[Albion] You are the ref: Dale Stephens' challenge on Gaston Ramirez

[darkwolf666]

In the premier league, it's a straight red if you raise your leg against someone clearing the ball and they get caught....it happens week in week out.


We had a premiershite ref who wanted us all to know it.

Therefore we should have expected it.

Sorry, that is bollox the Premier League do not have different rules or interpretations of them. Dean was influenced by the extent of the injury, rather than what he actually saw.

As has been said, if Ramirez was wearing decent protection then he may not have got such an nasty accidental injury. Stephens' challenge was not dangerous and could barely be classified as reckless, a yellow might have been warranted but the red was just ridiculous and a reaction of a man wanting to be in the spotlight.

 

[nwgull]

Bloody hell. Its genuinely worrying how one-eyed and indeed thick he comes across reading down that timeline. If those are the type of people in charge of football matches its little wonder that referees are stereotyped as busybodies.

I've just looked and thought the same thing. What a bell-end he's making himself look. It'll probably not be rescinded, but every pundit I've heard have an opinion on it - Adrian Durham was the latest I hear on the way home from work - has said it was never a red card. Surely Jeff Winter can take off his Boro specs and realise that there has to be a degree of doubt about it.

 

[Hamilton]

This studs up debate interest me. If we accept that you are not able to challenge for a free ball - I don't see any player as having true control of the ball here - with you foot above say knee height, then there is an argument to say that both players were challenging for the ball with their studs up, but that Stephens got there first.

I might add that I don't think it was a studs up challenge and we'll see plenty of similar challenges in the next round of matches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hugo Rune]

This studs up debate interest me. If we accept that you are not able to challenge for a free ball - I don't see any player as having true control of the ball here - with you foot above say knee height, then there is an argument to say that both players were challenging for the ball with their studs up, but that Stephens got there first.

I might add that I don't think it was a studs up challenge and we'll see plenty of similar challenges in the next round of matches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a pertinent point. If Ramirez had 'won' the ball, his follow through would have caught Stephens square in the midrift, it would have looked like a spinning karate kick. Would he have been booked?

 

[Billy the Fish]

Players can and do, in practically every match. Are you saying that bicycle kicks should be banned too?
Are players only allowed to kick the ball when it's on the ground? No more trapping the ball on the sidelines from Stockdale's superb diagonal kicks?

No they don't, you've never been allowed to follow through with your studs.

If the bottom of your boot connects with another players leg then 99 times out of a hundred it's at least a foul and usually a booking, the rules are there to stop that from happening.

 

[Eggman]

He's shown himself to be pathetic. If you don't want people commenting, then don't comment on things that are none of your business. His comments show that he knows he's wrong. Irony is he accuses our fans of being biased but is apparently a Middlesbrough fan (and also biased towards referees as well).

Christ. His replies are like that of a teenager. How odd.

 

[Hugo Rune]

No they don't, you've never been allowed to follow through with your studs.

1. It wasn't a tackle - he was playing a free ball. Players follow through with studs up on a free ball all the time.

2. Gaston kicked into Dale's path, not the other way round.

This was a straight 50/50. A little wreckless from both players but Gaston didn't see Dale, that's his fault as well as the fact he had sim-card sized shin pads on.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No they don't, you've never been allowed to follow through with your studs.

If the bottom of your boot connects with another players leg then 99 times out of a hundred it's at least a foul and usually a booking, the rules are there to stop that from happening.

That isn't what happened. Stephens played the ball and Ramirez came in. Check it again.

 

[Billy the Fish]

This studs up debate interest me. If we accept that you are not able to challenge for a free ball - I don't see any player as having true control of the ball here - with you foot above say knee height, then there is an argument to say that both players were challenging for the ball with their studs up, but that Stephens got there first.

This is a pertinent point. If Ramirez had 'won' the ball, his follow through would have caught Stephens square in the midrift, it would have looked like a spinning karate kick. Would he have been booked?

This is what I'm saying, when two players go for a ball that neither has control over, with that amount of force, and one player is half a second late it is always a foul. The 50/50 challenge is IMHO one of the biggest grey areas for referees.

If Stephens had been late to the ball then he would've most likely got hurt instead, had Ramirez cut his leg open he probably would've walked. They most likely both had the other player in mind when they went for the ball but players now have to be aware going into these challenges that they're in trouble if they hurt the person on the end of the tackle.

I guess it's all about risk - do you risk losing the ball, getting hurt or getting sent off. It's not easy and I don't blame Stephens, Ramirez or Dean for making the decisions they did in the circumstances.

