John Terry

[Common as Mook]

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.

By the same token then, should Scholes have MORALLY received a STRAIGHT red card for his punched goal against Zenit

 

[Barrel of Fun]

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!!!

The last part of your post just about sums up what the FA think of lower league football. Feck 'em.

 

[Easy 10]

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.

And the problem with that would be.....?

We're talking about deliberate, cynical fouls to bring down a player after the defender has been skinned. Not a mistimed tackle, not even a dangerous one. Just a concious decision to "take someone out" regardless. Those instances where there is NO attempt to play the ball whatsoever. I appreciate its not always as cut and dried as that, which is where some discretion has to come into play of course. But we've seen 2 challenges this weekend that were INDISPUTABLY nothing to do with the ball at all - John Terrys, and Danny Guthries.

BOTH of those should be punishable by a red, not just Guthries (and I would also have extended Guthries ban like they did for Ben Thatcher, because that wasn't a tackle - it was an assault).

 

[keaton]

I still think it's red because of excessive force when not challenging for the ball

 

[Common as Mook]

And the problem with that would be.....?

We're talking about deliberate, cynical fouls to bring down a player after the defender has been skinned. Not a mistimed tackle, not even a dangerous one. Just a concious decision to "take someone out" regardless. Those instances where there is NO attempt to play the ball whatsoever. I appreciate its not always as cut and dried as that, which is where some discretion has to come into play of course. But we've seen 2 challenges this weekend that were INDISPUTABLY nothing to do with the ball at all - John Terrys, and Danny Guthries.

BOTH of those should be punishable by a red, not just Guthries (and I would also have extended Guthries ban like they did for Ben Thatcher, because that wasn't a tackle - it was an assault).

So Vidic sticking his leg out when the ball was knocked past him doesn't count then? That was very deliberate.

 

[Mellotron]

And the problem with that would be.....?

We're talking about deliberate, cynical fouls to bring down a player after the defender has been skinned. Not a mistimed tackle, not even a dangerous one. Just a concious decision to "take someone out" regardless. Those instances where there is NO attempt to play the ball whatsoever. I appreciate its not always as cut and dried as that, which is where some discretion has to come into play of course. But we've seen 2 challenges this weekend that were INDISPUTABLY nothing to do with the ball at all - John Terrys, and Danny Guthries.

BOTH of those should be punishable by a red, not just Guthries (and I would also have extended Guthries ban like they did for Ben Thatcher, because that wasn't a tackle - it was an assault).

So all deliberate obstructions should be red cards? That seems to be what you are describing. That would mean an average of 3 or 4 reds a game.

 

[Mellotron]

I still think it's red because of excessive force when not challenging for the ball

I wouldn't argue it was "excessive" force. Kicking someone Guthrie style is excessive force. I very much doubt Terry hurt Jo at all.

 

[Easy 10]

By the same token then, should Scholes have MORALLY received a STRAIGHT red card for his punched goal against Zenit

Interesting question. Obviously thats not the rule at the moment, but we're again talking abuot a deliberate, cynical act to alter the course of a game. Nobody FORCES the likes of Scholes to punch the ball into the net to try for a sneaky goal. Nobody FORCES John Terry into a rugby tackle to stop a 1 on 1. These players have to weigh things up and make a concious decision to do it - and they decide do it because the punishment isn't very harsh, so its "worth a go".

Maybe the punishments should be harsher for this kind of cheating. Its supposed to be a deterrant, after all.

 

[Mendoza]

So all deliberate obstructions should be red cards? That seems to be what you are describing. That would mean an average of 3 or 4 reds a game.

and what a game it would be, 9 a side on a full size pitch = GOALS

it may also stop dickhead over paid primadonnas from making stupid tackles, and actually play the game properly?

 

[keaton]

I wouldn't argue it was "excessive" force. Kicking someone Guthrie style is excessive force. I very much doubt Terry hurt Jo at all.

But it's excessive because he's not allowed to do that. To me brushing arms would be none excessive, but it's excessive to hold a player back

 

[Easy 10]

So all deliberate obstructions should be red cards? That seems to be what you are describing. That would mean an average of 3 or 4 reds a game.

