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

[sparkie]

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...

"

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​

"

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.

Does the club get to present a case, or can all they do is say 'we appeal' ?

I think Barber needs to pull out the stops and get expert testimony on this one.

 

[Taybha]

The way footballs going it will be a non contact sport in 10 years time , goal difference wont count , it will be points awarded for the most spectacular Platoonism during a game , the laws of the game are starting to ruin the game , in yesterdays case i will be very suprised and angry if our appeal gets turned down , just a total accident with absolutely no intent at all ,anyway the lino had it in for Dale from the 1st half when he made a fantastic tackle , the ref gave a throw in the lino signaled for a free kick .

 

[GT49er]

Yesterday evening I wasn't sure - I'd only seen it briefly, in real time, on the TV. I know that's all the time the refs have, but they are highly trained an qualified - I am not, I'm just a fan. So, I refused to join the chorus of 'never a red in a million years' posts - and got called a patronising fool for my trouble by some turd!
However, having recorded the Channel 5 Championship programme and played the incident over at slow motion, frame by frame, I've now voted in the 'no foul at all' box.
a). It wasn't a tackle at all - Ramirez didn't have control of the ball, so it was a loose ball which any player is entitled to try to get to.
b). The ball was in the air - neither player was going to wait until it came down - and there is nothing in the rules as far as I know which says they have to wait for it to come down.
c). It was therefore a 50/50 ball, which Stephens got to first; it is, to the best of my knowledge, physically impossible to kick a ball at waste height while still keeping the studs pointing down, so they weren't unduly up, or aimed at the player - Stephens simply nicked a loose ball that was in the air. No foul, IMHO.

Grounds for appeal? Certainly. Any chance of the authorities not bottling it? None whatsoever.

 

[Jim_AFCB]

With everyone quoting appeal rules and what defines a yellow and red card for a foul: how was the play restarted after the imcedent? Was it actually a free kick or was it a drop ball? I seem to recall a drop ball...but I am not sure anymore. If it was a drop ball the ref never gave a foul, so the talk of reckless or not for a card is irrelevent.

If he has stopped play to sanction Stephens for the tackle, then the restart HAS to be a free kick. Restarting with a dropped ball is just plain wrong in law.
I don't have a recording of the game so can't look back to see what the restart was.

 

[Mattywerewolf]

Is this a Bozza careful ploy to fish out the bro, burnley and Palarse fans for a ban? 15 at the moment

 

[Finchley Seagull]

Yesterday evening I wasn't sure - I'd only seen it briefly, in real time, on the TV. I know that's all the time the refs have, but they are highly trained an qualified - I am not, I'm just a fan. So, I refused to join the chorus of 'never a red in a million years' posts - and got called a patronising fool for my trouble by some turd!
However, having recorded the Channel 5 Championship programme and played the incident over at slow motion, frame by frame, I've now voted in the 'no foul at all' box.
a). It wasn't a tackle at all - Ramirez didn't have control of the ball, so it was a loose ball which any player is entitled to try to get to.
b). The ball was in the air - neither player was going to wait until it came down - and there is nothing in the rules as far as I know which says they have to wait for it to come down.
c). It was therefore a 50/50 ball, which Stephens got to first; it is, to the best of my knowledge, physically impossible to kick a ball at waste height while still keeping the studs pointing down, so they weren't unduly up, or aimed at the player - Stephens simply nicked a loose ball that was in the air. No foul, IMHO.

Grounds for appeal? Certainly. Any chance of the authorities not bottling it? None whatsoever.

Completely agree. I actually think there's an argument it is a foul by Ramirez who comes in late on Stephens. Stephens goes straight through, doesn't change direction and Ramirez flies into him (made much worse by his lack of shin pads). His actions after that are frankly a disgrace with firstly shoving the yellow card out of Mike Dean's (minimum yellow card) and rolling around, then lying prone to be stretchered off with oxygen and finally miraculously recovering to be able to come out for the presentation. Personally, if we play Boro next season, I will be booing Ramirez for his behaviour.

