Murphy's red card

[Sheebo]

Jamie has never had a red card in his career prior to this one I don't think. In fact I think he has actually went through about 4 different full seasons without even picking up one yellow card and in the seasons he has picked up cards it has never been more than 2 or 3 per season

On a side note (and I know you know a fair bit about Murphy & tipped him for success AND to sign here : ) - how GOOD has he been the last few games - looks a class signing

 

[JonathanLivingstonSeagull]

a) it looked bad

b) he slipped

c) honestly who would ever tackle like that. even the worst kind of red-card machine nutcase would try and actually tackle (horrendously of course) in the actual direction of the sodding ****ing ball

 

[atomised]

Argus say this morning that we will hear today

 

[NooBHA]

On a side note (and I know you know a fair bit about Murphy & tipped him for success AND to sign here : ) - how GOOD has he been the last few games - looks a class signing

To be honest when you say I ''tipped'' him to sign. I can't claim really the credit for that. After all, I did have insider information. He is excellent player though but he does lack power in his shooting, although he is getting coaching on his technique at the moment to try and improve that

 

[pasty]

Odd quote in The Argus today...

But Bolton-based former Premier League referee Mark Halsey has said he would be amazed if the red card shown by Mark Haywood was overturned. Halsey told the Bolton News: “I have a bit of sympathy for the Brighton winger. “There was a slip and I’m sure it wasn’t intentional. But, by the letter of the law, intent does not come into it.”

So Halsey has acknowledged he slipped AND that there was no intent, but still thinks Haywood was right to send him off? Don't get it.

 

[Easy 10]

The FA don't like overturning decisions - if there's a sliver of doubt then they always stick to giving the benefit of that doubt to their referees.

I don't expect to see it overturned.

 

[BensGrandad]

Odd quote in The Argus today...



So Halsey has acknowledged he slipped AND that there was no intent, but still thinks Haywood was right to send him off? Don't get it.

I took his comment to mean that the rule didnt mean intent had to be shown and that it was irrelevant whether he intended the foul or not. Not that he should be granted the appeal because no intent was meant.

 

[nwgull]

The FA don't like overturning decisions - if there's a sliver of doubt then they always stick to giving the benefit of that doubt to their referees.

I don't expect to see it overturned.

I agree with this. Although you'd hope that the club wouldn't have appealed without getting some advice on the chances of success first.

 

[DJ Leon]

Odd quote in The Argus today...



So Halsey has acknowledged he slipped AND that there was no intent, but still thinks Haywood was right to send him off? Don't get it.

Because intent has nothing to do with it. What he was thinking as he made the tackle is irrelevant.

 

[pasty]

I took his comment to mean that the rule didnt mean intent had to be shown and that it was irrelevant whether he intended the foul or not. Not that he should be granted the appeal because no intent was meant.

Because intent has nothing to do with it. What he was thinking as he made the tackle is irrelevant.

I take your point about the intent, but surely if he has acknowledged the slip, that means the resulting "tackle" was accidental? If the laws state you can be sent off for an accidental challenge, then the laws I'm afraid are an ass.

 

[wallyback]

Because intent has nothing to do with it. What he was thinking as he made the tackle is irrelevant.

I thought intent was valid.

I seem to remember a player getting sent off for a tackle that did not make contact.

May be reckless is different from intent?

 

[Acker79]

I thought intent was valid.

I seem to remember a player getting sent off for a tackle that did not make contact.

May be reckless is different from intent?

Intent doesn't matter in this situation. If you hurt someone, it doesn't matter whether you intended to.

If you are intending to hurt someone, or if you are intended to go into a challenge that risks the safety of your opponent, but don't connect with the opponent then your intent becomes relevant.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Intent doesn't matter in this situation. If you hurt someone, it doesn't matter whether you intended to.

If you are intending to hurt someone, or if you are intended to go into a challenge that risks the safety of your opponent, but don't connect with the opponent then your intent becomes relevant.

This brings me back to the Newport County game and Calderon. The other player's leg was broken, but Calde's red card was overturned.

 

[perseus]

Was it reckless?

 

[Acker79]

This brings me back to the Newport County game and Calderon. The other player's leg was broken, but Calde's red card was overturned.

I don't really remember that challenge well enough to try to explain the difference.

 

[Nathan]

I don't really remember that challenge well enough to try to explain the difference.

It was a 50/50 ball that Calde won, and as the other bloke was late Calde thought it would be a good idea to teach him a lesson and so he broke his leg. Don't mess with Calde. The guys at the FA know this, hence they overturned the red card. Not sure Murphy will be so lucky.

 

[symyjym]

Was it reckless?

The rolling about on the pitch afterwards was feckless.

 

[Nathan]

Just over 48 hours until match time and we still don't know if he can play - what a joke.

 

[dazzer6666]

Just over 48 hours until match time and we still don't know if he can play - what a joke.

It is, but not helping Cardiff a lot either..........joke for both teams

 

[Machiavelli]

Just over 48 hours until match time and we still don't know if he can play - what a joke.

We'll know today, Naylor informs us, so there might be a further nine hours to wait. Given that the suits are no doubt planning on gorging themselves later, I suspect we'll know within two or three hours.