Wes Browns red. No wonder Gus was upset!

[Pavilionaire]

Shocking decision. The authorities have got to get on top of this because tackling is a key part of football, we all enjoy a perfectly-timed diving challenge but a lot of defenders will be running scared after seeing that decision.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

aaa

 

[Mellotron]

If it's about intent, and you think it's a red, are you suggesting brown was trying to foul the player but missed?


It's not about intent, it's about safety. You may not intend to hurt someone, but might still you do. You don't get away with it because you didn't intend to hurt them. A challenge can still be unsafe, even when it is successful.

Just going on that video, it was not a careless or wreckless challenge and it didn't use excessive force so should not have been a red. Not because there was no contact, but because there was no excessive force or threat to player safety.

Can't agree re: safety, otherwise by your logic every broken leg = red card, which as you know is nonsense.

 

[T soprano]

Absolutely the correct decision, and I for one applaud the referee in this case.

Of course if it had been any other team and not one managed by the egotistical **** that is Gus Poyet, then it was a shocker!

Absolute bollocks never a red

 

[Mellotron]

You seem like one of those dogey refs we get at the Amex that has a different view to everyone else at the Amex

Don't make me break your chair!

 

[supaseagull]

Absolutely the correct decision, and I for one applaud the referee in this case.

Of course if it had been any other team and not one managed by the egotistical **** that is Gus Poyet, then it was a shocker!

You are right in your first paragraph.

The laws state that players must be in control at all times when attempting a tackle. There was no way that brown was in control and so the offence is dismissal.

Those saying it was a wrong decision need to learn the laws of the game.

 

[JJ McClure]

The laws state that players must be in control at all times when attempting a tackle. There was no way that brown was in control and so the offence is dismissal.

How was he not in control? He went for the ball and got it. If he'd been out of control surely he'd have missed it. Bonkers decision. If you're not allowed to tackle anymore we might as well stop football now.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What made me laugh was GP's reaction after - I swear he was almost in tears. Get a grip man - inappropriate outbursts can, in certain circumstances, lead to a chap losing his job.

 

[Creaky]

You are right in your first paragraph.

The laws state that players must be in control at all times when attempting a tackle. There was no way that brown was in control and so the offence is dismissal.

Those saying it was a wrong decision need to learn the laws of the game.

Which law would that be? - in any case he was in control.

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

A player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:
1. is guilty of serious foul play
2. is guilty of violent conduct
3. spits at an opponent or any other person
4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
5. denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
6. uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
7. receives a second caution in the same match

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/LawsofFootball/0,,10794~507515,00.html

 

[Frutos]

I have no idea how that was a red card.

Absurd.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The problem is that referees, owing to the ambiguous wording of the rules, are still allowing themselves the power of judgment over what constitutes serious foul play.

Referees talk (in rare interviews) about 'intent'. Clearly intent is not relevant (not mentioned in the rules). Which is why Leo's sending off a few weeks ago was correct. But time and time again we see players getting a yellow or nothing for 'accidentally' injuring a player. By definition if there is injury it should be a red. Or Leo should NOT have been booked let alone red carded.

Likewise, the only reason the ref could possibly have given for the red yesterday was 'intent'. That in itself is crap. There is no way a ref can tell if the player intended to make contact with the man or not. The fact is he made no contact so it cannot possibly be deemed serious foul play, by definition.

But was it violent conduct? Again, the referees need to clarify whether contact has to be made for the conduct to be deemed violent. Again this appears to boil down to intent. If someone throws a punch then intent can be reasonably assumed. Yesterday's incident - How TF can you tell if there was intent to commit violence against another player?

There is nothing in the rules about 'careless' or 'reckless' play liable to endanger the safety of others (like in driving laws), so that cannot be invoked as part of the judgment. But I bet refs do do so, in their own tiny minds. Can you imagine bookings for careless or reckless play? There would be nobody left on the field after 15 minutes (after all, why not bookings for 'hospital ball' passes?).

No, this is another example of poorly worded rules allowing individual referees to interpret differently. They love that because it gives them power. The rules will never be changed if refs have any say in the changes. This is for the FA/FL/FIFA to lead on. So don't expect clarification any time soon.

Anyway, its clear from the conversation on here that for many fans it is more important to be able to argue the toss about facts as if they were critiquing modern ballet, rather than be cross about flagrant failures to uphold the rules. So removal of ambiguity in the rules would take away most of their fun. I may even be of that persuasion myself, liking a good argument and all ;-)

 

[Vegas Seagull]

The ref should get a 3 match ban, the worst decision ever

 

[Zebedee]

Gus is upset - Do I care? OG is what matters now.

 

[KZNSeagull]

How was he not in control? He went for the ball and got it. If he'd been out of control surely he'd have missed it. Bonkers decision. If you're not allowed to tackle anymore we might as well stop football now.

Yup.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Gus is upset - Do I care? OG is what matters now.

i don't think anyone is suggesting u do care Zeb...its about the refs decision..which imho was a poor one

 

[LamieRobertson]

What made me laugh was GP's reaction after - I swear he was almost in tears. Get a grip man - inappropriate outbursts can, in certain circumstances, lead to a chap losing his job.

looked like a manager astonished by a refs decision to me

 

[Superphil]

Will the ref be using the Same reasoning when Virgo was sent of at Withdean? No contact, got the ball, but the tackle was deemed excessively aggressive.

Now, what team was that against?

Coincidence?

 

[The Camel]

From that slo mo it is obviously a really good tackle and not even a foul, let alone a yellow or a red.

But when I first saw it Brown looked out of control and it appeared reckless.

I thought it was a red straight away.

Refs are humans and make mistakes.

 

[Cappers]

Apparently the ref said because it was for the potential of the tackle. even though he won the ball it was way he went it.
Is this what it is coming to?

 

[severnside gull]

worth a red card just for Gus' reaction

As an aside, am I spotting a trend here? When we were struggling under Gus to "impose our style" we also picked up a ridiculous number of bookings and more than average sendings off by referees under pressure from strong play, very verbal players, and a veritable barrage from the man on the touchline. We naturally defended it at the time but unfair as the decision was, Gus came across as something of a clown yesterday.