[Albion] Dunk - straight red?

[SeagullsoverLondon]

The trouble is Dunk was stupid for going over to talk to Taylor in the first place. I am always shouting out when other teams do it that the ref should just book the player, and they never do, until yesterday.
Dunk's response to the yellow card was silly, but again how many times do players say something or react after being booked and they never get booked for dissent.
However, I actually support both decisions, with the proviso that this must be applied consistently by all refs throughout the season. And we know it won't.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would definitely be making the link between RDZs comments about refs and Taylor's actions towards our captain.

 

[Beanstalk]

I am sure someone has said this already, but I am fairly certain this is the first time in premier league history that a player has been sent off for foul and abusive language within the allotted playing time. Plenty of examples of players continuing after the final whistle but none I can find of during a game.

An utterly remarkable decision in that respect. And if the bar is set at bald prick (allegedly) you have to wonder why Tielemans wasn’t sent off today for calling the ref “f***ing shit”.

 

[Auckland seagull]

I'm probably in a minority of one on here, but I thought the behaviour of our players was embarrassing after the penalty was awarded. I am sick of players from other teams mobbing referees to try and overturn decisions, so I have to apply the same yardstick to Albion. My Forest supporting mate said to me this morning that Albion play great football, appreciated by all the NFFC fans, but the squealing antics after the penalty pissed them all off. We are reaching a tipping point, with refs leaving the game in droves, and I think we need to go down the rugby line where refs are actually allowed to ref without interference. Would anybody on here do their job?
I will now strap on my tin helmet and climb into the nuclear bunker at the bottom of the garden.

 

[American Seagle]

I've warned you privately, and now I'm warning you publicly. Post things about officials on here that you can't back up and you'll be banned.

I've absolutely no doubt that PGMOL will check the social media and message boards of the competing clubs. If they take objection to something that clearly cannot be proven in any way, you'll be gone before NSC is.

Capiche?

Not sure I have seen any warning and not sure what about. It is very straightforward to prove they are incompetent or under external influence. Just watch them they are incompetent by their inconsistency. As you wanted proof: take the handball penalty against Dunk that hit his arm after his back, a week or so later the same body-to-hand incident occured in a Liverpool game I think, and it was not awarded as a penalty.
Happy now?

 

[Zeberdi]

Not sure I have seen any warning and not sure what about. It is very straightforward to prove they are incompetent or under external influence. Just watch them they are incompetent by their inconsistency. As you wanted proof: take the handball penalty against Dunk that hit his arm after his back, a week or so later the same body-to-hand incident occured in a Liverpool game I think, and it was not awarded as a penalty.
Happy now?

But how is that ‘proof of being ‘under external influence’? You have no proof. All you have done is point out poor refereeing on the pitch vis a vis inconsistency which no one (well almost no one) here is disagreeing with.

Sorry but if you keep insisting that you have proof of undue influence or corruption in the game, you need to be prepared to back that up in a court with hard evidence such as proof of bribery/match fixing etc because you will find yourself on the wrong side of a libel suite if you keep posting these accusations online.

Truth is the only defence to defamation.

 

[American Seagle]

But how is that ‘proof of being ‘under external influence’? You have no proof. All you have done is point out poor refereeing on the pitch vis a vis inconsistency which no one (well almost no one) here is disagreeing with.

Sorry but if you keep insisting that you have proof of undue influence or corruption in the game, you need to be prepared to back that up in a court with evidence because you will find yourself on the wrong side of a libel suite.

Truth is the only defence to defamation.

The key is the word OR: incompetent OR external influence. I provided proof they are incompetent.

 

[Zeberdi]

The key is the word OR: incompetent OR external influence. I provided proof they are incompetent.

Great - many would agree on incompetency.

But you have also suggested ‘anything less’ than PGMOL lifting Dunk’s ban is admitting they are incompetent or under external influence”

That’s potentially a libelous statement in law and written defamation - the fact you are saying things like this on NSC you are putting the website itself in any firing line since in law, website owners are responsible for user generated content. So express your conspiracy ideas on your own website if you want to take the risk.

 

[dwayne]

The trouble is Dunk was stupid for going over to talk to Taylor in the first place. I am always shouting out when other teams do it that the ref should just book the player, and they never do, until yesterday.
Dunk's response to the yellow card was silly, but again how many times do players say something or react after being booked and they never get booked for dissent.
However, I actually support both decisions, with the proviso that this must be applied consistently by all refs throughout the season. And we know it won't.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would definitely be making the link between RDZs comments about refs and Taylor's actions towards our captain.

