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

[sparkie]

Why Dean didn't go into the game with the mindset that the last thing needed was an appealed red card I'll never know.

He cannot have been 100% sure as he didn't go straight for the red.

It still amazes me that he didn't just play safe given the above.

Now his bosses have a mess to deal with, and all they can really do is back the injustice.

 

[GT49er]

That's because of the way he went into the challenge with his leg straight out in front of him like that, it's studs up.

If he'd been less aggressive his body position would've been different and he probably would've taken a kick because Ramirez was the one who was late, but Dale jumped in a way that meant he had to leave his foot in.

I'm not trying to say it's clear cut, I think it was an unfortunate set of circumstances because if Ramirez wasn't so slow and didn't miss the ball by a foot they would've connected at the same time and there wouldn't have been a problem.

But anyone saying it's not even debatable is viewing it through blue and white tinted specs.

The ball was in the air, at waste height, waiting to be kicked. He had every right to kick it (as did Ramirez, whose attempt to kick it was simply less successful because Stephens got there first). Stephens then carried on running, not towards or into Ramirez, but past him - so no 'going through the ball to get the man'. He simply moved the ball away before the other player could get to it. Ramirez stuck his leg in the way - or tried to - but wasn't quick enough.

As Sydney has already explained, there was nowhere else Stephens' boot could go - he is not able to fly or defy gravity - and as for studs up, where do you think studs are likely to be, when claiming (legitimately) a loose ball that is three feet off the ground. Would you seriously expect him to wait until it drops? Seriously? Come on!

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I think it was a foul on the basis that free kicks are given for a lot less every week. However, the card seemed to be given as a result of whatever was said when Stephens and Ramirez were spoken to moments earlier. the ref was weak which makes me wonder why bother appointing a premier league ref at all. We already have plenty of weak refs in the Championship.

 

[Hamilton]

Former Premiership referee and Boro fan Jeff Winter is getting very prickly about anyone suggesting that it wasn't a red card. In fact, he displays the very worst traits of a referee by refusing to enter into any dialogue about a decision and then blocking anyone on twitter who disagrees with him.

I wonder if he had this mentality on the pitch a few year's back?

https://twitter.com/WinterJeff/status/729578461212381184

 

[Billy the Fish]

The ball was in the air, at waste height, waiting to be kicked. He had every right to kick it (as did Ramirez, whose attempt to kick it was simply less successful because Stephens got there first). Stephens then carried on running, not towards or into Ramirez, but past him - so no 'going through the ball to get the man'. He simply moved the ball away before the other player could get to it. Ramirez stuck his leg in the way - or tried to - but wasn't quick enough.

As Sydney has already explained, there was nowhere else Stephens' boot could go - he is not able to fly or defy gravity - and as for studs up, where do you think studs are likely to be, when claiming (legitimately) a loose ball that is three feet off the ground. Would you seriously expect him to wait until it drops? Seriously? Come on!

This is why I'm saying it's debatable because I can see exactly why you and 90% of Albion fans see it as you do, but I don't think it's an exact science and one of those grey areas in football that's completely open to interpretation. On Saturday afternoon I completely agreed with you, but having watched it over and over I don't think it's clear cut at all. I think it's an interesting debate about what's a fair challenge for a waist high 50/50 ball. If it was as obvious as everyone on NSC is making out then there wouldn't be so many differences of opinion between fans of all clubs, pundits and officials.

It's studs up because of his leg position, which is directly in front of him meaning that he kicked the ball with the bottom of his boot. He could've taken the ball with a body position that was more sideways on so his studs weren't aimed directly at where the other player is challenging, it's exactly the same for a 50/50 along the ground but it's far less obvious.

If he'd taken it without being studs up I think he would've got clattered by Ramirez with a foul and a booking going the other way. But he didn't and he went into it in a way that if Ramirez was late (which he was) he was going to get a boot in his leg. This is why I find it interesting, when two players are going for a ball with that much force it has to be a foul one way or the other. Usually whichever player is second to the ball gets hurt.

