[Football] Mounie red card..(Hudds lodge - and lose - appeal)

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

For me its all about intent.

If he is genuinely trying to win the ball, then for me its a yellow. I still think Stephens at Cardiff was a yellow and Stephens at Boro wasn't even a foul, but even if you accept that Stephens should have got a red at Cardiff I still think Mounie's was a yellow. Ditto Balogun's challenge later

If he deliberately thought he's just leave his foot in and catch Bissouma, then its a red all day long.

My suspicion is that Oliver has called the second one and done him on a nasty piece of gamesmanship. My feeling from Mounie's less than overt protests is that he knows he's bang to rights.

'Lack of intent' was how Shearer got away with elbowing every number 4 and 3 in the league in the face week after week with no come-uppance. You can't referee a game based on suppositions about motive. Personally I think that if you go in studs up it should be a straight red even if no contact is made. Just as I think that if I get stopped in my car and am twice over the limit I should be banned - regardless of whether I have been driving carefully or whether I have wrecklessly mown down some kiddies.

I really don't understand what passes as thought process among some folks. Sorry if that sounds a bit rude - it was unintentional, so....

 

[Billy the Fish]

Yellow

[tweet]1069718548300423174[/tweet]

He didn't mean it, he's not that type of player.

 

[drew]

'Lack of intent' was how Shearer got away with elbowing every number 4 and 3 in the league in the face week after week with no come-uppance. You can't referee a game based on suppositions about motive. Personally I think that if you go in studs up it should be a straight red even if no contact is made. Just as I think that if I get stopped in my car and am twice over the limit I should be banned - regardless of whether I have been driving carefully or whether I have wrecklessly mown down some kiddies.

I really don't understand what passes as thought process among some folks. Sorry if that sounds a bit rude - it was unintentional, so....

Intrigued as to what positions 3 and 4 are? My recollection is that they are left back and a midfielder!

 

[GOM]

Replies to their club tweet about the appeal being rejected: Michael Oliver is a Newcastle fan (), the FA don't give them decisions because they 'refused to' put money into Scudamore's pot (), refs don't give them decisions because they want them to get relegated ().

Seems to be something in the water in Yorkshire.

Newcastle people would be upset that you have put them in Yorkshire.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Intrigued as to what positions 3 and 4 are? My recollection is that they are left back and a midfielder!

In old money 2 and 3 were your centre backs, 4, 5 and 6 were your half backs. Modern game though, I always thought 2 and 3 were your full backs, 5 and 6 your centre halves, 4 and 8 centre of midfield, 7 and 11 your wingers, 9 and 10 up front. Life was simpler back then.

 

[drew]

In old money 2 and 3 were your centre backs, 4, 5 and 6 were your half backs. Modern game though, I always thought 2 and 3 were your full backs, 5 and 6 your centre halves, 4 and 8 centre of midfield, 7 and 11 your wingers, 9 and 10 up front. Life was simpler back then.

Agree with 2 and 3 as full backs and 5 and 6 as centre backs. That's what is was when I first played back in the 70s.

 

[Grassman]

In old money 2 and 3 were your centre backs, 4, 5 and 6 were your half backs. Modern game though, I always thought 2 and 3 were your full backs, 5 and 6 your centre halves, 4 and 8 centre of midfield, 7 and 11 your wingers, 9 and 10 up front. Life was simpler back then.

Wardy wore number 8. And in to the 90s our midfielders wore 4 and 10. Strikers wore 8 and 9.

 

[Brovion]

We didn't appeal the Stephens red against Cardiff, which was described similarly by the press, so the evidence suggests we wouldn't have.

Correct. We've learnt our lesson. Unless a red is totally 100% undeserved it won't be overturned. Saying they're 'harsh, 'soft', 'biased', 'conned' etc means nothing; the FA will always support their officials.

 

[Curious Orange]

And in to the 90s our midfielders wore 4 and 10.

Wilkins and Codnor, now there was a fearsome midfield duo!

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

'Lack of intent' was how Shearer got away with elbowing every number 4 and 3 in the league in the face week after week with no come-uppance. You can't referee a game based on suppositions about motive. Personally I think that if you go in studs up it should be a straight red even if no contact is made. Just as I think that if I get stopped in my car and am twice over the limit I should be banned - regardless of whether I have been driving carefully or whether I have wrecklessly mown down some kiddies.

I really don't understand what passes as thought process among some folks. Sorry if that sounds a bit rude - it was unintentional, so....

I fully accept that intent is not written in the law..... but we have found ourselves in a world where Mounie mistimes a tackle, tries to withdraw his foot and catches Bissouma not at pace; or where Stephens goes in 50-50 with a Cardiff player, wins the ball and catches the late-arriving Cardiff player - and both have an identical punishment to that Britos fellow decking Knockaert at pace last year or Knockaert launching himself at Baines (in which he didn't make contact I believe, but definitely deserved to go...) .....

so thats my annoyance with where the red card situation is at the moment...

As for the ref not judging on intent .... again I go back to my unanswered hypothetical from earlier - Hemed deliberately treds on that Newcastle player - should be a red card - Hemed accidentally treds on that Newcastle player when landing awkwardly from a challenge - shouldn't be punished - how can the referee decide what decision to make if he isn't judging intent.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I fully accept that intent is not written in the law..... but we have found ourselves in a world where Mounie mistimes a tackle, tries to withdraw his foot and catches Bissouma not at pace; or where Stephens goes in 50-50 with a Cardiff player, wins the ball and catches the late-arriving Cardiff player - and both have an identical punishment to that Britos fellow decking Knockaert at pace last year or Knockaert launching himself at Baines (in which he didn't make contact I believe, but definitely deserved to go...) .....

so thats my annoyance with where the red card situation is at the moment...

