JJ McClure
Go Jags
Shock horror another Terry bashing thread 
It was no way a red card offence and it's been recinded. End of f***ing story.
It was no way a red card offence and it's been recinded. End of f***ing story.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
John Terry
- Thread starter Brightonfan1983
- Start date
ATFC Seagull
Aberystwyth Town FC
Haven't seen it since MOTD that night so can't recall for certain, but didn't Jo have Robinho and one other up almost alongside him? Does it still count that there might tecnhically have been other Chelsea player(s) preventing Terry from being the so called "last man", even if that would still have resulted on a 3 v 1 /3 v 2 in Man City's favour?
Brian Fantana
Well-known member
Terry is a mug and a horror choice for England captain. As for the dismissal, he may not have been the last man but the manner of the challenge (basically a rugby tackle) warranted a sending off in my (biased) book.
BensGrandad
New member
According to the red tops yesterday as the ref had said that he was sent off for ungentlemanly conduct it could not be recinded. Obviously they read the rules differently to Chelsea and the FA.
bojans right foot
New member
- Mar 2, 2008
- 31
Anything that upsets Fergie is ok with me :yahoo:
bobbab5
Active member
I find it amazing that people's blind and irrational hatred of Chelsea makes the overturning of a completely wrong decision seem like a crime against humanity!
m20gull
Well-known member
Me too. He should not have been sent off. It was a free kick, he should have been booked, the ref was wrong and the FA have corrected it.
And I liked the 3-1 gesture. If an Albion player had been INCORRECTLY sent off I would not have minded at all him gesturing in such a friendly manner to the opposition fans.
And if we are going to have a red card for every offence of cheating that would include every foul from handball to obstruction.
chez
Johnny Byrne-The Greatest
Thank god for that, it was a bad decision by the ref.
What is wrong with the people on here anyway, John Terry is a great player and a decent bloke. Blimey anyone would think he was Rio Ferdinand the amount of stick he gets on here.
Also, is that shit rule still in place where you can appeal against a straight red but not against 2 yellows? I would have thought they would have got rid of that by now.
What is wrong with the people on here anyway, John Terry is a great player and a decent bloke. Blimey anyone would think he was Rio Ferdinand the amount of stick he gets on here.
Also, is that shit rule still in place where you can appeal against a straight red but not against 2 yellows? I would have thought they would have got rid of that by now.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,975
I find it amazing how much rubbish talk about 'last man' and 'daylight between players' the like when it's not in the rules. It's a deliberate foul to stop a goal scoring opportunity, i don't really see how it's been overturned. The fact that Halsey's seems to have been sent down three divisions for Saturday is a bit odd
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,975
A good article from Football 365, which i don't entirely agree with
Terry Appeal Exposes Holes In Rules
Posted 16/09/08 15:57EmailPrintSave
Nobody ever said life was fair.
If it was I'd be writing this from my penthouse suite in Sandbanks overlooking the sea, thinking about booking the jet to take me out to the Seychelles next week, while my live-in partner Kelly Brook asks if Nadine out of Girls Aloud can 'come to play' tonight.
As it is, I'm in my small office in my house, wearing socks with holes in them, bemoaning the fact that the girl I met Saturday who said she see me Monday never turned up, and I'm going nowhere near the Seychelles. Although I am working two days in Wolverhampton later this month. Exciting.
So life, in short, isn't fair. And neither is football.
And, after the weekend's fixtures, and looking ahead to next week's, there will be conflicting ideas between Manchester United fans and Chelsea fans about who has been harshly treated. Some will be suggesting -it's not fair.
I talk, obviously, about the fact that both Nemanja Vidic and John Terry - both centre halves, both enforcers, both important players for their respective sides - were sent off on Saturday.
But when Chelsea meet United next week, Terry will play. Vidic will not.
I speak of course of the fact that John Terry and Chelsea have appealed successfully against his dismissal against Manchester City on Saturday.
Manchester United are unable to appeal Vidic's red card, because it was two yellow cards, rather than a straight red, which is what Terry received. Mind you, I don't think that United would have held out much hope had they been allowed to petition the FA.
Frankly, Vidic could have been sent off for either one of his misdemeanours that led to cautions. They would still have been talking points and I'm not saying that either incident definitely warranted a red card by itself, but you could certainly see a case for it.
I think that Vidic, by virtue of one, the other or both, got what he deserved. He will not play against Chelsea on Sunday.
John Terry will. And I think that is absolutely correct.
Referees must deal in fact, and to me if anyone thinks that Terry was rightfully sent off then I believe they are clouded by a dislike for Terry, Chelsea, or both.
Let's deal in the facts.
Jo gets past Terry, and Terry attempts to hold him back. That's a foul. Terry deliberately did it, he knew what he was doing and it was cynical, so that's at least a booking.
It can become a red card if one of three things happen: it's violent conduct, it's serious foul play, or Jo has an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Straight of the Laws of the Game: "A player is guilty of violent conduct if using excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."
Looks like a double whammy there, since Terry did not use 'excessive force or brutality' and he was, at least loosely, challenging for the ball. 'Challenging for the ball' in this case, refers to an incident that takes place with the ball elsewhere.
