sydney
tinky ****in winky
that's exactly how i see it.....and what the feck are them 3 waffling on about....i've listened to it 4 times and it's drivel..!
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
that's exactly how i see it.....and what the feck are them 3 waffling on about....i've listened to it 4 times and it's drivel..!
sydney
tinky ****in winky
Then how do you score from an overhead kick?
Equally, and i’m only going by memory having only seen it live, scroll back 15-20 seconds, on maybe even less
it was immediately prior to the incident . Did Rameriz not have his foot higher than Stephens in the attempt to get the ball (not involving Stephens).
Therefore maLord stating a president that was acceptable?
His foot was high as were his studs, which is exactly the same as in question except
a) Stephens won the ball
b) Rameriz on either occasion had no chance or real attempt to contact with the ball.
c) where does self inflicted come into this
d) Where does Dean’s cowardice or the governing board above him stop?:
If in a court of law,
why wasn’t Rameriz wearing shin guards?
Why didn’t the wound bleed?
Why was he allowed to knock the yellow card from the referees hand?
Can they
prove it wasn’t and old injury?
I suggest Ma’Lord had it been the other way, a replay behind closed doors would be in order.
I would state that the first goal was off side due to it being part of the same scoring move
But that is nothing compared to the cowardice that resigned a team to 39 minutes with one man short.
So with 170 million at stake the league turn a blind eye
We wouldn’t replay with a team already promoted,
We couldn’t act upon a opposition staff member stopping the opposition for continuing normal play with less than two min left to play.
They condone supporters on the field of play during actual playing time?
So now they have a dilemma if they rescind are they liable?[/QUOTE]
need to get a QC to handle the appeal... the issue you raise about accountability/liability is interesting......if the card is over turned the Dean's cock up is confirmed ....a very expensive cock up in our case.
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
This backs up what most are saying. Stephens studs are not 'up' in the tackle because it wasn't even a tackle. Stephen won a free ball, Ramirez was late and kicks the bottom of Stephens boot. If the guy was wearing proper shin pads, this would even be discussed. Not even a foul, or a tackle. It was a 50/50 which Stephens clearly won.
All those saying about Studs up etc, need to understand that that only applies in a tackle challenge. It wasn't even a tackle.
Eh? Most players studs are showing after they kick a ball whilst it's in the air. By your logic there should be about 18-20 red cards a game.
Exactly as Barton did in our match against Burnley.
Chief Wiggum
New member
- Apr 30, 2009
- 518
Yep and there we have it. Stephens goes in with no intent, wins a loose ball with his studs (quite naturally) showing. Barton on the other hand snidely stamps on Kayal with his studs (quite naturally) down. Stephens gets punished, Barton gets away with it. Go figure. The sooner we have video refs for incidents such as this the better.
cjd
Well-known member
Interesting to note that the 7 stupids cvnts who voted for a red card included 2 x Palace, 1 x West Ham and 1 x Norwich....and the other Palace troll Gregbrighton.
Quite why they are allowed on our forum is beyond me.
Quite why they are allowed on our forum is beyond me.
These two players had been niggling each other all game. Ramirez knew he wouldn't get that ball but wanted to compete for it anyway to continue the duel.
Stephens got the ball first and Ramirez's swing at the ball - now absent - resulted in him kicking Stephens with his shin. Because he had no adequate protection on his leg he has cut himself on Stephens' studs.
Not a card. No reason for anything to be given at all.
One might argue that Ramirez should have been given a talking to - but that feels harsh given that he had got himself stretchered off.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Stephens got the ball first and Ramirez's swing at the ball - now absent - resulted in him kicking Stephens with his shin. Because he had no adequate protection on his leg he has cut himself on Stephens' studs.
Not a card. No reason for anything to be given at all.
One might argue that Ramirez should have been given a talking to - but that feels harsh given that he had got himself stretchered off.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Miximate
Well-known member
Sat with a Palace fan whilst watching the game (they hate Dean as a ref as well) and like the rest of us, he didn't think it even warranted a yellow card, let alone a straight red
Video replay technology would have sorted this out in less than 2 minutes
Video replay technology would have sorted this out in less than 2 minutes
It's a 50/50 ball that's meat and drink to a midfielder. I'm not sure how Stephens could win that without raising his foot as it was off the ground - just poking his toe out to get the ball and Gaston has swung his leg on to the studs. The way games are reffed these days I wouldn't have been surprised by a yellow (though arguably it was barely a foul in the traditional sense). The clash of heads comparison is most appropriate. If they'd banged heads and 1 had been covered in blood, no way would it have been a red card.
