Caveman
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2003
- 9,926
Thanks woof woof
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] You are the ref: Dale Stephens' challenge on Gaston Ramirez
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Thanks woof woof
- Thread starter
- #42
I took that back because he didn't win the ball.
"Win the ball" comments normally refers to when player A has the ball, player B challenges him, gets the ball but is reckless in some regard.
Stephens didn't win the ball as Ramirez didn't have it. Stephens simple played the free ball and Ramirez, in being very slow, shinned the bottom of Stephens' boot. From there the combination of Ramirez's low and small shin pads and the modern blade boot did the damage to Ramirez. If he was either:
a) Not slow.
and/or
b) Wearing shin pads that covered his shins.
...there would be absolutely nothing to see here. Well, other than Stephens continuing to boss the midfield anyway.
Caveman
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2003
- 9,926
Exactly it's a contact sport, if that was a red card, then every challenge in football carries the risk of a red card. Poor decision.
East Preston Gull
New member
The Camel
Well-known member
He went into a challenge with his studs up. That is not allowed any more.
Sam Ovett
The New Manager Bus
But it wasn't a challenge, he kicked the free ball. Ramirez slammed his poorly-protected shin into Dale's boot.
When your foot is in the air, your studs are up.
MongoJerry
Member
- Mar 23, 2013
- 80
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The Camel
Well-known member
I agree he's won the ball.
But he's won the ball with his studs up. And you can't do that any more.
Zero chance the appeal is successful.
KingKev
Well-known member
Not a foul. Simple. If Dale was coming in face-on then foul and yellow. He came from the side, won it cleanly and you could argue that if there was a foul it was actually by Ramirez who arrived late.
If that's a yellow card then clubs would need squads of 30-odd to cope with the suspensions for all the bookings. If that's a red card then there is something badly wrong when continuous cynical fouling to deny more skilful players (see Christie, C) is deemed significantly more acceptable than causing an injury in an accidental coming together.
Nonsense decision - made worse by the fact he had the yellow card out having seen it head-on with a clear view from 5 yards away but chose to change his mind either because he saw the extent of the injury OR based on the advice of an assistant who must have been at least 40 yards away and with a minimum 3 or 4 players in his line of sight (plus as this was the middle of the pitch and the Lino has to keep an eye on the last man, how the f@ck can he have seen the whole incident?). F@cking nonsense!!
Still don't think it will be rescinded though, which is the even bigger nonsense. Just no honesty or justice in this sport we love.....someone needs to at least try and sort this crazy state of affairs out, don't they?
If that's a yellow card then clubs would need squads of 30-odd to cope with the suspensions for all the bookings. If that's a red card then there is something badly wrong when continuous cynical fouling to deny more skilful players (see Christie, C) is deemed significantly more acceptable than causing an injury in an accidental coming together.
Nonsense decision - made worse by the fact he had the yellow card out having seen it head-on with a clear view from 5 yards away but chose to change his mind either because he saw the extent of the injury OR based on the advice of an assistant who must have been at least 40 yards away and with a minimum 3 or 4 players in his line of sight (plus as this was the middle of the pitch and the Lino has to keep an eye on the last man, how the f@ck can he have seen the whole incident?). F@cking nonsense!!
Still don't think it will be rescinded though, which is the even bigger nonsense. Just no honesty or justice in this sport we love.....someone needs to at least try and sort this crazy state of affairs out, don't they?
Sam Ovett
The New Manager Bus
As Bozza said he didn't win the ball because it wasnt there to be won.
"Studs up" If that is studs up then it must be illegal to ever try to control the ball above the ground. Pathetic argument
TWOCHOICEStom
Well-known member
"His studs are up"
No. He's just played the ball. Ramirez comes in an hour and a half later and moves his shin (with TERRIBLE shinpads I might add) right into Stephens boot at precisely the wrong time. Stephens kicked the ball, that was it.
If I placed my face 2mm inch from the ball before a corner kick, I would get my face cut for sure because FOOTBALLERS HAVE SPIKES ON THEIR FEET. Does that mean the corner taker should be red carded? Of course not.
The cut in absolutely no way is an indication of the severity of the foul.
No. He's just played the ball. Ramirez comes in an hour and a half later and moves his shin (with TERRIBLE shinpads I might add) right into Stephens boot at precisely the wrong time. Stephens kicked the ball, that was it.
If I placed my face 2mm inch from the ball before a corner kick, I would get my face cut for sure because FOOTBALLERS HAVE SPIKES ON THEIR FEET. Does that mean the corner taker should be red carded? Of course not.
The cut in absolutely no way is an indication of the severity of the foul.
KingKev
Well-known member
He's not won a challenge, he's actually taken possession of the ball there. Studs are nowhere near the player and not travelling towards him. Ramirez makes contact with Stephens, not the other way around.
If that is a red card then by the same logic virtually every attempt at a bicycle kick should also be a red card as should ANY occasion when a player raises his foot above around knee level anywhere on the pitch.
Card was for the injury not the action.
No chance of winning an appeal though - the powers that be will hide behind one of their get-out phrases again.
nwgull
Well-known member
Ramirez has his studs up as much as Stephens, except that he didn't win the ball because he was about 1 second late.
The ball was loose. His foot was level. It was Dale's ball. He played the ball. He was first to the ball. Ramirez hooked the ball over his shoulder, turned and made a late lunge for the loose ball. He was 2nd to the ball. He caused the injury. There was no tacke involved.
£170 million con. £170 million error. £170 million write off!
kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 9,801
I honestly believe we would have won if Stephens had stayed on the pitch. Absolutely shocking decision that could cost us £170m. Unfortunately there's no way in hell it will be rescinded.
I don't mean to gang up on you.
But when I read comments like this I do wonder if the rules of this game were changed when I wasn't looking. Are you seriously suggesting DS should have let that ball go? Fck.
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,297
That's how i saw it, Stephens was quicker to a 50/50 ball and Ramirez kicked into Stephens as a result, however i expect the incident just prior to that may have played a part in the ref giving a red as he only saw Stephens push Ramirez back after Ramirez was shoving Stephens and therefore, once shown the injury to the leg, may have decided that Stephens was deliberately trying to injure their player as a continuation of that dispute.
Ramirez was falling over at any opportunity all game prior to that, looking to get free kicks and to slow the game down and sadly the ref kept giving them (but not a few that were worse which should have been Brighton free kicks) Their whole team seem to be at it, their number 8's couple of blatant dives were laughable, Jordan Rhodes dive near our box, their bench stopping us from getting the ball for a throw in, etc.... (Burnley were similar, see Barton especially) and seeking to con the ref to gain an advantage rather than use skill to win the game is something i hate, (i hope) fans don't go to watch players fall over at the merest contact but it is something that is taking over (and destroying imo) the game