(Riverside) Mike Dean

[CaptainDaveUK]

Yes my point was we don't know why he gave the red. The options are a) linesman b) he saw the extent of the injury c) he had the yellow card knocked out of his hand and so instead of picking it up went for the red because it was less effort.
Personally I think it was b) but like I say I doubt he will admit that, so we'll never know.

 

[Langley]

a lot of these being worn at the moment i suspect

View attachment 74438[

READING or QPR ? our stripes are vertical

 

[Acker79]

Isn't it amazing how after 45.5 games one horrendous decision from an official could decide our entire season by condemning us to a draw today and severely weakening us for the entirety of the play offs? Disgusting. Something NEEDS to be done about this shit

Nope. We finished in third place because over the course of the season we failed to win more points than Boro (or Burnley) and conceded more goals than Boro. That is the culmination of 46 games. It is as much to do with failing to beat ten man Wolves even with the promising position of a penalty kick. Failing to beat the division's whipping boys, Bolton. Losing by three goals to Boro at home. Losing to a struggling Rotherham. It's because we visited Hull and managed only one shot on target. It's because when Wednesday visited the Amex we managed a big fat zero shots on target. It's because of one win in 10 v the other 5 top 6 teams. It's letting a two goal lead slip v QPR. It's every single game. It's the wrong team selection in certain matches, the wrong substitutions from Hughton. It's the wrong decisions and poor performances from our players. It is also the good play of our opponents, the smart team selection/tactics/substitutions from our opponents. All of this factors into where we finish at the end of the season.

I agree with many people that Dean's decision is wrong. But it did not cost us promotion. I am always reluctant to even accept that a refereeing mistake decides a match, it most certainly does not decide a season.

 

[sparkie]

Since when was knocking a yellow card out of the ref's hand not a sending off offence ?

 

[Sam Ovett]

Nope. We finished in third place because over the course of the season we failed to win more points than Boro (or Burnley) and conceded more goals than Boro. That is the culmination of 46 games. It is as much to do with failing to beat ten man Wolves even with the promising position of a penalty kick. Failing to beat the division's whipping boys, Bolton. Losing by three goals to Boro at home. Losing to a struggling Rotherham. It's because we visited Hull and managed only one shot on target. It's because when Wednesday visited the Amex we managed a big fat zero shots on target. It's because of one win in 10 v the other 5 top 6 teams. It's letting a two goal lead slip v QPR. It's every single game. It's the wrong team selection in certain matches, the wrong substitutions from Hughton. It's the wrong decisions and poor performances from our players. It is also the good play of our opponents, the smart team selection/tactics/substitutions from our opponents. All of this factors into where we finish at the end of the season.

I agree with many people that Dean's decision is wrong. But it did not cost us promotion. I am always reluctant to even accept that a refereeing mistake decides a match, it most certainly does not decide a season.

But him sending off Dale may have prevented us from winning today or the play offs.

His decision COULD have decided the seaso

 

[StonehamPark]

How many 50/50 legal aerial challenges do you see each season, which results in at least one of the challengers with a minor head injury and/or wound?
Lots.

You NEVER see cards issued, because they are fair challenges for the ball, and as this is a contact sport, the chance of injury is high. Especially when challenging for headers.

Hand on heart, regardless of which player/team/country this challenge happened in, I do NOT see a foul having been committed.
Stephens fairly wins the ball, Ramirez is late to the challenge and unfortunately gets hurt in the process.
Stephens DID NOT go into Ramirez for the ball. It was in the air and both players went for it.

So WHY do we have the exact same scenario, albeit with feet/legs, where the referee deems it aggressive or dangerous?
He was 5 yards away, picked out a yellow card, Ramirez swiped the card out of the refs hand (bookable in itself) and ref brandishes a red after seeing the damage caused.

Probably the worst decision I've seen in years.
That was a Sunday league ref performance. Changed his mind due to pressure from players and supporters.
Weak.

 

[Springal]

I don't think the incident a few mins before with Ramirez and Stephens helped his cause.

Ref still bottled it and changed his mind after seeing the injury which is a massive no no

 

[allystrat]

View attachment 74443

This is why players should wear proper shin pads. It's a sport where collisions involving shins are to be expected.

 

[Acker79]

But him sending off Dale may have prevented us from winning today or the play offs.

