[Albion] That red card for Biss'

[nickjhs]

So what is it ?
3 match or 1 match ban ?

perhaps this is where the lack of intent will play a part.

 

[AmexRuislip]

Harsh for it to be overturned as don’t know how the ref can’t have made a decision there. Judged it on the injury which is wrong and if he wasn’t injured and took a quick free kick it wouldn’t have been given - that’s the problem with VAR and the variables there still are. But it is dangerous play and an unfortunate red although he had 0 intentions of doing it - so still seems a bit of a shit one to get.

Could you imagine The Complete And Utter Shyster giving an Oscar performance in giving a yellow then red, it'll be front page news

 

[Springal]

Definitely a red. The ball was well on its way down when he connected. Imagine that was a sliding tackle, ball in the same place and he was sliding in. Out of control and reckless.

Beat Preston though and he only misses 1 PL game right? So not end of the world

 

[Baldseagull]

Why does it matter if it hits someone in the face? Surely a boot being up that high would be deemed dangerous regardless of where you connect? I’ve seen that happen multiple times, and I’ve never seen someone sent off for it.

If he had not connected at all, he still could have been given a yellow card for the dangerous play, Ulloa was sent off at the Amex for a high boot, which made minimal connection with the opposing player, that was the last time I saw a sending off for a similar action. Used to see yellows quite a lot for dangerous play from a high boot in the '80's, don't see foul throws pulled up very often these days either.

 

[sjamesb3466]

5 Live were really surprised and almost outraged that it was overturned to a red with even Clinton Morrison saying he thought that was really harsh. Haven't seen it myself, just reporting what they were saying on the radio

 

[Hampster Gull]

Red for me, not surprised at all. Shame, what a game he had.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

At first I thought it was harsh but on reflection it was probably the correct decision even though it wasn’t intentional and it was very unfortunate. Extremely mature reaction from Biss by the way.

Just devastated he’s now suspended as he is incredible and the absolute backbone of our side and the way we now play.

Just hope Molumby comes in instead of Stephens or Propper. This new young and dynamic side will take a big backward step if either of them are picked instead.

 

[BN9 BHA]

It was a red all day.

Not sure why you are getting so many thumbs up, the referee obviously didn’t immediately think it was a red all day long TBF.

 

[BN9 BHA]

Harsh for it to be overturned as don’t know how the ref can’t have made a decision there. Judged it on the injury which is wrong and if he wasn’t injured and took a quick free kick it wouldn’t have been given .

Spot on mate, we said the same.

What did I say about you being sensible yesterday?

 

[Dirty Dave]

If he had not connected at all, he still could have been given a yellow card for the dangerous play, Ulloa was sent off at the Amex for a high boot, which made minimal connection with the opposing player, that was the last time I saw a sending off for a similar action. Used to see yellows quite a lot for dangerous play from a high boot in the '80's, don't see foul throws pulled up very often these days either.

We had a player get a red for a high boot against Reading a few years back that caught they're player in the chest

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

 

[sjamesb3466]

Just seen it and don't see how this is a red card. If that is a red for dangerous play surely any overhead kick is worthy of a red if any opposition players are close by? Another case of a ref carding for the injury not the action.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Definitely thought when var prompted the ref it was going to be ungraded. Biss has really impressed, had my doubts about him, but that was a brainless attempt to kick the ball. Hope it isn’t a “Hemed” moment.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Your opinion is irrelevant. I posted that directly from the FA website. It clearly suggests that attempting an overhead kick is a legitimate part of the game and a free kick shouldn't be given unless it endangers an opponent. You see many free kicks given for high feet. But however lacking in intent, Bissouma's foot ended up in the player's face when he hadn't ducked. It was out of control and Dangerous Play under FA rules.

so if it is so clear and obvious why did ref first give a yellow and then take ages to review. It is still down to interpretation.

 

[The Wizard]

so if it is so clear and obvious why did ref first give a yellow and then take ages to review. It is still down to interpretation.

Indeed, my opinion is irrelevant yet a professional referee had to look at it about 20 times to decide it was a red....

Like I said earlier, if you go for an overhead kick now then you are risking being sent off apparently, because it’s dangerous yet I’ve not once seen a player sent off for one of those overhead kick attempts. It’s hard to comprehend that Biss will get a 3 game ban for that, yet a player could go up and punch someone and get the same ban

 

[Wardy's twin]

If a player is nowhere near you it is not dangerous. If they are next to you it is dangerous. This is fairly obvious.
It's like if I drive a car around an empty field doing donuts it is not dangerous. If I do that exact same action but during the headline act of a festival in that field then it is dangerous.

but what if the field is half full of people dotted around ?

 

[Dick Swiveller]

so if it is so clear and obvious why did ref first give a yellow and then take ages to review. It is still down to interpretation.

Nobody said it wasn't down to interpretation - the rant was about overhead kicks which are clearly mentioned by the FA. If that had caught him on the shoulder then it would likely have been a yellow but studs caught him in the face and nearly in the eye. The system worked perfectly - Friend gave what he saw in the moment but then he and the rest of the VAR officials reviewed it and decided that, on balance, it was dangerous enough to warrant a red because there was no need with the passage of play as it was for his studs to end up in the bloke's face. Harsh as it is on a player with zero intent, you need to protect the players.

Get the stupid handball thing sorted and VAR seems to be working a lot better so far this season.

 

[dangull]

If an overhead kick missed and a player got booted in the face instead, it would be a red card.

But people marvel if a goal is scored, like AJ last season against Chelsea. Zero to hero springs to mind. The law is an ass.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Just seen it and don't see how this is a red card. If that is a red for dangerous play surely any overhead kick is worthy of a red if any opposition players are close by? Another case of a ref carding for the injury not the action.

That’s my understanding of the rules - and it’s open to the referee”s interpretation as to what is “close”. If it puts someone in danger it’s a free kick.

 

[junior]

Reckless and dangerous, but not intentional. Nevertheless, 100% red card.

 

[Acker79]

Yellow yes, a bit harsh for the red.
No intention of malice towards the Newcastle player.
Even after the VAR upgrade, can the club appeal to the decision.?

Yes, but I'm not sure there's much point. Two trained referees have looked at it and come to the same conclusion. Over 80%* of Blue and White tinted specs-wearing brighton fans agree it was a red.

A decision being subject to VAR doesn't prevent you from appealing it.

*(current poll results in the other thread).