Next, we'll look at serious foul play. "A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play."
Ah, so we have the ball being challenged for now, but we still don't have the 'excessive force or brutality.' As a matter of fact, he didn't catch Jo very high on his body or catch him that hard.
There's more to the law - "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." I don't think Jo's safety is particularly being endangered in this incident.
That's two possibilities down, so let's look at the one remaining reason, and the one I believe was given. Denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity. I have heard that Halsey has actually reported it as Serious Foul play, but that's even more ridiculous.
I'll give you the wording from the law book in full so you can see it for yourself.
"Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
- The distance between the offence and the goal
- The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- The direction of the play
- The location and number of defenders
- The offence which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or indirect free kick"
Looking at those five bullet points, I'd say the second, third and fifth support Mark Halsey's decision, but the first and fourth do not.
Firstly, the distance between the offence and the goal is virtually half of the pitch. Jo was in the centre circle when he was brought down. That's far too far out to be concerned with sending a player off for an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity'.
Next, 'the location and number of defenders'. (This is the point where you ignore the 'last man' theory but actually look at the proper law) Well there were two other defenders in reasonably close proximity to the incident. I am not saying that they definitely got there, and I'm not saying that Jo would not have danced past both and been through on the goalkeeper. What I am saying is that it was not an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' because it is far from sealed that Jo would get past the surrounding defending players.
As for the appeal itself, I'll admit to being surprised that this was overturned, mainly because there were so many ludicrous sendings off last season which were not thrown out (in some cases had games added to the suspension for 'frivolity') that I felt sure that the first high-profile incident this season would see the FA supporting their referee.
I am very pleased they didn't. In this new era of 'Respect' the managers and player ought to be respectful, but as one manager said at the weekend (I think it may have been David Moyes) Respect has to be earned.
If the FA support every decision blindly that is neither helping the Respect initiative nor helping the referees.
Finally, the biggest gripe in this whole situation has to be the fact that this appeal means Terry has no blip on his record. It is not a red card, for me, but it is obvious to everyone (including Frank Lampard in his post-match interview) that it was a cautionable offence.
Why can't it be downgraded to a yellow card? He deserves some sort of censure for the challenge.
Funnily enough, this could well fall into the subject I spoke about a few weeks ago, which is the sin-bin debate. This kind of tackle could well be considered worse than the standard booking, but not enough to merit a red card. Perhaps the sin bin is an answer.
Anyway, that is not an option right now. In situations like this you have to use the rule-book, and for once it is very clear and can assist us.
If, after reading the above, anyone still thinks that John Terry should have been sent off and his appeal quashed, I'd love to hear it.
Rob McNichol
Terry Appeal Exposes Holes In Rules
Posted 16/09/08 15:57EmailPrintSave
Nobody ever said life was fair.
If it was I'd be writing this from my penthouse suite in Sandbanks overlooking the sea, thinking about booking the jet to take me out to the Seychelles next week, while my live-in partner Kelly Brook asks if Nadine out of Girls Aloud can 'come to play' tonight.
As it is, I'm in my small office in my house, wearing socks with holes in them, bemoaning the fact that the girl I met Saturday who said she see me Monday never turned up, and I'm going nowhere near the Seychelles. Although I am working two days in Wolverhampton later this month. Exciting.
So life, in short, isn't fair. And neither is football.
And, after the weekend's fixtures, and looking ahead to next week's, there will be conflicting ideas between Manchester United fans and Chelsea fans about who has been harshly treated. Some will be suggesting -it's not fair.
I talk, obviously, about the fact that both Nemanja Vidic and John Terry - both centre halves, both enforcers, both important players for their respective sides - were sent off on Saturday.
But when Chelsea meet United next week, Terry will play. Vidic will not.
I speak of course of the fact that John Terry and Chelsea have appealed successfully against his dismissal against Manchester City on Saturday.
Manchester United are unable to appeal Vidic's red card, because it was two yellow cards, rather than a straight red, which is what Terry received. Mind you, I don't think that United would have held out much hope had they been allowed to petition the FA.
Frankly, Vidic could have been sent off for either one of his misdemeanours that led to cautions. They would still have been talking points and I'm not saying that either incident definitely warranted a red card by itself, but you could certainly see a case for it.
I think that Vidic, by virtue of one, the other or both, got what he deserved. He will not play against Chelsea on Sunday.
John Terry will. And I think that is absolutely correct.
Referees must deal in fact, and to me if anyone thinks that Terry was rightfully sent off then I believe they are clouded by a dislike for Terry, Chelsea, or both.
Let's deal in the facts.
Jo gets past Terry, and Terry attempts to hold him back. That's a foul. Terry deliberately did it, he knew what he was doing and it was cynical, so that's at least a booking.
It can become a red card if one of three things happen: it's violent conduct, it's serious foul play, or Jo has an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Straight of the Laws of the Game: "A player is guilty of violent conduct if using excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."
Looks like a double whammy there, since Terry did not use 'excessive force or brutality' and he was, at least loosely, challenging for the ball. 'Challenging for the ball' in this case, refers to an incident that takes place with the ball elsewhere.
Next, we'll look at serious foul play. "A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play."
Ah, so we have the ball being challenged for now, but we still don't have the 'excessive force or brutality.' As a matter of fact, he didn't catch Jo very high on his body or catch him that hard.
There's more to the law - "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." I don't think Jo's safety is particularly being endangered in this incident.
That's two possibilities down, so let's look at the one remaining reason, and the one I believe was given. Denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity. I have heard that Halsey has actually reported it as Serious Foul play, but that's even more ridiculous.
I'll give you the wording from the law book in full so you can see it for yourself.
"Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
- The distance between the offence and the goal
- The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- The direction of the play
- The location and number of defenders
- The offence which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or indirect free kick"
Looking at those five bullet points, I'd say the second, third and fifth support Mark Halsey's decision, but the first and fourth do not.
Firstly, the distance between the offence and the goal is virtually half of the pitch. Jo was in the centre circle when he was brought down. That's far too far out to be concerned with sending a player off for an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity'.
Next, 'the location and number of defenders'. (This is the point where you ignore the 'last man' theory but actually look at the proper law) Well there were two other defenders in reasonably close proximity to the incident. I am not saying that they definitely got there, and I'm not saying that Jo would not have danced past both and been through on the goalkeeper. What I am saying is that it was not an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' because it is far from sealed that Jo would get past the surrounding defending players.
As for the appeal itself, I'll admit to being surprised that this was overturned, mainly because there were so many ludicrous sendings off last season which were not thrown out (in some cases had games added to the suspension for 'frivolity') that I felt sure that the first high-profile incident this season would see the FA supporting their referee.
I am very pleased they didn't. In this new era of 'Respect' the managers and player ought to be respectful, but as one manager said at the weekend (I think it may have been David Moyes) Respect has to be earned.
If the FA support every decision blindly that is neither helping the Respect initiative nor helping the referees.
Finally, the biggest gripe in this whole situation has to be the fact that this appeal means Terry has no blip on his record. It is not a red card, for me, but it is obvious to everyone (including Frank Lampard in his post-match interview) that it was a cautionable offence.
Why can't it be downgraded to a yellow card? He deserves some sort of censure for the challenge.
Funnily enough, this could well fall into the subject I spoke about a few weeks ago, which is the sin-bin debate. This kind of tackle could well be considered worse than the standard booking, but not enough to merit a red card. Perhaps the sin bin is an answer.
Anyway, that is not an option right now. In situations like this you have to use the rule-book, and for once it is very clear and can assist us.
If, after reading the above, anyone still thinks that John Terry should have been sent off and his appeal quashed, I'd love to hear it.
Rob McNichol
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
According to the rules it was an incorrect decision, so I'm not surprised it was overturned.
MORALLY though, Terry fully deserved his marching orders. It was a cynical foul to deliberately bring down a player who had "done" him all ends up. Not a mistimed tackle, not a dangerous one, just a conciously cynical, illegal act (a rugby tackle !!) to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.
As the rules stand, the covering defender should have meant it was a yellow. The rule needs changing - a RUGBY tackle is a straight red and mandatory 3 match ban.
MORALLY though, Terry fully deserved his marching orders. It was a cynical foul to deliberately bring down a player who had "done" him all ends up. Not a mistimed tackle, not a dangerous one, just a conciously cynical, illegal act (a rugby tackle !!) to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.
As the rules stand, the covering defender should have meant it was a yellow. The rule needs changing - a RUGBY tackle is a straight red and mandatory 3 match ban.
Am I allowed to be PISSED OFF because the FA seem happy to overturn incorrect decisions at the top end of the league, but our loan player who got sent off because of play acting will wrongly end up sitting out 3 matches because he's not important enough?
I guess you could argue he might have gone with his first yellow but can you remember a lower league player EVER having a dubious red card rescinded?
I guess you could argue he might have gone with his first yellow but can you remember a lower league player EVER having a dubious red card rescinded?
Spot on. What a crock of shit that rule is.
A 3 match ban for the Terry incident would be insane considering Danny Guthrie is getting roughly that length ban for ACTUAL ASSAULT.
It wasn't even a red card. It was a cynical yellow. Nothing more.
And everyone who keeps referring to it as a "rugby tackle" obviously only played touch rugby. That is the wussiest "rugby tackle" I've ever seen in my life.
It wasn't even a red card. It was a cynical yellow. Nothing more.
And everyone who keeps referring to it as a "rugby tackle" obviously only played touch rugby. That is the wussiest "rugby tackle" I've ever seen in my life.
Mendoza
NSC's Most Stalked
So not only does Terry get away with it, he gets to play against Man United, and Halsey, who still stands by his decision as correct is overturned by the FA, and SUSPENDED from refereeing the Premier League for 1 week and ORDERED to referee Chester vs Shrewsbury
Sake!!!
Sake!!!
By your own rules, Croatia should've been down to around 6 men against England then. Countless cynical obstructions when their players knew they had been beaten.
Terry doesn't get away with anything. He was wrongly red carded.