As an aside, the FA are a joke and won't allow an appeal. As said by many others, admitting Dean got it wrong means they admit their referee cost us a good chance of going up. We were in the ascendancy at the time and Stephens was our best player (and had just scored). They can't admit a mistake sadly.

 

[spence]

Two things worry me about the footage and the appeal.

Both feet of the ground.

Studs showing.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Having watched the replay a few times and more importantly had a couple of days for the disappointment to go away I think it was the correct decision.

Stephens won the ball but he also left his boot in after the challenge. It's something that happens in football all the time and if he hadn't caused so much damage it probably would've been a yellow, but he did cause that much damage and if you do that as a result of leaving your boot in then I'm afraid refs are going to send you off.

 

[The Oldman]

Just watched Ref Watch on Sky sports. Dermot ? the ex Premier Ref said it was the seriousness of the injury that warranted the change from Yellow to Red. Correct decision he says. No chance we will win the appeal, methinks.

 

[GT49er]

Having watched the replay a few times and more importantly had a couple of days for the disappointment to go away I think it was the correct decision.

Stephens won the ball but he also left his boot in after the challenge. It's something that happens in football all the time and if he hadn't caused so much damage it probably would've been a yellow, but he did cause that much damage and if you do that as a result of leaving your boot in then I'm afraid refs are going to send you off.

He didn't leave his boot in. Where was he supposed to put it? - Ramirez came in from the side and hit Stephens' boot. Never a foul - but Dermot Gallagher on ref watch didn't even consider that, just the state of the injury.

 

[kevo]

He didn't leave his boot in. Where was he supposed to put it? - Ramirez came in from the side and hit Stephens' boot. Never a foul - but Dermot Gallagher on ref watch didn't even consider that, just the state of the injury.

As I said in the other thread, this presumably means that if Ramirez was wearing proper shin pads it would have only been a booking.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Not a foul in the SLIGHTEST. Not even a "CHALLENGE".

He got to a loose ball first. Ramirez kicked the underneath of his boot.

If Ramirez was wearing shin pads CORRECTLY.....ie, TO PROTECT HIS SHIN, then this would never have happened.

I'll always acknowledge when we've fouled, dived, cheated, been dicks. But in this case Stephens did nothing wrong and the ref has been swayed by an injury which is pathetic.

 

[amexer]

If panel only watched Stevens get to the ball first and any shots of Middlesborough player were excluded they would wonder why he was even booked.

 

[El Turi]

Interesting that most ex players are saying it wasn't a red but referees are. I think it shows most referees have never really played football so don't understand it's impossible to challenge for a bouncing ball without having your studs showing at all.

 

[sparkie]

Two things worry me about the footage and the appeal.

Both feet of the ground.

Studs showing.

Neither point relevant.

It was a free ball, not a tackle.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Just watched Ref Watch on Sky sports. Dermot ? the ex Premier Ref said it was the seriousness of the injury that warranted the change from Yellow to Red. Correct decision he says. No chance we will win the appeal, methinks.

I'd be interested to see what law of the game he quoted to support that.

The injury was an ACCIDENT caused by Ramierez being LATE, that line of thinking is simply ridiculous, but it does show what idiocy you are up against when dealing officials.

 

[sparkie]

Hope Barber has composed a comprehensive dossier to submit for the appeal.

 

[Munchkin]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, the FA will uphold his decision due to the magnitude of the game and the possible consequence of his mistake.

Had it been a mid table bore draw with the result having no bearing then we would have had a great chance of it being rescinded.

It's how the FA work I'm afraid.

 

[kevo]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, the FA will uphold his decision due to the magnitude of the game and the possible consequence of his mistake.

Had it been a mid table bore draw with the result having no bearing then we would have had a great chance of it being rescinded.

It's how the FA work I'm afraid.

Sadly I agree with you.

 

[KingstonSeagull]

I voted Yellow - I don't think it was a bad foul but considering the previous handbags going on between the two of them I would have given the yellow and then given the baddie from Beauty and the Beast also a yellow for smacking the card out my hand...