[Albion] Why was Fab sent off?

[zefarelly]

I don't want to see cheating, diving fouling feigning etc, I want to see skills and high quality football.

it very basically boils down to high stakes and cheating.

As long as there's thick walls and deaf ears at the top and lots of money then nothing will change.

 

[kevo]

This idea of a "soft" second yellow is an unnecessary complication that will not improve the game. The referee already has the option to NOT book a player for a transgression. He currently has to decide if it was an offense or not and then is it worthy of a red, a yellow or no card. Giving him a fourth option of not bad enough for red or yellow but too bad for no card is not going to improve the game at all.

Same applies to the concept of an 'amber' card. It would only complicate things. Can you imagine the endless discussion on whether a card should be yellow, red or amber? It's bad enough as it is!

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

There's no need for any new system of cards.

I agree with Han Solo for the most part on refs. Their role is made almost impossible by the conduct of players, which has asked of them by managers and clubs. They need to take responsibility, much more than the refs. Pundits and media have a lot to answer for in the way they stick up for obvious cheating.

Though said that, the major failing of refs is their inconsistency in applying the rules. So this thing about booking people for preventing free kicks. Does anyone seriously believe it's going to be rigorously applied all season? Of course not. It will go the same way as keepers being able to hold the ball for 6 seconds, a manager can't leave their technical area and all the other millions of rules which were applied for a few weeks, then they gave up.

We've got a situation now where different refs apply different rules at different times. So at the weekend Dunky tried to take a throw in, from behind where it went out. 9 refs out of 10 let that go. He got the one that didn't and it ate up valuable seconds at the end.

The single thing that could help calibrate the actions of the different refs and improve consistency is assessing. They decide on a set of rules which are going to be enforced (preferably the ones in the rule book otherwise take them out) at the start of the season, they tell the players. They enforce those rules. But crucially the refs are assessed, then promoted to better games or relegated to worse games on the basis of whether they have enforced those rules. Crucially this lasts the whole season, then we review what works and what doesn't. I understand assessment does exist, but it's been ineffective, for a long time

 

[Berty23]

The consistency fallacy

“We just want consistency” is like a 6 year old whining “it’s not fair”, selectively applied to construct a spawny argument that your team was hard done by, for example

Ricegate
no problem, let’s agree Pedro should have been booked … now what?

TrickyTreeGate
option (1): penalty was stonewall; Welbeck goal shouldn’t have been a free-kick in the first place; the ref made a great call over MGW getting ball first and should never have listened to 4th official.

option (2): VAR should have overturned penalty; free kick was clearly correct; ref followed official policy and listened to 4th official who is part of the on-pitch team with a clear responsibility to advise ref if he misses something. Kudos to ref for having the balls to change his decision.

Almost without exception this argument comes up when comparing dissimilar events.

Just ignore anyone who uses this wheedling phrase; it’s contrived to deflect attention from player/manager inadequacies.

Bloody Ferguson

Hang on. Is there some debate over whether we should have had the free kick that Welbeck scored from? How can anyone think it was anything other than a clear free kick. It wasn’t just an obvious free kick, it was an obvious yellow. The bloke didn’t even argue. It was one of those where they put hands up as they kick someone in full flow which is the universal signal for “taking one for the team here”

 

[Zeberdi]

This idea of a "soft" second yellow is an unnecessary complication that will not improve the game. The referee already has the option to NOT book a player for a transgression. He currently has to decide if it was an offense or not and then is it worthy of a red, a yellow or no card. Giving him a fourth option of not bad enough for red or yellow but too bad for no card is not going to improve the game at all.

Agreed - it would be overly complicated as it stands and for now has been ruled out - the game is already cluttered enough with infringement rules that people can barely understand.

I think Anthony Taylor would have a conniption if he suddenly had to grapple with 3 different colours - 14 yellows last week (and a second yellow red ) iirc.

