Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Christian Norgaard red card overturned
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Milano
Well-known member
It's OK for Pickford to come charging out like prime Bruce Lee at least once per match though? He should have way more red cards than he has.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Ball was in the air though. I think this situation was kind of the perfect storm where the collision is bad, so I can certainly see the argument for the red, but i just don't see how you can expect a striker not to try and get to the ball there. Plus how can he expect Pickford to launch himself into his path whilst he's doing so? I don't think it should be a red, and the FA agrees, but I'm astonished that they overturned it.
Defo a red card from looking at the photos.....oh, is that Jordan Pickford...........a yellow at most in my opinion.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Just presses home how utterly FARCICLE the laws are.
Baleba makes a non-challenge and receives a ridiculous 2nd yellow, so we can't appeal. The red and the ban stands.
Norgaard gets a straight red for a dangerous studs-up flying challenge that catches Pickford on the knee, red gets overturned on appeal.
Its really very simple. VAR should always review 2nd yellows which result in a red. And clubs should be allowed to appeal the second yellow, after all the result is exactly the same. Its obvious.
Unfortunately though, PGMOL is infested with total DICKHEADS. So here we are.
Baleba makes a non-challenge and receives a ridiculous 2nd yellow, so we can't appeal. The red and the ban stands.
Norgaard gets a straight red for a dangerous studs-up flying challenge that catches Pickford on the knee, red gets overturned on appeal.
Its really very simple. VAR should always review 2nd yellows which result in a red. And clubs should be allowed to appeal the second yellow, after all the result is exactly the same. Its obvious.
Unfortunately though, PGMOL is infested with total DICKHEADS. So here we are.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,947
I agree with this, but I wonder that yellow cards could get a bit sticky as they are for lesser offences and a bit subjective (e.g totting up)
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,299
Still frame images can be misleading and can give a false impression of something
I've always thought that incidents reviewed by the referee pitch side should be shown at normal speed, from all available angles and with a little of the build up play beforehand (ie to show if there was a loose ball they were both trying to reach, like this example)
They shouldn't be shown any stills, and it shouldn't be played in slow-mo and shown from only 1 angle (usually the angle that makes it look worst)
That way it's more likely that the decision they make fits the criteria that VAR was introduced as, for clear and obvious errors only, and if it's not clear and obvious from those, then the on-field decision stands.
Using only stills and slow-mo from 1 angle creates a narrative that the ref has got it completely wrong but other angles, or simply being at full speed will change how that incident is potentially viewed and could result in an different verdict after the ref views it on the monitor.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #28
Im not wanting to send him off, but in the modern game and with the way the laws are applied, I'd see that as a pretty clear red card, and I'm surprised that it was overturned on appeal, which is why I feel he's been lucky.
US Seagull
Well-known member
Exactly this. And I made the same point in the match thread.
Refs have pretty broad discretion to manage something like persistent fouling leading to a yellow. Now I don't think most refs would give a second yellow on that basis, but maybe if the player really didn't get the message from the first yellow and repeated warnings, they might have no choice. Then what do you have VAR do? Go back and review every small foul and tot them up to see if they reach the threshold for a second yellow?
It could get very sticky.
US Seagull
Well-known member
Red card or not, I'm very surprised to see it overturned. PGMOL are usually pretty wary of overruling the on field decision because it undermines all refs when it happens. If all in game decisions are subject to review days later, then nothing the ref does is final.
So it makes sense not to do that except in the case of particularly bad decisions. And I don't think this is that. It's maybe 50/50 at best.
Maybe they are feeling the heat from that whole Coote thing? And what to change the narrative to be about something else?
So it makes sense not to do that except in the case of particularly bad decisions. And I don't think this is that. It's maybe 50/50 at best.
Maybe they are feeling the heat from that whole Coote thing? And what to change the narrative to be about something else?
5Ways Gull
È quello che è
I genuinely think if VAR can't get decisions correct, get rid of it. Having 3 bites at getting a decision right is madness!!!
Indeed - it's not as though it was a spur of the moment decision. The onfield ref watched it on the VAR screen didn't he?