 

[Bozza]

Ramirez was barely in the same postcode when Stephens took the ball away. Ramirez saw he was going to lose out and swung for Stephens. He couldn't have foreseen he was likely to suffer such an injury, when he may have been trying to inflict one himself.

 

[Hamilton]

This is what I'm saying, when two players go for a ball that neither has control over, with that amount of force, and one player is half a second late it is always a foul. The 50/50 challenge is IMHO one of the biggest grey areas for referees.

If Stephens had been late to the ball then he would've most likely got hurt instead, had Ramirez cut his leg open he probably would've walked. They most likely both had the other player in mind when they went for the ball but players now have to be aware going into these challenges that they're in trouble if they hurt the person on the end of the tackle.

I guess it's all about risk - do you risk losing the ball, getting hurt or getting sent off. It's not easy and I don't blame Stephens, Ramirez or Dean for making the decisions they did in the circumstances.

Where I am at is slightly different. I think Stephens genuinely thought he would get to the ball first ahead of Ramirez. He had no intent to follow through and it is in fact Ramirez's follow through that has caused the injury. He has effectively kicked Stephens with his shin. That to me is accidental.

I'll admit I'm no referee, and I'm just calling it as I see it. I think Dean made a decision based on a split second view. It was his gut reaction. I don't blame him for anything - other than he had a yellow and then switched to red which seems odd - it is just that now I'd like to see a dispassionate reason for the decision and ultimately an admission that it was not as bad as viewed on the pitch.

Who'd be a ref?


Sent from my iPhone using blancmange

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No they don't, you've never been allowed to follow through with your studs.

If the bottom of your boot connects with another players leg then 99 times out of a hundred it's at least a foul and usually a booking, the rules are there to stop that from happening.

Joey Barton?

 

[Billy the Fish]

Joey Barton?

It's different rules for him apparently!

 

[Billy the Fish]

Where I am at is slightly different. I think Stephens genuinely thought he would get to the ball first ahead of Ramirez. He had no intent to follow through and it is in fact Ramirez's follow through that has caused the injury. He has effectively kicked Stephens with his shin. That to me is accidental.

I'll admit I'm no referee, and I'm just calling it as I see it. I think Dean made a decision based on a split second view. It was his gut reaction. I don't blame him for anything - other than he had a yellow and then switched to red which seems odd - it is just that now I'd like to see a dispassionate reason for the decision and ultimately an admission that it was not as bad as viewed on the pitch.

Who'd be a ref?

Only the players know if they intended to take a piece of each other. I guess that's one of the many fine lines this challenge sits on, along with the studs up debate.

 

[Albumen]

Ramirez was barely in the same postcode when Stephens took the ball away. Ramirez saw he was going to lose out and swung for Stephens. He couldn't have foreseen he was likely to suffer such an injury, when he may have been trying to inflict one himself.

Now that is far fetched!

 

[Bozza]

Now that is far fetched!

Well, he certainly wasn't going to get the ball swinging his leg as late as he did.

 

[kevo]

This is what I'm saying, when two players go for a ball that neither has control over, with that amount of force, and one player is half a second late it is always a foul. The 50/50 challenge is IMHO one of the biggest grey areas for referees.

It wasn't a 50/50 challenge. Stephens was intercepting a free ball and clearly got there first. Ramirez came in late and caught Stephens, but Stephens gets sent off!

 

[Westdene Wonder]

There is no point in going on and on regarding this tackle the end result was the match was a draw which was all Boro needed,end of story

 

[Albumen]

There is no point in going on and on regarding this tackle the end result was the match was a draw which was all Boro needed,end of story

 

[Bozza]

There is no point in going on and on regarding this tackle the end result was the match was a draw which was all Boro needed,end of story

Boro fans on twitter seem unable to stop going on about it. Not entirely sure why - it's not their fault that the referee made an abysmal decision. In criticising Mike Dean's performance we're not having a pop at Boro.

Most right-minded Albion fans will also agree that Boro had the best of the first half and we'd posed little threat on goal. However, we had managed to equalise and that had shaken up both Boro's team and their support. Would we have gone on to win? Nobody knows or could say either way. We still faced a huge task, but at least we were equipped to attempt that task. In being reduced to 10 men in the manner we were, severely restricted our ability to have a good go.

Boro are a very decent and strong side, particularly at home with a raucous following. They've despatched many good Championship sides who had the benefit of 11 men. Having just the 10 men turned a difficult task into a near impossible one, and Boro closed the game out in the professional way you'd expect.