Murray red card appeal REJECTED

[Seasidesage]

Unlikely to be overturned but should be, it's arguably not a clear goalscoring opportunity as there are plenty of players in the way and even if it is, a penalty is supposed to be deemed sufficient punishment. But as others have said they side with the Ref's mostly.

 

[Postman Pat]

In today's Argus:

Albion’s appeal against Murray’s red for blocking a Glen Loovens shot with his hands goes before an FA hearing this afternoon. It is based on the fact that goalkeeper David Stockdale had the shot covered.

 

[Triggaaar]

Surely with all the concerns and information coming through these days from sports science about concussions in sport a player protecting their head from a potentially severe impact should be acceptable. Fair enough a penalty but if a player is expected to get seriously injured and discouraged from protecting themselves to avoid getting a red card then the game and its ruling body are a joke.

Good point. This should be sent to the panel.

 

[Triggaaar]

We have been very lucky

What? How have we been so very lucky?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I've heard the pundits describe the difference between deliberate and accidental handball by assessing whether the player specifically moved their arm/hand towards the ball to make deliberate contact or whether the arm made no specific movement towards the ball but the ball made contact with the arm/hand.

I think this gets abbreviated to: was it hand to ball, or ball to hand? Don't think Murray moved his arms, they were already close / in front of his face when the ball was struck.
Is accidental handball a straight red offence? Is it even a booking?

But like others have said, won't get overturned a FA don't like to undermine their refs ....

The principle here though, is not whether it was deliberate or not (it clearly was, albeit probably instinctive). The handball itself justifies the penalty being awarded under the laws of the game.

The red card debate centres on whether the act denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. The rule is in place to stop the classic diving saves outfield players make on the line when their keeper is beaten. Was that a clear goalscoring opportunity if Murray hadn't handled it? I don't think it was, as the shot is clearly bound for Stockdale.

That said, I also know well that the FA are buffoons, so am fairly confident the official's decision will stand and Murray's suspension will remain in place.

Incidentally, we do seem a bit prone to this sort of thing lately. Aside from Bruno's inexplicable handball at Craven Cottage, somebody else- I think Bruno again- handled the ball in the box at PNE the other week. That was a moment where the away fans held their breath (and the home ones moaned, Northern-ly).

 

[Triggaaar]

Surely if it was to protect his face, then his face would have stopped the ball. So, Weds weren't denied a goal scoring opportunity.

I'd have thought there were very good grounds to have it over-turned ... but then I thought there were good grounds to have Stephens' over-turned last season and I was wrong about that

And the red card Murphy got for falling over.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

The shot was hit with such force from about 3 yards away knocked him clean off his feet! If he hadn't protected himself it could have caused a serious injury as his face was directly in line! Besides the ball hitting his face, stockdale was right behind it too judging from one of the angles showing the direction of the ball! Penalty yes, red card no!

It wasn't the force of the shot that knocked him clean off his feet, he was already jumping/throwing himself towards the ball to block the shot. He raises his arms when he realises that the ball is heading towards his face. He was never likely to land back on his feet having jumped to block the shot anyway.

Unlikely to be overturned but should be, it's arguably not a clear goalscoring opportunity as there are plenty of players in the way and even if it is, a penalty is supposed to be deemed sufficient punishment. But as others have said they side with the Ref's mostly.

There were not plenty of players in the way, the only other person between Murray and the goal is David Stockdale, who is pretty much right behind Murray when the shot is struck. That should be enough for it to not be deemed a clear goal scoring opportunity.

 

[marlowe]

The shot was was of such ferocity that had it been Calderon standing there in Murray's place he would have taken the ball full in the face whereupon the sheer velocity of the impact would have driven the ball up the entire length of the pitch, taking their goalkeeper completely by surprise and into the opposing net. We then would have been 2-1 up courtesy of Calderon's face and there would be no need for all this hullabaloo over the appeal.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[tweet]823477940855902208[/tweet]

 

[Normski1989]

I don't think there's much chance of the red card being overturned. I'd be very surprised if it is.

 

[bhanutz]

[tweet]823477940855902208[/tweet]

Lets hope the ref is Mark Halsey, he thought it should only have been a yellow!

 

[Mackenzie]

[tweet]823477940855902208[/tweet]

Kelvin Morton, Mark Bright, Alan Pardew.

 

[Triggaaar]

The principle here though, is not whether it was deliberate or not (it clearly was, albeit probably instinctive).

If it's instinct, then it's not deliberate. For something to be deliberate it has to be a conscious choice.

The penalty is a fair decision because his hands were in an unnatural position (even before the ball was struck).

The red card debate centres on whether the act denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. The rule is in place to stop the classic diving saves outfield players make on the line when their keeper is beaten. Was that a clear goalscoring opportunity if Murray hadn't handled it? I don't think it was, as the shot is clearly bound for Stockdale.

Agreed, although I think it would have hit Murray's face before Stockdale had a chance to save it.

That said, I also know well that the FA are buffoons, so am fairly confident the official's decision will stand and Murray's suspension will remain in place.

Indeed.

Aside from Bruno's inexplicable handball at Craven Cottage

Which was accidental, didn't give us an advantage etc. He just lost track of where the ball was and it hit his arm.

 

[Sweeney Todd]

We all know what the score will be: one-nil to the referee.

 

[AmexRuislip]

We all know what the score will be: one-nil to the referee.

Perhaps if we tug hard enough on the refs shorts, he might reverse the red to a yellow.
Reverse physcology from the Mike Dean event, last season at Middlesborough

 

[LlcoolJ]

Perhaps if we tug hard enough on the refs shorts, he might reverse the red to a yellow.
Reverse physcology from the Mike Dean event, last season at Middlesborough

Murray should have knocked the red card out of his hand. Apparently that's a legitimate way of making a referee change his mind.

 

[Postman Pat]

The shot was was of such ferocity that had it been Calderon standing there in Murray's place he would have taken the ball full in the face whereupon the sheer velocity of the impact would have driven the ball up the entire length of the pitch, taking their goalkeeper completely by surprise and into the opposing net. We then would have been 2-1 up courtesy of Calderon's face and there would be no need for all this hullabaloo over the appeal.

Is that the goalscoring opportunity that Murray actually denied, one for us not Wednesday?

 

[chaileyjem]

talking of refs . this is a good piece on Mike Dean in the New York Times of all places.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/...premier-league-mike-dean-soccer-mistakes.html

 

[AmexRuislip]

Murray should have knocked the red card out of his hand. Apparently that's a legitimate way of making a referee change his mind.

Even better idea

 

[AmexRuislip]

talking of refs . this is a good piece on Mike Dean in the New York Times of all places.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/...premier-league-mike-dean-soccer-mistakes.html

A candidate for Trumps representative for the NRA!