There seems to be some kind of daily mail campaign about respecting refs as well which has just come into effect. (Which isn't too bad a thing let's be honest)

This paper are patting themselves smuggly on the back for the sending off with a few articles about it. With the backing of everyone's favourite ex ref Michael Dean.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Other people have said no one has been sent off for dissent for 11 years, BUT that’s not what happened here.
He had a yellow card for dissent.
he then had a straight red for foul and abusive language. The Argus has said that the Press Association have confirmed the straight red. Calling the ref a cheating @&#* is not wise. (Rhymes with punt)
It’s apparently a 2 match ban.

No - you cannot be sent off for dissent.
No-one has been sent-off for using abusive language in 11 years.

Lewis is the first player to swear at a ref for over a decade, apparently.

 

[Springal]

No - you cannot be sent off for dissent.
No-one has been sent-off for using abusive language in 11 years.

Lewis is the first player to swear at a ref for over a decade, apparently.

Are you just counting the PL ? Players in the EFL have been recently

And it isn’t swearing - it’s abusive language

 

[Auckland seagull]

There is a lot of talk on here about refereeing incompetence. I regularly ref school youth football and that's stressful enough with whingeing parents questioning every decision. I can't begin to imagine what it is like trying to ref a Premier league match with twenty two absolute cheats playing on the pitch, thirty thousand or more biased fans screaming at you and minute frame by frame analysis of every decision. Who would do it?
So what we need is refereeing perfection; maybe reffing by artificial intelligence. But we'd still moan wouldn't we? It's not about incompetence or perfection; we just want every single decision given to our team or they're wrong. Someone beam me back to the 60s please...

 

[AZ Gull]

Yep, Opta have it that way and they normally get details from the ref straight after the match.
View attachment 170278

Is that screenshot from a website or an app? Either way, I'd like to add it to my list of resources - where can I access it please?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Are you just counting the PL ? Players in the EFL have been recently

And it isn’t swearing - it’s abusive language

What is abusive language?

Is F*** off just swearing?
but Bell-end is abusive?

I have no issue with the idea of players being sent off for excessive over -reaction to refs.
I am just supporting the position that Dunk's red card had more to do with Taylor's fragile ego, than Dunk's behaviour.

It's still a red card offence.
But it's a very rare occurrence, which you would expect to be triggered by the worst example of the offence.

This wasn't that.
It was the perfect example of RDZ's complaint of the PGMOL ref's bad attitude.

 

[AZ Gull]

Confirmed it’s a two game ban for Dunk which means no second yellow was shown and it was a straight red card. (also included a screen shot in case the link doesn't work properly)

The website for the English football association, the Emirates FA Cup and the England football team

Search by Club - view the suspensions, red cards, yellow cards, and misconduct charges for your team

www.thefa.com

View attachment 170294

When I access that URL, I just get an "empty" page (see screenshot):-

Any idea why? I know I used to be able to access that data (in fact, the FA website used to list all cautions show to players by club, and I used to record that info before and after matches to know who was actually cautioned or sent-off). Unfortunately that info disappeared a few years ago.
What are you doing right and I'm doing wrong?

 

[AZ Gull]

There is a lot of talk on here about refereeing incompetence. I regularly ref school youth football and that's stressful enough with whingeing parents questioning every decision. I can't begin to imagine what it is like trying to ref a Premier league match with twenty two absolute cheats playing on the pitch, thirty thousand or more biased fans screaming at you and minute frame by frame analysis of every decision. Who would do it?
So what we need is refereeing perfection; maybe reffing by artificial intelligence. But we'd still moan wouldn't we? It's not about incompetence or perfection; we just want every single decision given to our team or they're wrong. Someone beam me back to the 60s please...

It is why I wasn't a fan of what De Zerbi said after the Sheffield United game; there is simply no good that can come from public comments like that, either for Albion or the game as a whole. And in the very next match his captain gets a caution and straight red card for dissent and then abusive language. Right now Albion are part of the problem and it isn't the place I want my club to be.

 

[Nobby]

Just another example of inconsistency. Every week there are similar incidents treated completely differently

Ashley Young yesterday. - on a booking already trips Martial in the box as he’s going through on goal. Clear penalty and clear yellow card. Brooks books Martial for diving
VAR overturns it - pen awarded.
No yellow card because they felt the tackle wasn’t dangerous apparently

Young then calls John Brooks a F**k*n* T*at.
(I suppose he didn’t get a second yellow as he was just stating facts?)

