head to head with van Aanholt and pushed him over. .

Not sure about that. Van Aanholt made an absolute meal out of a very similar movement of the head.

 

[Eeyore]

Not sure about that. Van Aanholt made an absolute meal out of a very similar movement of the head.

Oh yes, the usual theatricals. The problem was that Duffy uses force and invites it.

Still, I think 11 v 11 would have been unfair on them.

 

[Sorrel]

It wasn't that bad; I think we'd be disappointed if one of our players got sent off for that.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I saw the footage earlier. A red would have been wrong.

 

[Icy Gull]

I saw the footage earlier. A red would have been wrong.

I thought, though I may be wrong, that you get a red for intent. Looks like red card to me

https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/foot...er-var-review-over-headbutt-against-brighton/

 

[BensGrandad]

I saw the footage earlier. A red would have been wrong.

why?

 

[neilbard]

It wasn't that bad; I think we'd be disappointed if one of our players got sent off for that.

Duffy v Palace, AJ should have gone down like a sack of spuds..

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I thought, though I may be wrong, that you get a red for intent. Looks like red card to me

https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/foot...er-var-review-over-headbutt-against-brighton/

That footage is from the blind side and looks far worse. The clip is saw is from the other side and you could see, he brushed his head against Ali’s in a downward motion, it wasn’t a forward butt.

He would have got a card for violent conduct. Here’s the law

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.
Violent conduct
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.


In my opinion the force was negligible so no red. The debate centres on whether you feel it was, or wasn’t, negligible and I appreciate this is subjective.

Also, as an aide, intent doesn’t play any part in the laws.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

why?

See above.

 

[drew]

That footage is from the blind side and looks far worse. The clip is saw is from the other side and you could see, he brushed his head against Ali’s in a downward motion, it wasn’t a forward butt.

He would have got a card for violent conduct. Here’s the law

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.
Violent conduct
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.


In my opinion the force was negligible so no red. The debate centres on whether you feel it was, or wasn’t, negligible and I appreciate this is subjective.

Also, as an aide, intent doesn’t play any part in the laws.

You seem to be in a very small minority as most pundits/reporters/fans concur that it was a worthy red based on what has been done before. The force wasn't 'negligible' but it also wan't a full blown glasgow handshake! Red everyday of the week.

 

[Ecosse Exile]

It should have been a red, no doubt whatsoever, however i would like to take a moment to commend Ederson, the look on AJ's face, i thought he was going to deck Walker, Ederson saw it too and saved AJ from himself.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You seem to be in a very small minority as most pundits/reporters/fans concur that it was a worthy red based on what has been done before. The force wasn't 'negligible' but it also wan't a full blown glasgow handshake! Red everyday of the week.

In my opinion the force was negligible. Had there been a forward component to the motion I’d agree with you. Then it would have been a butt as opposed to a brush. But there wasn’t from the angle I saw.

 

[darkwolf666]

You seem to be in a very small minority as most pundits/reporters/fans concur that it was a worthy red based on what has been done before. The force wasn't 'negligible' but it also wan't a full blown glasgow handshake! Red everyday of the week.

Yep, Walker lost his rag, City knew it and took him off at half time!

 

[wellquickwoody]

That footage is from the blind side and looks far worse. The clip is saw is from the other s
ide and you could see, he brushed his head against Ali’s in a downward motion, it wasn’t a forward butt.

He would have got a card for violent conduct. Here’s the law

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.
Violent conduct
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.


In my opinion the force was negligible so no red. The debate centres on whether you feel it was, or wasn’t, negligible and I appreciate this is subjective.

Also, as an aide, intent doesn’t play any part in the laws.

Stand down everybody. TAT’s Ugly Sister has spoken and no one else is of an equal intellect. Just be quiet and listen to your better......

 

[pb21]

That footage is from the blind side and looks far worse. The clip is saw is from the other side and you could see, he brushed his head against Ali’s in a downward motion, it wasn’t a forward butt.

He would have got a card for violent conduct. Here’s the law

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.
Violent conduct
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.


In my opinion the force was negligible so no red. The debate centres on whether you feel it was, or wasn’t, negligible and I appreciate this is subjective.

Also, as an aide, intent doesn’t play any part in the laws.

That says when the hand or arm is used, not the head.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Stand down everybody. TAT’s Ugly Sister has spoken and no one else is of an equal intellect. Just be quiet and listen to your better......

Why did you make this post? I stated my case quite reasonably and politely. Why be so snide?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

That says when the hand or arm is used, not the head.

Ah. Good point. In that case it’s the first paragraph which is applicable. No red as Walker didn’t use excessive force or brutality in my opinion.

 

[pb21]

Ah. Good point. In that case it’s the first paragraph which is applicable. No red as Walker didn’t use excessive force or brutality in my opinion.

I would say the headbut was an attempt of excessive and brutal force, regardless of the level of contact he actually made, and he did make some.

 

[Icy Gull]

Ah. Good point. In that case it’s the first paragraph which is applicable. No red as Walker didn’t use excessive force or brutality in my opinion.

All about opinions, I’m going with mine and Chris Hughton’s, he should have walked and if it was an Albion defender who’d done that he would have, I am absolutely certain on that last bit

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I would say the headbut was an attempt of excessive and brutal force, regardless of the level of contact he actually made, and he did make some.

Fair enough. I can’t argue against this but I obviously disagree; it boils down to different peoples interpretation.