Couple of people have made an issue to me of their spar just before - where Stephens asked him why he was feigning injury and Gaston kicked off. Obviously in Dean's mind but irrelevant. On yesterday's performance, 1 thought at a time is the most his little brain can manage.
Couple of people have made an issue to me of their spar just before - where Stephens asked him why he was feigning injury and Gaston kicked off. Obviously in Dean's mind but irrelevant. On yesterday's performance, 1 thought at a time is the most his little brain can manage.
Don Goodman completely lost the plot. I think he was so determined not to be heaping blame on to the referee in such an important game that he completely ignored the evidence he was seeing. He ought to be embarrassed with hindsight.
I can say again - never a sending off. I accept refs make mistakes but simply he HAS to be certain in a game of this magnitude that it's a red and if he's not he has to err on the side of caution. And that's what I find unforgivable. As it clearly wasn't a red and his initial reaction was a yellow (which is still wrong) then he simply couldn't have been 100% sure it was a red. And make no mistake that one decision cost us automatic promotion. And it absolutely doesn't ever "even itself out".
Sam Ovett
The New Manager Bus
Goodman has NEVER had a good thing to say about us.
HP Seagull
Danny Cullip: Hero
- Sep 26, 2008
- 1,801
What did the pundits say in the studio afterwards? Apologies if this has already been discussed.
jameswestport
New member
- Sep 7, 2011
- 927
Sorry lads but if I was the ref I'd of given a straight red. I know he go the ball but I told him off two minutes earlier and he just wouldn't listen to me.
From the Laws of the game:
Careless- free kick, no further action.
Reckless - Yellow card
Using excessive force or playing in a manner likely to endanger an opponent - Red card.
By your on definition then, it's a yellow card, not a red.
For my money it's a pure accident, 50/50 at least and probably more in favour of Stephens than that. Can anyone really say that it was "using excessive force or playing in a manner likely to endanger an opponent"? As others have said, Ramirez has kicked Stephen's studs with his shin trying to win the ball and got it wrong.
You guys have been sawn off there.
yxee
Well-known member
Had to think about this for a while...
The fact that it was totally accidental, with no malicious intent, is irrelevant.
The fact that he won the ball is irrelevant.
However there is one clause in the rules of the game regarding a red card...
"
So the relevant questions are:
1. Did Stephens use excessive force? Definition: "the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent"
2. Was it a tackle? If so, 3. Did it endanger the safety of the opponent?
My answers are:
1. No, because the level of force used did not "far exceed" what was necessary in that instance.
2. No, since it was two players challenging for the ball.
I think it is analogous to a clash of heads when going for the ball. Players always get injured for this, and never get sent off for serious foul play. The fact that Stephens's foot happens to land on Ramirez's shin is equivalent to some player's forehead clashing with another player's back-of-head. Both players could have caused injury, it just so happens that Ramirez came out worse.
The fact that it was totally accidental, with no malicious intent, is irrelevant.
The fact that he won the ball is irrelevant.
However there is one clause in the rules of the game regarding a red card...
"
A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.
A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play
"A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play
So the relevant questions are:
1. Did Stephens use excessive force? Definition: "the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent"
2. Was it a tackle? If so, 3. Did it endanger the safety of the opponent?
My answers are:
1. No, because the level of force used did not "far exceed" what was necessary in that instance.
2. No, since it was two players challenging for the ball.
I think it is analogous to a clash of heads when going for the ball. Players always get injured for this, and never get sent off for serious foul play. The fact that Stephens's foot happens to land on Ramirez's shin is equivalent to some player's forehead clashing with another player's back-of-head. Both players could have caused injury, it just so happens that Ramirez came out worse.
Brighton Mod
Its All Too Beautiful
if you view the replay it was Ramirez who was reckless, he made contact with Stephens not the other way round. In the previous incident between the two it was Stephens who made up not Ramirez. Dean became involved in the incident and reacted when he saw the blood. Watching from the TV I felt that most decisions went against us, even when there was no infringement. Despite having been critical of Stephens over recent months with his sideways and back passes and lack of physicality for his size, I thought he one of his best games of the season and was up for the game. The sending off in game of such magnitude pretty much ended the contest ,as without that midfield player we were unable to make the progress we neede through the midfield and resorted to hoof ball.
Being there most of the decisions went against us. Every time Ayala jumped for a ball with Hemed, he yelped, clutched his face and won a free-kick.
blue'n'white
Well-known member
IF they don't overturn it - you're saying there's a doubt that they're corrupt