 

[Uh_huh_him]

It is why I wasn't a fan of what De Zerbi said after the Sheffield United game; there is simply no good that can come from public comments like that, either for Albion or the game as a whole. And in the very next match his captain gets a caution and straight red card for dissent and then abusive language. Right now Albion are part of the problem and it isn't the place I want my club to be.

That's a reasonable position.
I also think De Zerbi's position is reasonable.

He is professionally engaged with a group that have consistently under-performed in games he has been involved in.
They have statistically delivered poorer outcomes for his team than most other teams.

He isn't claiming that Dunk's or Dahoud's Reds weren't warranted.
But he has stated that Palinha's was, and was ignored.

It doesn't help, I agree.
But equally the issue existed before RDZ started commenting on it.

 

[AZ Gull]

That's a reasonable position.
I also think De Zerbi's position is reasonable.

He is professionally engaged with a group that have consistently under-performed in games he has been involved in.
They have statistically delivered poorer outcomes for his team than most other teams.

He isn't claiming that Dunk's or Dahoud's Reds weren't warranted.
But he has stated that Palinha's was, and was ignored.

It doesn't help, I agree.
But equally the issue existed before RDZ started commenting on it.

De Zerbi, after the Sheffield United game, admitted that Dahoud's red was the correct decision. As such, there was simply no logical reason to even start talking about referees. And yet, in two separate after-match press conferences (one of which was for Match of the Day) he comes out with "I don't like 80% of referees".
De Zerbi is a very intelligent guy and, I'm sure, doesn't say ANYTHING without being fully aware of the likely consequences.
If I was being cynical I could very easily believe that:

* after one of the most disappointing results of his tenure, only drawing at home to the worst team in the division, who had been bottom
* in a game where his team should have been out of sight at half-time
* where his team imploded after a sending-off for a reckless challenge by an experienced midfielder who should have known better
* to leave his team winless in the PL after six matches, the longest run since he took charge

he chose to make some comments that dominated the narrative of the post-match discourse. Job done.

I have no idea if those comments had any direct impact on Dunk on Saturday (or, indeed, subconsciously had an impact on Anthony Taylor) but they weren't at all helpful to ANYONE (except maybe De Zerbi the other weekend, if you are being cynical).

 

[Guinness Boy]

Not sure I have seen any warning and not sure what about. It is very straightforward to prove they are incompetent or under external influence. Just watch them they are incompetent by their inconsistency. As you wanted proof: take the handball penalty against Dunk that hit his arm after his back, a week or so later the same body-to-hand incident occured in a Liverpool game I think, and it was not awarded as a penalty.
Happy now?

Firstly, check your PMs.

Secondly, of course they’re inconsistent. They are individuals reacting to slightly different incidents covered by laws that are nebulous. It drives us all insane, but it is explicable. However you have NOT proven they are under external influence. If you could I rather suspect you’d be writing for The Athletic or the back pages of The Guardian. Instead, you’re a bloke who doesn’t even realise “eagle” is the nickname of our hated rival

 

[Uh_huh_him]

De Zerbi, after the Sheffield United game, admitted that Dahoud's red was the correct decision. As such, there was simply no logical reason to even start talking about referees. And yet, in two separate after-match press conferences (one of which was for Match of the Day) he comes out with "I don't like 80% of referees".
De Zerbi is a very intelligent guy and, I'm sure, doesn't say ANYTHING without being fully aware of the likely consequences.
If I was being cynical I could very easily believe that:

* after one of the most disappointing results of his tenure, only drawing at home to the worst team in the division, who had been bottom
* in a game where his team should have been out of sight at half-time
* where his team imploded after a sending-off for a reckless challenge by an experienced midfielder who should have known better
* to leave his team winless in the PL after six matches, the longest run since he took charge

he chose to make some comments that dominated the narrative of the post-match discourse. Job done.

I have no idea if those comments had any direct impact on Dunk on Saturday (or, indeed, subconsciously had an impact on Anthony Taylor) but they weren't at all helpful to ANYONE (except maybe De Zerbi the other weekend, if you are being cynical).

I have no issue with De Zerbi's comments.
It's all part of the package.
During his tenure, he has been on the wrong end of poor refereeing decisions much more often than, benefitting from them.
This has impacted on his opinion of referees.

I think his position is understandable and shouldn't have any impact on any aspect of the game.
It isn't helpful, maybe, but equally it shouldn't have any negative impact either.
If it does, then doesn't that indicate there is a problem with the attitude of referees in the division?