Never a red + we had boro bricking it

[Sam Ovett]

Just read the Guardian review and Stephen's challenge is derided as "ghastly... late, high and with studs up". I can buy the last two but I simply don't get how the challenge can be defined as late when he won the ball. I know I'm viewing this with Albion tinted spectacles but, try as I might, I cannot see that as being a red card. I was driving home when it happened and there was unanimity from the Talk Sport crew (my car's is too old and crap for digital radio) that it wasn't a red card offence.

Are you expecting anything other than catastrophising outrage from The Guardian?

 

[Technohead]

Good point - anybody any idea?

He wasn't already on a yellow ... Knocky had got a yellow earlier in the game. And Ramirez was clearly wearing shin pads.

 

[origigull]

My take on the red card is that as Stevens won the ball his leg is going down as the Boro player's leg is coming up and the his leg kicks the studs of Dale's. (Dale was quicker to the ball). I don't think it was a red as I don't think a foul was committed but I am not a ref only a fan. We will have to wait and see if the FL/panel will rescind the red. But if they do the ref might have cost us the win.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

I'm honestly amazed at the amount of people who think that was a red. When the ball is mid air like that, it is natural to challenge with your foot/studs at that angle and the exact same can be said of his follow through. After winning the ball it is natural motion. There is absolutely no excessive force and no intent. It is a terrible decision based on a cut.

 

[Parmo_Jaramillo]

It was nasty but I think the decision falls on whether or not there was malicious intent to hurt Ramirez. You can only go on the images or whatever lies in the referees report. If the challenge was deemed just a 'bad challenge' with no intent, then its a yellow.

It will be interesting to see if the FA fall on their sword on this one. They are normally a useless bunch of twats though.

 

[nwgull]

Have there been any examples recently of reds being recinded? I can't think of any successful appeals.

 

[jackalbion]

Have there been any examples recently of reds being recinded? I can't think of any successful appeals.

Calderon V Newport is the only one for us that I can remember similarish situation to this as well

 

[Albumen]

I'd love to know what the linesman thinks he saw to change the refs mind from a yellow. So far I've seen nothing to say it was anything more than a fair tackle, and an accident. The ref was only going to give a yellow following the little push n shove a minute earlier. Total gobshite referring.

 

[nwgull]

Calderon V Newport is the only one for us that I can remember similarish situation to this as well

Of course; how could I forget! That was a very similar case where the card was given for the injury and not the challenge.

 

[GloryDays]

Shinpads

 

[jackalbion]

Of course; how could I forget! That was a very similar case where the card was given for the injury and not the challenge.

Exactly gives me hope this one might be successful, but have a feeling due to the occasion the FA won't follow through with it as it would undermine promotion for Boro

 

[warmleyseagull]

I'm honestly amazed at the amount of people who think that was a red. When the ball is mid air like that, it is natural to challenge with your foot/studs at that angle and the exact same can be said of his follow through. After winning the ball it is natural motion. There is absolutely no excessive force and no intent. It is a terrible decision based on a cut.

Not so sure it is 'natural'; the risk of using studs to win/control a ball is exactly what did happen: the follow through causes damage to an opponent. You can use the natural argument for almost any offence such as Barton's 'natural' foot placement on Kayal's hand. Stephens wasnt malicious but I can see the challenge being deemed to be reckless. I agree that ref was influenced, but surely using the studs as a method of ball control is unwise.

I think the problem is more that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence - have never quite understood why straight red is 3 game ban and 2 yellows is one (only more if done before, as with Dunk).

It is all very frustrating as we were in ascendancy at time. Whatever, we have to assume Sidwell will be playing for three games and make the best of it.

 

[clippedgull]

[tweet]728985270473895936[/tweet]

 

[clippedgull]

and

[tweet]728975771075760128[/tweet]

 

[Blues Rock DJ]

reckon he felt intimidated by the stewards/police in their flourescent coats #gangingup..........only he knows why he changed his mind.

 

[Acker79]

I think the problem is more that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence - have never quite understood why straight red is 3 game ban and 2 yellows is one (only more if done before, as with Dunk).

It's not. A straight red can be a one, two or three match ban, depending on the offence. It's violent conduct/serious foul play that is a three game ban, not the red card itself.

Two yellow card worthy offences in one match (which be a reckless challenge, taking your shirt off celebrating a goal, time wasting) = one match ban,
A single incident of serious foul play/violent conduct = three match ban

It doesn't seem so disproportionate, does it?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

[tweet]728985270473895936[/tweet]

Literally unbelievable refereeing. Shockingly poor.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

It's not. A straight red can be a one, two or three match ban, depending on the offence. It's violent conduct/serious foul play that is a three game ban, not the red card itself.

Two yellow card worthy offences in one match (which be a reckless challenge, taking your shirt off celebrating a goal, time wasting) = one match ban,
A single incident of serious foul play/violent conduct = three match ban

It doesn't seem so disproportionate, does it?

Indeed. Certainly disproportionate in this case though, given that 'reckless challenge' is about the worst you could conceivably level at Stephens.

 

[Seasider78]

Not so sure it is 'natural'; the risk of using studs to win/control a ball is exactly what did happen: the follow through causes damage to an opponent. You can use the natural argument for almost any offence such as Barton's 'natural' foot placement on Kayal's hand. Stephens wasnt malicious but I can see the challenge being deemed to be reckless. I agree that ref was influenced, but surely using the studs as a method of ball control is unwise.

I think the problem is more that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence - have never quite understood why straight red is 3 game ban and 2 yellows is one (only more if done before, as with Dunk).

It is all very frustrating as we were in ascendancy at time. Whatever, we have to assume Sidwell will be playing for three games and make the best of it.

Have you ever played football? Anyone who thinks a player going for the ball in mid air like that can do so in anyway other than Stephens did is mental

Never even a foul let alone a red

 

[um bongo molongo]

Literally unbelievable refereeing. Shockingly poor.

100% this. At the very least he should explain why he had a yellow card out, allowed Ramirez to knock it out of his hand and then showed a red. But of course he won't. He'll take his smug face and his big salary home and congratulate himself on being centre of attention again. And the FA will back him up. They're all cvnts.