Sutton and Shearer

[Arthritic Toe]

I think the refs got it absolutely right with both decisions, Mane red and Ritchie yellow.
Mane was fully aware the keeper was rushing out (obviously - as otherwise he would have waited for the ball to come down). Both players were converging at high speed and raising your foot to head height in that situation is seriously dangerous to the onrushing player. Red card - spot on. Ritchie's was similar, but the players weren't converging as fast, the foot wasn't quite as high... It just wasn't quite as dangerous. Yellow card - spot on.

 

[Hotchilidog]

The offence is dangerous play, it was dangerous play. Only seen the Mane one, I think he was genuinely going for the ball, but he did it in a dangerous and reckless fashion. When you put your foot that high in the air you must know that there is a likelihood of injury. It's a no brainer red card.

 

[Simster]

I didn't think Mane's was much different in terms of recklessness than Dale Stephens at Boro. Both sent off for the injury rather than the challenge. Yes Mane was high, but I really felt it wasn't exactly career threatrening. I wouldn't have sent off either of them.

 

[drew]

I trust that you were equally outraged when Stevens cleanly nicked he ball off that Middlesbrough whinger, and some of us thought he shouldn't have been sent off.

I was outraged. Stephens played the ball with his studs and it was Ramirez's follow through that caused the incident and his inadequate shin pads that meant he got injured. The two incidents this weekend are different in that the foot was very unnaturally high and they were reckless.

 

[haardman]

I was outraged. Stephens played the ball with his studs and it was Ramirez's follow through that caused the incident and his inadequate shin pads that meant he got injured. The two incidents this weekend are different in that the foot was very unnaturally high and they were reckless.

Stephens played the ball cleanly with the side of his foot. That incident still makes me so angry. Ramirez turns blind and swings his leg, if anything it was a foul on Stephens.

Back on topic - personally I think both incidents this weekend should have been yellow.

 

[m20gull]

A reading of the FA's rules suggests to me that the decisions were right and hinges on whether the actions are considered simply reckless. I can't see that Stephens should have been sent off.

It also appears that Duffy should have been booked for his unsuccessful attempt to stop the goal.

 

[el punal]

Surely the point should be that the forward can go in with his head if it's head high, but not his foot. If his foot is head or shoulder high, off he should go for dangerous play.

As happened to Leo Ulloa a few seasons ago when we played Reading(?) away.

 

[NooBHA]

I assume as the ref saw Ritchie's tackle, and gave a yellow, no retrospective action can take place?

Actually that statement raises a very good point.

You are correct that no retrospective action can take place against Ritchie but the Referees Association or whoever is in charge of who referees matches. They could in a roundabout manner demote one of the referees to the Championship or lower by choosing which referee they think interpreted the rules in the manner that they want to see them carried out in future.

That way it would give a clear instruction of how they want things interpreted in future matches and it wouldn't matter a **** what Shearer and Sutton say on the matter.

 

[Triggaaar]

It also appears that Duffy should have been booked for his unsuccessful attempt to stop the goal.

It's a tricky one. One of the things Duffy did to try and stop the goal was to drag the ball out with his arm - he can't get booked for that, as the ball wasn't in the field of play. He did also hit the ball with his other arm, but that was less clear cut. I don't know if anyone has ever been given a card for handball on the goal line where the ref has given a goal.

 

[drew]

It's a tricky one. One of the things Duffy did to try and stop the goal was to drag the ball out with his arm - he can't get booked for that, as the ball wasn't in the field of play. He did also hit the ball with his other arm, but that was less clear cut. I don't know if anyone has ever been given a card for handball on the goal line where the ref has given a goal.

Without checking, doesn't the rule refer to 'preventing' a goal with your hand. Obviously Duffy didn't prevent a goal so therefore couldn't be booked or red carded.

Edit: Looked it up now and the wording is

A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from
the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable
and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored.

 

[m20gull]

Without checking, doesn't the rule refer to 'preventing' a goal with your hand. Obviously Duffy didn't prevent a goal so therefore couldn't be booked or red carded.

Edit: Looked it up now and the wording is

A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from
the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable
and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored.

Under cautions for unsporting behaviour the rule is: handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal