[Football] FA Cup quarter-finals

[dazzer6666]

Chelsea get City away. Ha ha. Good.

 

[birthofanorange]

Oh dear...poor Chelsea.

 

[Flounce]

Not having a dog in the fight in the 1/4s was a very enjoyable experience

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Blimey Utd and Chelsea both drawn away.

 

[doogie004]

City and Utd keep apart again corrupt funny and no surprise

 

[hart's shirt]

Blimey Utd and Chelsea both drawn away.

Away at the Semi-Final stage isn't so bad.

 

[Simster]

City and Utd keep apart again corrupt funny and no surprise

Really? There was only a 1 in 3 chance of them not being kept apart.


Anyway Chelsea getting City is bloody splendid.

 

[fly high]

Rules are rules. Had to go off.

True but you have to feel for the young lad, just didn't think, could see him tapping his head as he walked down the tunnel.

 

[METALMICKY]

Oh dear...poor Chelsea.

Gutted for them

 

[Midget]

Man City v Chelsea made me chuckle.

So did Ian Wright saying "shake up the ballbag", can't think why

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Away at the Semi-Final stage isn't so bad.

Oh clever cloggs. It makes a huge difference. The kit one wears and the changing rooms, the dug out.

 

[Hiheidi]

Anyway Chelsea getting City is bloody splendid.

They have drawn both times they've met this season. Chelsea fans appear to think they have a better chance against City than United.

 

[studio150]

No, giving a yellow card for players taking their shirt off is a ridiculous rule. I will happily die on this hill. It only exists for the benefit of shirt sponsors, it’s typical of everything wrong with football these days.

That’s not a criticism of the ref, he had no choice. But sending a kid off because he celebrated the wrong way when celebrating scoring a winning goal in front of the home end in the last minute against your big rivals to take your team to Wembley just screams that something is wrong with the rules as a whole.

I don't think it's anything to do with shirt sponsors, I always thought that the rule was introduced due to the number of players having messages written on vests under their shirts, where an increasing number had become political, so rather than getting the officials to decide on the message, the yellow card sanction was introduced.

 

[birthofanorange]

They have drawn both times they've met this season. Chelsea fans appear to think they have a better chance against City than United.

As much as I despise all that City stand for, I hope that Chelsea get utterly and truly battered.

 

[Simster]

As much as I despise all that City stand for, I hope that Chelsea get utterly and truly battered.

Is the correct answer.

 

[Acker79]

No, giving a yellow card for players taking their shirt off is a ridiculous rule. I will happily die on this hill. It only exists for the benefit of shirt sponsors, it’s typical of everything wrong with football these days.

That’s not a criticism of the ref, he had no choice. But sending a kid off because he celebrated the wrong way when celebrating scoring a winning goal in front of the home end in the last minute against your big rivals to take your team to Wembley just screams that something is wrong with the rules as a whole.

He didn't, though. He sent him off for commiting two yellow card-worthy offences.

I think what bugs me is this tendency to suggest players are sent off for whatever the second offence was to somehow minimise the justification for sending someone off or to try to increase justification for criticising referees. It is a red for consistently breaking the laws to the degree two yellow cards have been issued.

Two yellows= reds has been the way for decades. This shirt removing rule has been around for longer than some players have been playing professionally. It's not one that there has ever been a great deal of inconsistency for, either (granted there is more inconsistency in stopping free kicks being taken). When referees always give yellow cards for something, don't do it when you're already on a yellow. 'ooh, I'm playing my former club, won't celebrate the goal' 'it's only narrowed their lead, I won't celebrate' 'we're 5-0 up, it's too easy...' When they have motivation for not celebrating, players are frequently showing they don't need to act like idiots to celebrate a goal. Being on a yellow card already should be motivation enough.

I've never been a fan of "well, the ref should recognise he's on a yellow already" because it brings in the inconsistency that people criticse referees for lacking. Two players commit the same two offences, one gets sent off because they commited the offences in the wrong order.

 

[Justice]

True but you have to feel for the young lad, just didn't think, could see him tapping his head as he walked down the tunnel.

I agree with you and I could stomach it if the refs are consistent does Haaland get the second yellow for shirt removal I’m not so sure.

 

[birthofanorange]

He didn't, though. He sent him off for commiting two yellow card-worthy offences.

I think what bugs me is this tendancy to suggest players are sent off for whatever the second offence was to somehow minimise the the justification for sending someone off or to try to increase justification for criticising referees. It is a red for consistently breaking the laws to the degree two yellow cards have been issued.

Two yellows= reds has been the way for decades. This shirt removing rule has been around for longer than some players have been playing professionally. It's not one that there has ever been a great deal of inconsistency for, either (granted there is more inconsistency in stopping free kicks being taken). When referees always give yellow cards for something, don't do it when you're already on a yellow. 'ooh, I'm playing my former club, won't celebrate the goal' 'it's only narrowed their lead, I won't celebrate' 'we're 5-0 up, it's too easy...' When they have motivation for not celebrating, players are frequently showing they don't need to act like idiots to celebrate a goal. Being on a yellow card already should be motivation enough.

I've never been a fan of "well, the ref should recognise he's on a yellow already" because it brings in the inconsistency that people criticse referees for lacking. Two players commit the same two offences, one gets sent off because they commited the offences in the wrong order.

You are 100% correct, but it seems so harsh when (with virtually no time left), you've just scored the winner in an amazing Cup-tie.
The letter of the Law says 'Yes', but morally it was bollocks.

 

[Simster]

You are 100% correct, but it seems so harsh when (with virtually no time left), you've just scored the winner in an amazing Cup-tie.
The letter of the Law says 'Yes', but morally it was bollocks.

Fully agree but on balance the laws need to be applied and he needed to go.

It's a bit like VAR and offside. Either you're offside or you're not, yet people complain when the lines are brought out. "VAR wasn't brought in to rule out goals like that". Well, yes it was, it was brought in to ensure the laws are applied properly - you can't choose when to apply them.

 

[jcdenton08]

You are 100% correct, but it seems so harsh when (with virtually no time left), you've just scored the winner in an amazing Cup-tie.
The letter of the Law says 'Yes', but morally it was bollocks.

But then you’re asking the referee to assess the occasion and personal meaning of each individual instance where it happens. Someone’s birthday? A memorial message? Happy anniversary to the wife?

Referees can’t be expected to know or assess what is an “acceptable” reason - hence the blanket ban. And it’s not like it’s a new rule.