[Albion] Was it a red?

[Bold Seagull]

In football, the idea is that you have to kick the ball yeh?

And if you kick a ball, at some stage the mechanical action of your leg motion means that at some stage your foot will be over the height of another players foot yeh?

And in football, the idea is that another player might be challenging to kick the same ball, which means that if they get there just about second, there's a chance they might get kicked with the follow through yeh?

When did we become so sensitive to this?

I don't know what the guidance given to refs is. But as a viewer, I think the law should be ....

Normal attempt to play ball. Ball won. Player caught in follow through. No foul.
Normal attempt to play ball. Ball not won. Player caught in follow through. Foul. Yellow card.
Attempt to play ball. Player caught in follow through. Contact unnaturally high. Foul. Yellow card
Attempt to play ball. Excessive force used when playing the ball, with likely intention to intimidate or injure opponent. Foul. Red card.

When you play, you know when someone has left one on you. You have to know where your challenge is going to end up, regardless of winning the ball. Your law item 1. above basically means you can leave one on someone has long as you win the ball - I think footballers have always been sensitive to this, going back decades to the 'good old days'.

 

[Beanstalk]

When you play, you know when someone has left one on you. You have to know where your challenge is going to end up, regardless of winning the ball. Your law item 1. above basically means you can leave one on someone has long as you win the ball - I think footballers have always been sensitive to this, going back decades to the 'good old days'.

Yes, sure. But the fact that Gilmour doesn't straighten his leg implies that it's less of a "plant" and more of a collision. Far far far worse tackles without punishment this weekend. Mac Allister's against Bournemouth was higher and very similar and got overturned. Set a massive precedent for the rest of the season. Club should appeal in my opinion.

 

[One Love]

No chance of it being overturned.

I've consoled myself by thinking if he doesn't get sent off then we may not have got the equaliser.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes, sure. But the fact that Gilmour doesn't straighten his leg implies that it's less of a "plant" and more of a collision. Far far far worse tackles without punishment this weekend. Mac Allister's against Bournemouth was higher and very similar and got overturned. Set a massive precedent for the rest of the season. Club should appeal in my opinion.

The difference with Mac Allister's is that both players go in same height, and their feet collide at the same height at the contest of the ball. Gilmour wins the ball and follows through onto someone's planted shin - not with much force, granted, but I wouldn't have said the Mac Allister success at appeal would hold any weight for Gilmour.

 

[Hotchilidog]

No chance of it being overturned.

I've consoled myself by thinking if he doesn't get sent off then we may not have got the equaliser.

Personally I still think a red was harsh, but I would not consider appealing it. No way it would get overturned.

If I go to look at my glass and see it half full, this does now give an opportunity to Baleba and Moder to stake a claim for more involvement in the run in.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don't know what the guidance given to refs is.

It can be found here

Laws of the game and FA rules

www.thefa.com

you can also take an online course to bring youself up to speed.

FA Referee Course

The FA Referee Course provides the introduction to officiating in football.

www.thefa.com

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yes, sure. But the fact that Gilmour doesn't straighten his leg implies that it's less of a "plant" and more of a collision. Far far far worse tackles without punishment this weekend. Mac Allister's against Bournemouth was higher and very similar and got overturned. Set a massive precedent for the rest of the season. Club should appeal in my opinion.

Two referees reaching a different opinion is hardly a precedent….been happening for decades.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

It can be found here

Laws of the game and FA rules

www.thefa.com

you can also take an online course to bring youself up to speed.

FA Referee Course

The FA Referee Course provides the introduction to officiating in football.

www.thefa.com

I'm less commenting on what the laws are, but more what I think they should be.

It's like with handball. The current law is bollocks. Way too many handball penalties are given and now we've got the situation where players are manoeuvring round the penalty area like penguins. The law should be changed, to look at it along the lines of, "did the defender carry out a normal action with intent to play the ball legally"

It's the same with these follow through fouls. I'm not disputing that the laws as the currently are mean Gilmour should be sent off. I just think the law is bollocks. If someone is making a normal effort to play the ball, they do play the ball ,they've not been overly aggressive, then to me whether another player gets caught after the ball has been played is just a football incident. Get on with the game.

