Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Just emailed this to the football league
- Thread starter torchieboy
- Start date
BensGrandad
New member
The penalty decision from the refs point of view is although not liked, acceptable and understandable given that the lino called him over and told him it was penalty. What cannot be excused is his decision to give Symes a yellow card for elbowing Elphick it was blatant and he both saw it and gave us a free kick so he acknowledged that it happened and an elbow is an automatic Red Card, I thought.
Barnham Seagull
Yapton Actually
Don't know when delberately striking another player results in only a yellow.
And I'm sure apart from leaving his foot in on Casper he also angles his heel towards him as he goes through.
And I'm sure apart from leaving his foot in on Casper he also angles his heel towards him as he goes through.
The Symes incident........ putting my refs hat on for a moment.....
I have just watched the incident several times at normal speed.
The first question to ask was did he deliberately throw his elbow at Elphrick? if the answer is yes, then it is violent conduct (striiking/attempting to strike an opponent) and a red card.
If the answer is no, then the next question to ask is "was it a foul?", and if so, was it
a. careless
b. reckless, or
c. using excessive force?
I'll leave you to discuss those two questions and come back with my thoughts on the incident later....
I have just watched the incident several times at normal speed.
The first question to ask was did he deliberately throw his elbow at Elphrick? if the answer is yes, then it is violent conduct (striiking/attempting to strike an opponent) and a red card.
If the answer is no, then the next question to ask is "was it a foul?", and if so, was it
a. careless
b. reckless, or
c. using excessive force?
I'll leave you to discuss those two questions and come back with my thoughts on the incident later....
bristolseagull
Well-known member
Writing letters complaining about the officials is the gayest thing I've heard for a long time. Get yourself a life go down the pub, nail a few pints and drown your sorrows- get over it, we've got another game next week...
Sam Ovett
The New Manager Bus
Barnham Seagull
Yapton Actually
Deliberate, he was never going to get the ball and you can clearly see that he jabbed his elbow/forearm into his face definately not simply a case of a raised elbow which is also out of order.
PS... Just looked at that incident again. Garry was down as he got clonked in the face by an elbow (and has a black eye for his troubles) and it was a good 30-40s before he was up on his feet again.
Sam Ovett
The New Manager Bus
Still, we are top of the league, say we are top of the league. Three points clear now, and started the day two points clear. Nice days work
murraymints4brighton
Well-known member
I Emailed them this effort....
I would like to complain to you about the appalling standard of refereeing I have witnessed today at the League One game between Brighton and Bournemouth. The referee in question is Darren Sheldrake who appeared to be completely incapable, like many referees I have seen this year, of officiating the game to anywhere near an acceptable standard. I would very much like to thank you the football league for providing us with a human being to referee the game and that, appreciatively, is the bear minimum I expect. However why this particular referee was anywhere near a football field is quite amusingly confusing. I will now point to 3 key decisions made today that both the referee and the linesman got horribly wrong and has again marred a decent game of football and of course the decisions they made were in no way influenced by the fact they had some nice shiny television cameras on them.
1. Striker Michael Symes appeared to run over our goalkeepers face, Casper Ankergren, thus breaking his nose. Now the referee had a very good, 5 yard away view of this and the linesman was also in line with the incident. Now I have broken my nose before and admittedly, it hurts and the person responsible for it probably was punished. However how the referee can not even yellow card a player for breaking someone else's nose is completely and utterly beyond me, especially seeing as he has done it by running over his face, again, 5 yards from the official.
2. Striker Michael Symes then persisted in being a threat to a footballers anatomy by quite clearly elbowing our defender, Tommy Elphick, right in the cheek. Now even a blind person could have sent him off for this as the noise made via the connection of elbow/cheek could have been heard on Saturn. I'm incredibly confused as to the general consensus of what referees should do when off the ball/facial contact is made? Referring back to our previous home game against Oldham, in which our striker was put in a headlock and disturbingly man handled by another Oldham player to which the referee responded by booking both of them for no apparent reason when clearly our player had done nothing wrong. Why is there no consistency in making these decisions? If you so much as breath on another players upper body in the Premier League you are sent off immediately but obviously in this "tin pot" League One there are different rules such as elbows in the face and disturbing man handling/punching being accepted as yellow card offences. Since when was an elbow in the face not a sending off? Especially in the malicious manner it was done? Surely referees know what an absurdly dangerous action an elbow in the face is? especially since Iain Hume nearly died last season because some idiot smashed him straight in the skull. Absolutely awful, inconsistent officiating.
3. Defender Tommy Elphick is penalised for a questionable handball that was clearly outside the box accept one person, placed in front of Sky Sports decided no, I will imagine that I was in line with the handball and mysteriously decide to give a penalty. The referee gave a free kick, he was 5 yards away and that was the correct decision. However Bournemouth then complain to the linesman who decides to take centre stage and give them a penalty, despite not having any right at all in judging whether it was or not from the position he was in. Why is the referee changing his mind? The assistant is there to assist for god sake, that's what it says in the job title. The ref has effectively bottled it and heaped all the pressure onto the assistant who has then, in front of Sky Sports decided to make a monumental mistake. The officials in question could quite obviously not handle the pressure at all, they were out of their depth and decided to put there relatively poor expertise to the worst possible use and make a name for themselves in front of Sky Sports.
The sum of all this is you continue to employ shocking referees to officiate at a level they cannot operate at in any way shape or form. Can you just please outline that consistency is what us as fans want to see from the referee, linesman and fourth official. It is a disgrace that in fact referees are getting noticeably worse, week by week. If our player is sent off for descent, then the oppositions should by, If an opposition player is sent off for an elbow then so should our player and vice versa... We want consistency from officials and don't want to see them at the for front of every headline on the back pages.
I look forward to hearing a response, regards.
I would like to complain to you about the appalling standard of refereeing I have witnessed today at the League One game between Brighton and Bournemouth. The referee in question is Darren Sheldrake who appeared to be completely incapable, like many referees I have seen this year, of officiating the game to anywhere near an acceptable standard. I would very much like to thank you the football league for providing us with a human being to referee the game and that, appreciatively, is the bear minimum I expect. However why this particular referee was anywhere near a football field is quite amusingly confusing. I will now point to 3 key decisions made today that both the referee and the linesman got horribly wrong and has again marred a decent game of football and of course the decisions they made were in no way influenced by the fact they had some nice shiny television cameras on them.
1. Striker Michael Symes appeared to run over our goalkeepers face, Casper Ankergren, thus breaking his nose. Now the referee had a very good, 5 yard away view of this and the linesman was also in line with the incident. Now I have broken my nose before and admittedly, it hurts and the person responsible for it probably was punished. However how the referee can not even yellow card a player for breaking someone else's nose is completely and utterly beyond me, especially seeing as he has done it by running over his face, again, 5 yards from the official.
2. Striker Michael Symes then persisted in being a threat to a footballers anatomy by quite clearly elbowing our defender, Tommy Elphick, right in the cheek. Now even a blind person could have sent him off for this as the noise made via the connection of elbow/cheek could have been heard on Saturn. I'm incredibly confused as to the general consensus of what referees should do when off the ball/facial contact is made? Referring back to our previous home game against Oldham, in which our striker was put in a headlock and disturbingly man handled by another Oldham player to which the referee responded by booking both of them for no apparent reason when clearly our player had done nothing wrong. Why is there no consistency in making these decisions? If you so much as breath on another players upper body in the Premier League you are sent off immediately but obviously in this "tin pot" League One there are different rules such as elbows in the face and disturbing man handling/punching being accepted as yellow card offences. Since when was an elbow in the face not a sending off? Especially in the malicious manner it was done? Surely referees know what an absurdly dangerous action an elbow in the face is? especially since Iain Hume nearly died last season because some idiot smashed him straight in the skull. Absolutely awful, inconsistent officiating.