His decision COULD have decided the seaso

No. It couldn't. There was thirty minutes in which the players, and hughton, could affect the game, that they couldn't get the win is down to them, not the referee or his decision to send of Stephens. That this game would make the difference between automatic promotion and play offs, is a result of the players' and Hughton's inability to have won more points/conceded fewer goals than Boro in the previous 45.

 

[Birdie Boy]

Nope. We finished in third place because over the course of the season we failed to win more points than Boro (or Burnley) and conceded more goals than Boro. That is the culmination of 46 games. It is as much to do with failing to beat ten man Wolves even with the promising position of a penalty kick. Failing to beat the division's whipping boys, Bolton. Losing by three goals to Boro at home. Losing to a struggling Rotherham. It's because we visited Hull and managed only one shot on target. It's because when Wednesday visited the Amex we managed a big fat zero shots on target. It's because of one win in 10 v the other 5 top 6 teams. It's letting a two goal lead slip v QPR. It's every single game. It's the wrong team selection in certain matches, the wrong substitutions from Hughton. It's the wrong decisions and poor performances from our players. It is also the good play of our opponents, the smart team selection/tactics/substitutions from our opponents. All of this factors into where we finish at the end of the season.

I agree with many people that Dean's decision is wrong. But it did not cost us promotion. I am always reluctant to even accept that a refereeing mistake decides a match, it most certainly does not decide a season.

Er, it does if that decision is in the last game of the season in a winner takes all match. It's ok analysing it like you said but it still came down to a wrong decision, twice in one game, that stopped us getting auto promotion.

 

[Sam Ovett]

No. It couldn't. There was thirty minutes in which the players, and hughton, could affect the game, that they couldn't get the win is down to them, not the referee or his decision to send of Stephens. That this game would make the difference between automatic promotion and play offs, is a result of the players' and Hughton's inability to have won more points/conceded fewer goals than Boro in the previous 45.

So this incorrect decision had no potential effect on the final result of todays game or play off games without Dale? None at all which could have seen us get a winner?

 

[Acker79]

Er, it does if that decision is in the last game of the season in a winner takes all match. It's ok analysing it like you said but it still came down to a wrong decision, twice in one game, that stopped us getting auto promotion.

What about that decision made it impossible for us to score a second goal to win this match?Nothing. We still had plenty of time to compensate for any mistake from the ref.

Why does that decision from ref play a bigger part in the game than our defensive error that left a man unmarked to tuck the ball away? Because we want to blame referees for everything rather than accept the players and coaching team we support have to accept responsibility for their contribution to a match.


'Winner take all' not only is that wrong (promotion would still have been available to a losing team, drawing was enough for boro to get automatic promotion), it is simply hype. The league is decided over 46 games. Not one. No matter how the marketing men sell this match, it is no more important than last week v Derby. No more important than the draw v Preston. No more important than the loss to Rotherham. No more important than the home win v Forest where our 17 shots resulted in a single solitary goal. Or the home game v Cardiff where 20 shots resulted in one goal and a draw.

I will criticise the ref for making the wrong decision in this instant. He did not cost us the win, and he did not cost us promotion.

 

[sparkie]

What about that decision made it impossible for us to score a second goal to win this match?Nothing. We still had plenty of time to compensate for any mistake from the ref.

Why does that decision from ref play a bigger part in the game than our defensive error that left a man unmarked to tuck the ball away? Because we want to blame referees for everything rather than accept the players and coaching team we support have to accept responsibility for their contribution to a match.


'Winner take all' not only is that wrong (promotion would still have been available to a losing team, drawing was enough for boro to get automatic promotion), it is simply hype. The league is decided over 46 games. Not one. No matter how the marketing men sell this match, it is no more important than last week v Derby. No more important than the draw v Preston. No more important than the loss to Rotherham. No more important than the home win v Forest where our 17 shots resulted in a single solitary goal. Or the home game v Cardiff where 20 shots resulted in one goal and a draw.

I will criticise the ref for making the wrong decision in this instant. He did not cost us the win, and he did not cost us promotion.

So what you are saying is that having a man sent off doesn't in any way reduce the team's ability to compete ?

If I have misunderstood you, I apologise, if not then you are clueless.

 

[TSB]

[video]https://cdn.streamable.com/video/mp4-mobile/neei.mp4[/video]

Boro players didn't even react.