 

[Caveman]

So nearly 400 votes and only 4% think it was a red of which i bet at least 3% are Boro or Palace fans on the wind up, the other 1% are unable to press the correct button.

 

[GT49er]

This is why I'm saying it's debatable because I can see exactly why you and 90% of Albion fans see it as you do, but I don't think it's an exact science and one of those grey areas in football that's completely open to interpretation. On Saturday afternoon I completely agreed with you, but having watched it over and over I don't think it's clear cut at all. I think it's an interesting debate about what's a fair challenge for a waist high 50/50 ball. If it was as obvious as everyone on NSC is making out then there wouldn't be so many differences of opinion between fans of all clubs, pundits and officials.

It's studs up because of his leg position, which is directly in front of him meaning that he kicked the ball with the bottom of his boot. He could've taken the ball with a body position that was more sideways on so his studs weren't aimed directly at where the other player is challenging, it's exactly the same for a 50/50 along the ground but it's far less obvious.

If he'd taken it without being studs up I think he would've got clattered by Ramirez with a foul and a booking going the other way. But he didn't and he went into it in a way that if Ramirez was late (which he was) he was going to get a boot in his leg. This is why I find it interesting, when two players are going for a ball with that much force it has to be a foul one way or the other. Usually whichever player is second to the ball gets hurt.

It's studs up (legitimately) because the ball is three feet up in the air - and that's the only reason. Studs would still be up if he'd twisted his body in any direction, whether he stuck his leg u sideways, backwards, or inside out.
And, significantly, neither his studs, his boot, his leg, his body or his direction are towards his opponent; he is trying to go past him, not to hit him, so quite legal. Just because Ramirez tried to kick the ball after it had gone (or maybe tried to kick Stephens) does not make Stephens' straightforward nicking of a loose ball a foul.

 

[Kazenga <3]

Former Premiership referee and Boro fan Jeff Winter is getting very prickly about anyone suggesting that it wasn't a red card. In fact, he displays the very worst traits of a referee by refusing to enter into any dialogue about a decision and then blocking anyone on twitter who disagrees with him.

I wonder if he had this mentality on the pitch a few year's back?

https://twitter.com/WinterJeff/status/729578461212381184

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.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

Former Premiership referee and Boro fan Jeff Winter is getting very prickly about anyone suggesting that it wasn't a red card. In fact, he displays the very worst traits of a referee by refusing to enter into any dialogue about a decision and then blocking anyone on twitter who disagrees with him.

I wonder if he had this mentality on the pitch a few year's back?

https://twitter.com/WinterJeff/status/729578461212381184

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).

 

[Crewton Ram]

As a neutral on this issue, I haven't voted, but I'm inclined to agree with Billy the Fish. I think it was the way that Stephens 'jumped' into the challenge that caused the ref to view it is dangerous play likely to injure an opponent. His momentum and action was far more aggressive than Ramirez's belated attempt to play the ball. However, I think the referee was wrong to change the card to red purely on the basis of the injury to Ramirez - what's the difference between "likely to" and "did"? probably the reaction of Ramirez and the Boro players etc.

Considering George Thorne ended up with a broken leg and Jonathan Douglas didn't even get a yellow card for a challenge that was far worse but which the ref didn't even feel merited a penalty, I think Stephens has been very unlucky.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I think he did. He followed through in a downwards motion when he could've kept his foot lifted. I'm sure he didn't mean to cause the damage that he did, but I do think he meant to leave something on Ramirez. I used to do it when I played, if you're in a battle with someone you win the ball and leave something on the player as well, you're not trying to hurt them but you need to assert yourself.

I also think Stephens was very unlucky that Ramirez's follow through effectively increased the force of the collision. Had he not cut him it would've been a yellow. It's all very unfortunate, but I think the ref had no choice.