 

[Beanstalk]

The difference with Mac Allister's is that both players go in same height, and their feet collide at the same height at the contest of the ball. Gilmour wins the ball and follows through onto someone's planted shin - not with much force, granted, but I wouldn't have said the Mac Allister success at appeal would hold any weight for Gilmour.

I don't know. I'm not saying you're wrong but Gilmour's is below the shin, studs facing down. It's very unlucky that it connects where he does with Onana (the top of the ankle) but there isn't anything in the tackle that could be classed as a vicious follow through for me. The fact his leg doesn't straighten implies he's not following through to get the player at the very least. I think it's a 50/50 that Onana comes off worse in. I'd like to see that be a yellow card currently, and I think in a lot of Premier League situations it would have been.

My real issue is that Harrington (who was consistently poor as always) gives a red card instinctively. It leaves him and VAR in a position where there is little room to review the situation in a calm and collected manner (even if that would result in a red card eventually). We have VAR and we have an injury time system that allows for pauses in the game, and I would have liked to have seen Harrington calm everything down, talk to his assistants and then make a decision rather than running into the melee and brandishing a red as if wee Billy had just committed mass slaughter. For all of VAR's faults, we do see referees go through a logical step-by-step decision making process in the "mic'd up" reviews. Harrington did not follow that same process. I think a more experienced Premier League referee would've handled it very differently.

 

[METALMICKY]

Well Sky's Ref Watch has cleared that up then......................NOT!!!!!!

What a lot of new nonsense about the relevance of the point of contact. Personally I think it was the right decision for Gilmore but Maguire should have gone too. However, the explanation for the difference between the two and why Maguire decision was supposedly correct is more inconsistent nonsense.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Well Sky's Ref Watch has cleared that up then......................NOT!!!!!!

What a lot of new nonsense about the relevance of the point of contact. Personally I think it was the right decision for Gilmore but Maguire should have gone too. However, the explanation for the difference between the two and why Maguire decision was supposedly correct is more inconsistent nonsense.

This!


SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

Nothing in the law excuses Maguire's challenge over Billy's

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I just think the law is bollocks. If someone is making a normal effort to play the ball, they do play the ball ,they've not been overly aggressive, then to me whether another player gets caught after the ball has been played is just a football incident. Get on with the game.

I understand where you’re coming from but it’s not just about whether someone is overly aggressive or not. Football has a duty of care to its players so carelessness, recklessness and dangerousness of tackles should also be considered. I’m quite happy to have aggression and carelessness etc ruled out…for one thing it promotes the beautiful game!

It will also put a stop to those tiresome ex pros and their stories of clogging each other.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

This!


SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

Nothing in the law excuses Maguire's challenge over Billy's

Putting your bodyweight through your studs above the ankle of your opponent's standing leg, is unquestionably ENDANGERING their safety, to a higher degree than into the top / side of their boot.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Putting your bodyweight through your studs above the ankle of your opponent's standing leg, is unquestionably ENDANGERING their safety, to a higher degree than into the top / side of their boot.

Sure, but that isn't what happened.

Billy's bodyweight doesn't go through the studs.
There is contact, Billy withdraws, and swivels away from the point of contact,
Maguire stamps down on the top/side of the boot.

Far more force in Maguire's challenge than Gilmour's.

Not disputing Billy's red card.
But it's definitely at the lower end of excessive force or endangering a player's safety.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I understand where you’re coming from but it’s not just about whether someone is overly aggressive or not. Football has a duty of care to its players so carelessness, recklessness and dangerousness of tackles should also be considered. I’m quite happy to have aggression and carelessness etc ruled out…for one thing it promotes the beautiful game!

It will also put a stop to those tiresome ex pros and their stories of clogging each other.

