[Albion] Was it a red?

[hans kraay fan club]

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").

To be frank, I think the badge on the shirt underpins people's opinions way more than those ideological differences.

I'm quite sure that every Brighton fan unsure about the Gilmour red, would be 100% sure it was worthy of a red, had that tackle been made ON Gilmour. Just as Wilder would have never questioned the Holgate red had that 'challenge' been made on one of his players.

 

[Marshy]

Billy is unlucky, but these days its a red sadly

 

[Acker79]

To be frank, I think the badge on the shirt underpins people's opinions way more than those ideological differences.

I'm quite sure that every Brighton fan unsure about the Gilmour red, would be 100% sure it was worthy of a red, had that tackle been made ON Gilmour. Just as Wilder would have never questioned the Holgate red had that 'challenge' been made on one of his players.

I don't think it's an either/or. I would say the badge is most important in a given specific incident, but there is also that underlying ideological difference that exist throughout football when looking at 'bigger picture' issues that some in the thread are reaching for.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

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.

What was the reasoning for Maguire not being a red, what it the height?

The Gimour tackle type has seen a few reds this season, so I think it's been fairly consistent in receiving a red, off the top of my head Jones/Romero/Gusto have made the challenge in various degrees of aggression and all seen red, it's unlucky for sure, but still a red.

 

[Littlemo]

I don’t have a problem with it being a red, I thought it was yesterday.

I only have a problem with it not being a red for everyone. Maguire and Caicedo’s yesterday are both much worse in terms of going into the opponent with force. Whilst you can be injured in terms of cuts, bruises etc with the likes of Gilmour tackle, force is what will cause the leg breakers and serious damage.

Saying Maguire’s was on the ankle and not the leg as mitigation is bs and strikes me as finding a reason to call them different instead of just admitting he should have been off as well. Maguire flew into that tackle and ankles break as well as legs do.

 

[Milano]

What I really do not agree with is the punishment. How can WBG be the same punishment as Holgate?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I don’t have a problem with it being a red, I thought it was yesterday.

I only have a problem with it not being a red for everyone. Maguire and Caicedo’s yesterday are both much worse in terms of going into the opponent with force. Whilst you can be injured in terms of cuts, bruises etc with the likes of Gilmour tackle, force is what will cause the leg breakers and serious damage.

Saying Maguire’s was on the ankle and not the leg as mitigation is bs and strikes me as finding a reason to call them different instead of just admitting he should have been off as well. Maguire flew into that tackle and ankles break as well as legs do.

I kind of agree with this, but I think the law should probably be more specific.

the law states "endangering an opponent" without detailing what specific danger is cautionable.
The accepted norm is that the challenge could end a career, but arguably any forceful contact could cause an injury leading to a few games out.

This leads to this weekend's scenario where a forceful stamp known as "a sore one" is ok and a yellow
but an accidental studs up collision is seen as a "potential leg-breaker" with a red and a 3 match ban.

The chances of Wee Billy actually breaking anyone's leg with the force from his challenge is very slim, but I agree is a red under current accepted interpretation of the law.
I would argue a Maguire stamp on a foot could lead to an injury for an opponent.

Despite his histrionics, I suspect Onana's shin was significantly less sore than Lukic's foot.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Despite his histrionics, I suspect Onana's shin was significantly less sore than Lukic's foot.

Possibly - but that should be irrelevant. But isn't sadly.

Challenges / fouls should all be judged on their severity / risk / force - and not at all on the OUTCOME. Down that path leads to the Mike Dean / Stephens / Ramirez travesty.

Its perfectly possible to cause a nasty injury with a strong fair tackle, just as it is possible to make a terrible, inherently dangerous tackle (Holgate / Mitoma) that causes no significant injury.

I've seen a lot of furious Liverpool fans adamant that Caicedo should have seen red for the challenge on Gravenberch in the cup final. He really shouldn't - it was a poor, late tackle, but not at all high, and not particularly aggressive. Its a classic yellow card late challenge - but because poor Gravenberch left the field on a stretcher - the Redmen are all apoplectic.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Possibly - but that should be irrelevant. But isn't sadly.

Challenges / fouls should all be judged on their severity / risk / force - and not at all on the OUTCOME. Down that path leads to the Mike Dean / Stephens / Ramirez travesty.

Its perfectly possible to cause a nasty injury with a strong fair tackle, just as it is possible to make a terrible, inherently dangerous tackle (Holgate / Mitoma) that causes no significant injury.

I've seen a lot of furious Liverpool fans adamant that Caicedo should have seen red for the challenge on Gravenberch in the cup final. He really shouldn't - it was a poor, late tackle, but not at all high, and not particularly aggressive. Its a classic yellow card late challenge - but because poor Gravenberch left the field on a stretcher - the Redmen are all apoplectic.

Agree

I remember when Calde was sent off after breaking an opponents' leg in a cup game.
It was a 50/50 with a hideous outcome. i think we appealed the red as Calde's studs were down.
I can't remember if the appeal was accepted though.

 

[rippleman]

Whatever punishment was meted out to WBG (and I think it was a red), the same punishment has to be meted out to Maguire for an almost identical challenge.

But we are, and always will be, viewed as a "small club" by officials and it is naive to think that officials will treat our team / players the same as Utd, City, Arsenal, Chelsea etc

 

[Bodian]

Possibly - but that should be irrelevant. But isn't sadly.

Challenges / fouls should all be judged on their severity / risk / force - and not at all on the OUTCOME. Down that path leads to the Mike Dean / Stephens / Ramirez travesty.

Its perfectly possible to cause a nasty injury with a strong fair tackle, just as it is possible to make a terrible, inherently dangerous tackle (Holgate / Mitoma) that causes no significant injury.

I've seen a lot of furious Liverpool fans adamant that Caicedo should have seen red for the challenge on Gravenberch in the cup final. He really shouldn't - it was a poor, late tackle, but not at all high, and not particularly aggressive. Its a classic yellow card late challenge - but because poor Gravenberch left the field on a stretcher - the Redmen are all apoplectic.

I once kicked a ball, very hard, just at same moment as my opponent kicked the ball, very hard. If we had kicked each other - we would have been sore for a while - but because we were either side of the ball, there was something in the shockwave in the ball that did us both in for a couple of months. Really odd sort of injury for both of us (around the metatarsal area), but completely accidental, not actual contact, and so on.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Agree

I remember when Calde was sent off after breaking an opponents' leg in a cup game.
It was a 50/50 with a hideous outcome. i think we appealed the red as Calde's studs were down.
I can't remember if the appeal was accepted though.

It was rescinded.

 

[Acker79]

Agree

I remember when Calde was sent off after breaking an opponents' leg in a cup game.
It was a 50/50 with a hideous outcome. i think we appealed the red as Calde's studs were down.
I can't remember if the appeal was accepted though.

It was rescinded.

Similarly, Heung-Min Son's red card for that horror injury to Gomes was overturned, too.

Tottenham's Heung-Min Son has red card against Everton overturned

Son now available for selection for November Premier League fixtures against Sheffield United, West Ham and Bournemouth

www.skysports.com

 

[W3D]

Apparently Douche didn't think there was anything wrong with this at the time