I realise the majority don't agree and I understand why.

How do you do that when in full flow and basically running? Stephens has on the ball in this fashion countless times this season (without making contact with the opponent) and is then away from that player and in space to use the ball to his and our advantage

If was a loose ball that he was entitled to go for and to win, which he did cleanly. He is not responsible for an opponent being late to the challenge and getting themself hurt as a result. It was good play by Stephens and harshly punished (just like he was early in the first half where he made a clean challenge and won the ball only for a free-kick to be awarded)

 

[Hamilton]

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).

I found it quite bizarre.

Having challenged him on it on twitter he has now blocked me as well. How childish.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

I found it quite bizarre.

Having challenged him on it on twitter he has now blocked me as well. How childish.

Didn't see any comments from any Albion fans that should result in being blocked. Just commenting on his incorrect comments. Obviously doesn't like his opinion being questioned.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

That's because of the way he went into the challenge with his leg straight out in front of him like that, it's studs up.

If he'd been less aggressive his body position would've been different and he probably would've taken a kick because Ramirez was the one who was late, but Dale jumped in a way that meant he had to leave his foot in.

I'm not trying to say it's clear cut, I think it was an unfortunate set of circumstances because if Ramirez wasn't so slow and didn't miss the ball by a foot they would've connected at the same time and there wouldn't have been a problem.

But anyone saying it's not even debatable is viewing it through blue and white tinted specs.

Just like this one from our March game against Sheffield Wednesday? It's on the BBC website. It happens in most games. Ramirez injury was an accident.

 

[Billy the Fish]

It's studs up (legitimately) because the ball is three feet up in the air - and that's the only reason. Studs would still be up if he'd twisted his body in any direction, whether he stuck his leg u sideways, backwards, or inside out.
And, significantly, neither his studs, his boot, his leg, his body or his direction are towards his opponent; he is trying to go past him, not to hit him, so quite legal. Just because Ramirez tried to kick the ball after it had gone (or maybe tried to kick Stephens) does not make Stephens' straightforward nicking of a loose ball a foul.

There's no such thing as a legitimate studs up. If he'd taken the ball in the air with a side foot or his laces then it wouldn't be studs up.
If the ball is so high that you have to take it with the bottom of your foot and you end up following through on a player then you're going to get in trouble more often than not, that's just how the game is these days.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

There's no such thing as a legitimate studs up. If he'd taken the ball in the air with a side foot or his laces then it wouldn't be studs up.
If the ball is so high that you have to take it with the bottom of your foot and you end up following through on a player then you're going to get in trouble more often than not, that's just how the game is these days.

Take a look at the photo I posted above.

 

[Charlies Shinpad]

I've just blocked Jeff Winter after reading his comments and his timeline
But not after telling him he is a cock

 

[Billy the Fish]

Just like this one from our March game against Sheffield Wednesday? It's on the BBC website. It happens in most games. Ramirez injury was an accident.

I think that's a borderline red as well, you can't fly in with the bottom of your boot showing like that any more.

 

[trueblue]

John Terry committed two worse tackles on Saturday and Harry Arter one. Yellow card, not red for all three. I've found this utterly baffling. Every manager or player who's been asked about it and neutral fans I've spoken to seem to agree that at the very worst it was a booking and many take the view the ball was simply there to be won. Boro fans are too blinded by the blood and loyalty it seems to take any realistic viewpoint. But the rallying round of referees is thoroughly depressing. They seem to have changed their interpretation of the laws to whatever suits at the time. Lack of intent no excuse as we all know these days - and yet not even a booking earlier this season for Barton because there was no intent. I'm afraid that, as someone who's always had the utmost respect for the difficult jobs referees do and think they get MOST things right, I'm currently seeing them in an entirely different light.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I think that's a borderline red as well, you can't fly in with the bottom of your boot showing like that any more.

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?