Duty of care, fine. Red card someone for recklesness, fine.

But the law as it stands is capricious. It makes a player, who is attempting to play the ball and does play the ball, guilty of serious foul play for what happens as an inevitable result of playing the ball if the other player happens to get close enough.

Surely this is what playing in midfield is about? Playing football is about? We want to see players genuinely contest the ball? One player will inevitably get there first and there's highly likely to be some sort of collision afterwards. As long as the player is carrying out a normal football action, like Gilmour was, and there was no unnecessary amount of force used, the law shouldn't be sending someone off.

Sorry, but that's the midfield battle. It's why we wear shin pads.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Duty of care, fine. Red card someone for recklesness, fine.

But the law as it stands is capricious. It makes a player, who is attempting to play the ball and does play the ball, guilty of serious foul play for what happens as an inevitable result of playing the ball if the other player happens to get close enough.

Surely this is what playing in midfield is about? Playing football is about? We want to see players genuinely contest the ball? One player will inevitably get there first and there's highly likely to be some sort of collision afterwards. As long as the player is carrying out a normal football action, like Gilmour was, and there was no unnecessary amount of force used, the law shouldn't be sending someone off.

Sorry, but that's the midfield battle. It's why we wear shin pads.

More importantly the player gets a 3 game ban because it is deemed as Serious foul play.
The punishment is in line with aggressive and reckless play. , which in turn implies either intent or lack of professionalism.
The way the law is being interpreted does not allow for a lower punishment for accidental collisions

 

[METALMICKY]

Putting your bodyweight through your studs above the ankle of your opponent's standing leg, is unquestionably ENDANGERING their safety, to a higher degree than into the top / side of their boot.

Quite possibly but the danger is that then we are into the realms where we'll have reviews trying to analyse points of contact that might only differ by millimeters.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Duty of care, fine. Red card someone for recklesness, fine.

But the law as it stands is capricious. It makes a player, who is attempting to play the ball and does play the ball, guilty of serious foul play for what happens as an inevitable result of playing the ball if the other player happens to get close enough.

Surely this is what playing in midfield is about? Playing football is about? We want to see players genuinely contest the ball? One player will inevitably get there first and there's highly likely to be some sort of collision afterwards. As long as the player is carrying out a normal football action, like Gilmour was, and there was no unnecessary amount of force used, the law shouldn't be sending someone off.

Sorry, but that's the midfield battle. It's why we wear shin pads.

I do not think we will agree on this. My bottom line is Gilmour's foot ended studs up in an opponents leg. This is dangerous. I'm fine with the laws the way they are and have no issue with Gilmour's red. I would like to see this consistently applied, and if this happened to one of our players, then I'd like them to see red as well. But consistency is another discussion.

I'm going to leave this here.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I do not think we will agree on this. My bottom line is Gilmour's foot ended studs up in an opponents leg. This is dangerous. I'm fine with the laws the way they are and have no issue with Gilmour's red. I would like to see this consistently applied, and if this happened to one of our players, then I'd like them to see red as well. But consistency is another discussion.

I'm going to leave this here.

Indeed. Its a very clear red, and I'm really baffled by people suggesting otherwise. People will see what they want to see, I guess.

I do kind of agree with them, that a 3 match ban, for a challenge without bad intent is harsh - but it is what it is.

 

[Acker79]

I think the last page or two of this thread is a good example of why refs and law makers are somewhat on a hiding to nothing. The range of what people think football is or should be. The Idea that kicking an opponent should be allowed because it's a contact sport and it's a consequence of 22 men in a confined area trying to play with the same ball, while other look at the need to protect players as an important remit. You get Chris Wilder bemoaning the modern game when Holgate gets sent off, meanwhile Arteta is demanding more protection for Saka.

These ideological difference underpin people's opinion and shapes views on everything including the ref, the laws, VAR, commentators (eg whether someone is a "dinosaur" or a "proper football man").