[Albion] Illia Zabarny's red card

[Herr Tubthumper]

and AFC Bournemouth don't know the rules?

Not sure what you mean?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's hardly a hill I'm going to die on but surely magnitude of force comes into it. Just touching someone, regardless of where it is on their body, isn't endangering their safety. Obviously this is more than a touch, but also way less than careering into someone full pelt.

Anyway, he's banned so we don't get to see the lad tonight..

My point was about the two strands of the law.

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

i.e. endangers safety OR excessive force etc. I think this action endangers the player, which satisfies the first part so no need to discuss the level of force.

 

[ElectricNaz]

Tbh, should have got an extra match ban for a frivolous appeal - what a waste of everyone’s time.

Completely agree

 

[Audax]

and AFC Bournemouth don't know the rules?

Of course they do. If I was a betting man, I'd quite happily put a large sum down that:

a) they went into this expecting the appeal to be rejected,
b) they did it anyway, because they need the player...
c) ... and because if you *don't* ask the question, you don't have an opportunity to be surprised.

They worked the system in the hope that they could get a positive outcome, but I'd be very, very surprised if they ever actually thought overturning that red was a likely outcome. It only needed to be a "more than zero chance" for them to try given their problems on that area of the pitch.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

It's hardly a hill I'm going to die on but surely magnitude of force comes into it. Just touching someone, regardless of where it is on their body, isn't endangering their safety. Obviously this is more than a touch, but also way less than careering into someone full pelt.

Anyway, he's banned so we don't get to see the lad tonight..

I'm glad he's banned as I want us to have all the advantages we can, but I agree. People, probably including the VAR officials are getting way to hooked up on the still photos. You can make a lot of stuff look bad with those.

I also think the slow motion replays look bad, I don't think they should be used for VAR. Real time only.

If VAR didn't exist, the ref would have given a yellow, everyone would have got on with it and nothing more would ever have been heard of the incident.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think my position is now clear

I’ll now leave this to others to discuss.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Of course they do. If I was a betting man, I'd quite happily put a large sum down that:

a) they went into this expecting the appeal to be rejected,
b) they did it anyway, because they need the player...
c) ... and because if you *don't* ask the question, you don't have an opportunity to be surprised.

They worked the system in the hope that they could get a positive outcome, but I'd be very, very surprised if they ever actually thought overturning that red was a likely outcome. It only needed to be a "more than zero chance" for them to try given their problems on that area of the pitch.

It makes you wonder why every red card isn't appealed.

If the punishment can't be increased, and presumably there's no financial cost to the appealing club, why not appeal everything on the basis that 1 in 100 you thought we're nailed on reds, someone might see differently?

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I think my position is now clear

I’ll now leave this to others to discuss.

Probably a yellow you think?

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

It makes you wonder why every red card isn't appealed.

If the punishment can't be increased, and presumably there's no financial cost to the appealing club, why not appeal everything on the basis that 1 in 100 you thought we're nailed on reds, someone might see differently?

The punishment can be increased as if the appeal is considered frivolous then the player would be banned for an extra game on top of the original suspension.

 

[Audax]

It makes you wonder why every red card isn't appealed.

If the punishment can't be increased, and presumably there's no financial cost to the appealing club, why not appeal everything on the basis that 1 in 100 you thought we're nailed on reds, someone might see differently?

IIRC there have been, historically, punishments handed out for clearly frivolous appeals (extended ban and/or financial penalty to the club). Not sure there's ever been any consistency in that. So it's a risk that exists. I expect Bournemouth felt they had a strong enough case to avoid any sanctions even if it wasn't likely to win. Or they felt the risk was worth it to try to get the ban revoked.

 

[sydney]

When I read stuff like this, I do wonder if that were our player I'd be genuinely thinking "He got the ball first - never a red".

I hope not.

blind ...!!! studs up mid shin...!

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

My point was about the two strands of the law.

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

i.e. endangers safety OR excessive force etc. I think this action endangers the player, which satisfies the first part so no need to discuss the level of force.

What about Mac Allister last year, ironically against Bournemouth? This red card was overturned on appeal.

 

[Milano]

More likely their manager wants a 'everyone is against us' mentality tonight, he knows he's down to bare bones defensively tonight so wants to try to get another 5% out of them. Lewis Cook must be looking forward to meeting Karou tonight.....

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

What about Mac Allister last year, ironically against Bournemouth? This red card was overturned on appeal.

No excessive force and not endangering the opponent (Alexis barely touched him) wasn’t a red card for me.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

No excessive force and not endangering the opponent (Alexis barely touched him) wasn’t a red card for me.

But apparently the level of force doesn't matter. Also no way of saying which of the two tackles connected with the most force. Macs tackle was a lot later, the ball had gone, that's more dangerous in my mind

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

But apparently the level of force doesn't matter. Also no way of saying which of the two tackles connected with the most force. Macs tackle was a lot later, the ball had gone, that's more dangerous in my mind

The post you quoted by @Herr Tubthumper states that excessive force is a consideration according to the law. Only one of excessive force or endangering an opponent needs to be met for a red card to be issued.

I don’t think either apply to the Ally Mac tackle, it’s mistimed but just a yellow. There is less danger to the opponent because the contact is more raking than studs directly into his leg, also I don’t think he was using excessive force.

I think this is different to the incident at the weekend as studs directly into an opponent’s planted leg is endangering him no matter what force is used, therefore it meets the criteria for a red card.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I'm glad he's banned as I want us to have all the advantages we can, but I agree. People, probably including the VAR officials are getting way to hooked up on the still photos. You can make a lot of stuff look bad with those.

I also think the slow motion replays look bad, I don't think they should be used for VAR. Real time only.

If VAR didn't exist, the ref would have given a yellow, everyone would have got on with it and nothing more would ever have been heard of the incident.

It’s a red and it would have been done to death on MotD if it was only a yellow.

 

[Brian Munich]

What about Mac Allister last year, ironically against Bournemouth? This red card was overturned on appeal.

Not really the same though, is it? Mac Allister stays on his feet and doesn't dive in so far more in control. Although, this is the same as the Dale Stephens red card at Middlesbrough, which wasn't overturned - as we all remember!