 

[Acker79]

So this incorrect decision had no potential effect on the final result of todays game or play off games without Dale? None at all which could have seen us get a winner?

So what you are saying is that having a man sent off doesn't in any way reduce the team's ability to compete ?

If I have misunderstood you, I apologise, if not then you are clueless.

This decision is one of probably tens of thousands of decisions, from training decisions, team selections, tactics, pre-match approach, through to in game decisions (play it long, short, cross it high, low, power, placement, shoot it, pass it left, pass it right, pass it back, take it on), substitutions, instructions and so on. ALL of these decisions come together to decide a match.

You cannot take one of those decisions and say that is the whole reason for the result.

Did it affect the game? Yes. Did it decide the game? No.

 

[hampshirebrightonboy]

What about that decision made it impossible for us to score a second goal to win this match?Nothing. We still had plenty of time to compensate for any mistake from the ref.

Why does that decision from ref play a bigger part in the game than our defensive error that left a man unmarked to tuck the ball away? Because we want to blame referees for everything rather than accept the players and coaching team we support have to accept responsibility for their contribution to a match.


'Winner take all' not only is that wrong (promotion would still have been available to a losing team, drawing was enough for boro to get automatic promotion), it is simply hype. The league is decided over 46 games. Not one. No matter how the marketing men sell this match, it is no more important than last week v Derby. No more important than the draw v Preston. No more important than the loss to Rotherham. No more important than the home win v Forest where our 17 shots resulted in a single solitary goal. Or the home game v Cardiff where 20 shots resulted in one goal and a draw.

I will criticise the ref for making the wrong decision in this instant. He did not cost us the win, and he did not cost us promotion.

This is not the time to talk utter crap

 

[symyjym]

Congratulations on finding a match in another country where it happened.
But that isn't what happened today, is it? I responded that it wasn't possible that he picked the wrong card. Mike Dean didn't chuckle to himself after pulling out the wrong card and then look sheepish.

To be fair the TV discussion suggested it as picking the wrong card initially.

 

[sparkie]

This decision is one of probably tens of thousands of decisions, from training decisions, team selections, tactics, pre-match approach, through to in game decisions (play it long, short, cross it high, low, power, placement, shoot it, pass it left, pass it right, pass it back, take it on), substitutions, instructions and so on. ALL of these decisions come together to decide a match.

You cannot take one of those decisions and say that is the whole reason for the result.

Did it affect the game? Yes. Did it decide the game? No.

Ridiculous. You are totally clueless if you actually believe that having a man sent off didn't reduce our ability to compete in the match, and cost us a FAIR shot at promotion today.

 

[Sam Ovett]

This decision is one of probably tens of thousands of decision, from training decisions, team selections, tactics, pre-match approach, through to in game decisions (play it long, short, cross it high, low, power, placement, shoot it, pass it left, pass it right, pass it back, take it on), substitutions, instructions and so on. ALL of these decisions come together to decide a match.

You cannot take one of those decisions and say that is the whole reason for the result.

Did it affect the game? Yes. Did it decide the game? No.

Actually it could have decided the game, thus season, given we were in the ascendancy and this decision totally halted that. If he hadn't sent Dale off we could easily have won this match. He COULD have which is my point

 

[Acker79]

Ridiculous. You are totally clueless if you actually believe that having a man sent off didn't reduce our ability to compete in the match.

Actually it could have decided the game, thus season, given we were in the ascendancy and this decision totally halted that. If he hadn't sent Dale off we could easily have won this match. He COULD have which is my point

If Hughton started with Skalak he might have played a killer ball in the first minute that Hemed got on the end of and we could have picked Boro off as they pushed for an equaliser and been 3-0 up at half time.

Without the Dale sending off we may have won, we equally may have lost (quite a few people have commented how much better we played after the sending off - we managed to not only compete, but looked stronger after the sending off). We don't know. What we do know, is there were still ten men and a coaching team able to affect the outcome of the match.

Did it make us less likely to win? Possibly. We played better with 10 men. We came back from 1-0 down to draw after going down to ten men on Monday. So we can't say for sure.

Again, I'm not saying the ref's decision doesn't have an impact on the game. I'm saying it isn't the deciding factor.

You clearly don't agree, or perhaps it's just that it's against us, and the failure to go up automatically stings too much right now, and in a neutral match you'd agree. I don't know, but it's clearly pointless to continue this discussion. We're just going round and round.