As for the ref not judging on intent .... again I go back to my unanswered hypothetical from earlier - Hemed deliberately treds on that Newcastle player - should be a red card - Hemed accidentally treds on that Newcastle player when landing awkwardly from a challenge - shouldn't be punished - how can the referee decide what decision to make if he isn't judging intent.

We could argue all day, but Mounie didn't miss time anything, classic leaving your foot in knowing it will look like you're going for the ball, but you get to leave one on your opponent. Had my shin pad split in two by some idiot exactly the same way, a striker leaving their foot there.

Also I didn't think Stephens was a 50-50, a 50-50 is when both players are equal distance and need to go in equal to contest the ball. The opponent in the Stephen's red was comfortably ahead and had already taken a touch, he wasn't even tackling as he was already there, Stephens only turned it into a 50-50 by launching into a tackle. I didn't really have any issue with that red either.

 

[dazzer6666]

We could argue all day, but Mounie didn't miss time anything, classic leaving your foot in knowing it will look like you're going for the ball, but you get to leave one on your opponent. Had my shin pad split in two by some idiot exactly the same way, a striker leaving their foot there.

Also I didn't think Stephens was a 50-50, a 50-50 is when both players are equal distance and need to go in equal to contest the ball. The opponent in the Stephen's red was comfortably ahead and had already taken a touch, he wasn't even tackling as he was already there, Stephens only turned it into a 50-50 by launching into a tackle. I didn't really have any issue with that red either.

Nailed it in both cases.

 

[Weststander]

Wilkins and Codnor, now there was a fearsome midfield duo!

Ryan Harley was our all time enforcer.

 

[Taybha]

We didn't appeal the Stephens red against Cardiff, which was described similarly by the press, so the evidence suggests we wouldn't have.

No it doesn’t.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

We could argue all day, but Mounie didn't miss time anything, classic leaving your foot in knowing it will look like you're going for the ball, but you get to leave one on your opponent. Had my shin pad split in two by some idiot exactly the same way, a striker leaving their foot there.

Aren't we going backwards a bit there though, ascribing intent to Mounie's foul? fwiw I'm inclined to believe exactly the same as you, and more pertinently believe that Oliver thought that too, but many on here want to tell us that we can't ascribe intent to 'leave one on your opponent' so all we are left with is a fairly innocuous challenge that he did try and pull out of

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I fully accept that intent is not written in the law..... but we have found ourselves in a world where Mounie mistimes a tackle, tries to withdraw his foot and catches Bissouma not at pace; or where Stephens goes in 50-50 with a Cardiff player, wins the ball and catches the late-arriving Cardiff player - and both have an identical punishment to that Britos fellow decking Knockaert at pace last year or Knockaert launching himself at Baines (in which he didn't make contact I believe, but definitely deserved to go...) .....

so thats my annoyance with where the red card situation is at the moment...

As for the ref not judging on intent .... again I go back to my unanswered hypothetical from earlier - Hemed deliberately treds on that Newcastle player - should be a red card - Hemed accidentally treds on that Newcastle player when landing awkwardly from a challenge - shouldn't be punished - how can the referee decide what decision to make if he isn't judging intent.

By how dangerous it is. You can't judge intent, that's why it isn't in the law. You can look at something and judge how dangerous it is though.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

By how dangerous it is. You can't judge intent, that's why it isn't in the law. You can look at something and judge how dangerous it is though.

No........ I don't think so. People get sent off for the most innocuous headbutts - and rightly so. If Hemed deliberately trod on the Newcastle player he was rightly banned - but it wasn't particularly dangerous

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I think people seem to be missing the key point here: all this whining about the (correct, IMHO) big decisions in the game are just a smokescreen from the Pound Shop Klopp.

His team have just ballsed up the chance of a third win in a row against opponents whom they would quite rightly have had down as a potential source of three points. Particularly when they took the lead after 55 seconds.

Watch how badly their entire defence switch off when Bruno hooks that ball back into play prior to Duffy's goal. Watch how they're all stood like statues as big Shane thunders through to bury the header.

Watch how the centre half is beaten to a header by the considerably shorter Andone for the winner.

Piss poor defending on both counts, but no. You blame the referee, Dave. I'm not having this "but we had ten men for all that time" rubbish. Ten men makes little or no difference to a game. Get up, start passing the ball to your team mates, and get on with it. Or, sit there, feel sorry for yourself because the nasty mean officials keep favouring all the Big Clubs like, er, Brighton & Hove Albion and gift three points to your opposition.

Well done, Dave. Well done. It's the ref's fault, not yours. Of course it is.

PS: how amusing to see angry little Pritchard in amongst all that. Loved it.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

No........ I don't think so. People get sent off for the most innocuous headbutts - and rightly so. If Hemed deliberately trod on the Newcastle player he was rightly banned - but it wasn't particularly dangerous

But serious foul play and violent conduct are different offences albeit with the same outcome. This thread is about fouls and therefore about serious foul play; in this regard intent is simply not a part of the rule because it can't be gauged. You're moving into the realms of violent conduct with Hemed's 'stamp'.

 

[Medwayseagull]

Aren't we going backwards a bit there though, ascribing intent to Mounie's foul? fwiw I'm inclined to believe exactly the same as you, and more pertinently believe that Oliver thought that too, but many on here want to tell us that we can't ascribe intent to 'leave one on your opponent' so all we are left with is a fairly innocuous challenge that he did try and pull out of

It didn't look innocuous from that state of YB's shin afterwards !