 

[Bodian]

Hang on. Is there some debate over whether we should have had the free kick that Welbeck scored from? How can anyone think it was anything other than a clear free kick. It wasn’t just an obvious free kick, it was an obvious yellow. The bloke didn’t even argue. It was one of those where they put hands up as they kick someone in full flow which is the universal signal for “taking one for the team here”

I assumed they meant it shouldn't have been a free kick against Welbeck that then led to their second goal. But re-reading it, I'm not so sure....

 

[7dialssouthpaw]

I hope not to appear a knob here, but for me, any sub or bench player that interferes with play should get a red, not yellow. I'd even extend that to the Manager.
I think that may have been the ref's reasoning here - 1 red for each head coach for not controlling their off-field team member actually worked pretty well for calming things down tbf.

With the bigger threat, player-managers like Arteta might stay off the f***.ng pitch and subs will also stop dick.ing around in the corners.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Hang on. Is there some debate over whether we should have had the free kick that Welbeck scored from? How can anyone think it was anything other than a clear free kick. It wasn’t just an obvious free kick, it was an obvious yellow. The bloke didn’t even argue. It was one of those where they put hands up as they kick someone in full flow which is the universal signal for “taking one for the team here”

On the commentary I'm sure they mentioned that it was debatable that there was even a foul on Mitoma.

 

[Seagull58]

Agreed - it would be overly complicated as it stands and for now has been ruled out - the game is already cluttered enough with infringement rules that people can barely understand.

I think Anthony Taylor would have a conniption if he suddenly had to grapple with 3 different colours - 14 yellows last week (and a second yellow red ) iirc.

View attachment 189362

The bald prick is reffing our upcoming match against Chelsea, whose fans detest him. My Chelsea STH friend told me to expect a loud chorus of "Anthony Taylor you're a ****" from all sides of the ground.

 

[Bodian]

The bald prick is reffing our upcoming match against Chelsea, whose fans detest him. My Chelsea STH friend told me to expect a loud chorus of "Anthony Taylor you're a ****" from all sides of the ground.

How do you pronounce **** ?

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

 

[Bodian]

So - he didn't speak to Dunk till after he got the red card. His red card can only have been for something he said to Taylor then?

 

[Berty23]

On the commentary I'm sure they mentioned that it was debatable that there was even a foul on Mitoma.

Wow. They wonder why people criticise refs when comms say it might not be a foul when it obviously was. When sprinting a tiny clip sends you down - see a tap tackle in rugby. I think we need to start calling out commentators who start debate where there isn’t any!

 

[Seagull58]

How do you pronounce **** ?

With a West Lunnon accent

 

[Blues Guitarist]

So - he didn't speak to Dunk till after he got the red card. His red card can only have been for something he said to Taylor then?

But Taylor didn't react to anything he said. Very strange.

 

[Deadly Danson]

Just watched that - thought I'd try and view objectively. Bearing in mind he's not up for foul and abusive language, a red card rather than a yellow (or indeed no punishment) for what he did seems unbelievably harsh. I guess if he called the ref a cheat then he's bang to rights but otherwise it seems ridiculous - especially compared to Arteta and Pep at the weekend.
Edit - I suppose given the amount of backroom staff that were in the technical area the red card could in theory be down to failing to control his staff.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Just watched that - thought I'd try and view objectively. Bearing in mind he's not up for foul and abusive language, a red card rather than a yellow (or indeed no punishment) for what he did seems unbelievably harsh. I guess if he called the ref a cheat then he's bang to rights but otherwise it seems ridiculous - especially compared to Arteta and Pep at the weekend.
Edit - I suppose given the amount of backroom staff that were in the technical area the red card could in theory be down to failing to control his staff.

Is that what he's charged with? Isn't that a specific charge in its own right?

 

[Deadly Danson]

Is that what he's charged with? Isn't that a specific charge in its own right?

Yeah, that's what I thought too. I just can't see anything else red card worthy in that video unless he said something like 'cheat' to Taylor. I guess the club will just swallow the charge but, unless it's the specific words that are the issue - like Dunk last season - then I wish we'd appeal.

 

[kevo]

So we STILL don't know why he was sent off?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

So we STILL don't know why he was sent off?

I think the true reason is 'the ref lost control of the game' but I don't think that is what will be on the charge sheet