3. Defender Tommy Elphick is penalised for a questionable handball that was clearly outside the box accept one person, placed in front of Sky Sports decided no, I will imagine that I was in line with the handball and mysteriously decide to give a penalty. The referee gave a free kick, he was 5 yards away and that was the correct decision. However Bournemouth then complain to the linesman who decides to take centre stage and give them a penalty, despite not having any right at all in judging whether it was or not from the position he was in. Why is the referee changing his mind? The assistant is there to assist for god sake, that's what it says in the job title. The ref has effectively bottled it and heaped all the pressure onto the assistant who has then, in front of Sky Sports decided to make a monumental mistake. The officials in question could quite obviously not handle the pressure at all, they were out of their depth and decided to put there relatively poor expertise to the worst possible use and make a name for themselves in front of Sky Sports.
The sum of all this is you continue to employ shocking referees to officiate at a level they cannot operate at in any way shape or form. Can you just please outline that consistency is what us as fans want to see from the referee, linesman and fourth official. It is a disgrace that in fact referees are getting noticeably worse, week by week. If our player is sent off for descent, then the oppositions should by, If an opposition player is sent off for an elbow then so should our player and vice versa... We want consistency from officials and don't want to see them at the for front of every headline on the back pages.
I look forward to hearing a response, regards.
Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews
Remainer
I wrote and complained to the FA about Archer/bellotti attending matches...inciting crowd trouble....game into disrepute etc as many of us did one weekend in '96 and got a very nice reply explaining they were looking into the incident at White Hart Lane and would be intervewing the Aston Villa goalkeeper in due course (i kid you not)
imissworthing2
New member
In all seriousness imagine if every teams fans wrote to the fa each week after a dodgy decision, we all know it was an almighty fcuk up. Lets just console ourselves in the hartlepool result and the fact that if we were offered this league position at the start of the season 99% of us would be lovin it
Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews
Remainer
you wanna see what someone's put on 'Ask The Club'
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Like it will really make any difference ?
My arse it will FFS, waste of time
My arse it will FFS, waste of time
OK, my thoughts.
For me, not violent conduct. The key for me is where he is looking as the Brighton defender goes towards him. His eyes are following the flight of the ball all the time. That takes 'violent conduct' out of the equation IMHO. If he has had a look to see where the defender is, it looks a lot more suspicious.
So no red card on that count.
Next question. He has led with the elbow. Not clever.
Was it careless? Most definitely. Was it reckless? Very probably. Was it using excessive force? Not for me. (Those are the definitions of 'severity' as laid down in the Laws of the game and carry a sanction of no action, caution, straight red respectively.)
So IMO, a yellow was right.
That said, he should have walked anyway as I felt the Ankergren incident was worthy of a caution and he got away with it.
Just my opinion, everyone else is of course entitled to theirs.
For me, not violent conduct. The key for me is where he is looking as the Brighton defender goes towards him. His eyes are following the flight of the ball all the time. That takes 'violent conduct' out of the equation IMHO. If he has had a look to see where the defender is, it looks a lot more suspicious.
So no red card on that count.
Next question. He has led with the elbow. Not clever.
Was it careless? Most definitely. Was it reckless? Very probably. Was it using excessive force? Not for me. (Those are the definitions of 'severity' as laid down in the Laws of the game and carry a sanction of no action, caution, straight red respectively.)
So IMO, a yellow was right.
That said, he should have walked anyway as I felt the Ankergren incident was worthy of a caution and he got away with it.
Just my opinion, everyone else is of course entitled to theirs.
Sam Ovett
The New Manager Bus
Gawsh, it was a straight red, easy. He knew it, and was why he ran back to hide behind his entire team. Pussy and a cheat