No.
It would mean players would have to DECIDE to stop doing it. They only do it now because they know it'll usually be (at worse) a yellow, so its worth the risk. If they know its a mandatory red card, then eventually they'll stop doing it.

Unless they're stupid.

 

[Elder for England]

I wouldn't argue it was "excessive" force. Kicking someone Guthrie style is excessive force. I very much doubt Terry hurt Jo at all.

People aren't talking about whether 'he hurt Jo' at all, it's different to Guthrie's in that sense, but one thing is the same, the intent.

 

[fatbadger]

It was serious foul play, as indeed that twat Lampard effectively admitted when supposedly defending Terry in the post-match interview. Included in the description of serious foul play is the kind of cynical action where a foul is committed solely to prevent a more serious (for the defending side) result. What makes Terry's foul particularly cynical was his awareness - as expressed later by Lampard - that he "should" get a yellow card for the offence.

Terry's foul was a cynical attempt to play the rules; it was, therefore, serious foul play; it was, therefore, a sending-off.

 

[Easy 10]

I'm not whiter than white here by the way. I can't remember who it was, but on one of Scunthorpes numerous breakaways against us the other week, one of their players was bearing down on our backpeddling, undermanned defence (again), and one of our players came up behind, deliberately clipped his heels and sent him sprawling. Not a dangerous tackle, just a cynical one. No attempt at the ball whatsoever, but it stopped a very dangerous attack in its tracks, at the expense of a free kick (that came to nothing) and a yellow card.

As soon as he'd done it, I turned to my mate with relief and said "good foul, that". And it was. It stopped a probable goal. Under the current rules, thats not a red card. Maybe it should be though.

 

[Mendoza]

If it was or wasnt a red, there are 2 things that I think should NOT have happened in the aftermath.

1) Frank Lampard questioning the decision in the papers the Monday after

2) the suspension of the ref for 1 game and make him ref League 2

The FA are at fault for both happening, and they should look at themselves to stop it happening again.

If they want a respect the ref campaign, DONT let the Chelsea players surround the ref, as what happened after the incident, and DONT let Lampard mouth off about the decision in the press 2 days later. Both these have gone unpunished, and it leaves the FA open to more abuse/bending of the rules.

As for making Halsey ref Chester vs Shrewsbury, that is a laughing stock too.

 

[fatbadger]

As usual, David Lacey, man of reason and decency (and Brighton fan), gets it absolutely right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/sep/20/1

 

[Easy 10]

And so does Patric Collins

A raw deal for the ref who sent Terry off

It was an odious piece of injustice. John Terry of Chelsea, having tripped, manhandled and cut down an opponent, had his red card rescinded and was allowed to play in the most important club match of the season so far.

While Mark Halsey, the referee who made the brave, honest and, in my view, correct decision to send Terry off, was officially humiliated. Another triumph for the dullards who run our national game.

Those of us who attended the Manchester City v Chelsea match last week were divided about the wisdom of Halsey's decision.

But there was agreement that he had a serious case, that if he considered the sheer cynicism of Terry's challenge equated to serious foul play, then he was within his rights to dismiss the player. The fact that Terry argued endlessly with the referee, then confronted the linesman, made it still more difficult to regard him as the victim.

Still, he had supporters and they included Graham Poll, the former referee and jobbing celebrity, who thought the decision 'very hard on the England captain'.

This was the same Poll who used to complain about the lack of support he received during his own chequered career. Then there was Chelsea's decision to employ a Queen's Counsel to plead Terry's case. It was classic, wad-waving Chelsea. 'We'll need a lawyer, of course' . . . 'Nah, we don't wanna lawyer. What we want is a Q bleeding C!' So they threw money at the problem.

And money spoke, as it usually does. Then there was the decision to pack Halsey off to the League Two match between Chester and Shrewsbury.

Quite apart from the implied insult to a pair of decent football clubs, it carried echoes of the Soviet era, when apparatchiks deemed idealogically suspect were packed off to run a power station in Omsk. Mark Halsey deserved much better. He deserved, to quote the title of a recent FA initiative, Respect. He wasn't given it. A good referee was despicably undermined. And now the game must cope with the consequences.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

Did anyone else enjoy El-Abd's rugby tackle after about 15mins?? Who thought it should have a red card.....