FA Cup 3rd round

[Scylla]

Schards is always going to say Man City were hard done by - as he is a City fan.

He's like one of those sad numpty Reading fans on facebook yesterday complaining the ref was on Utds side. What I want to know is, why does it bother Reading fans so much that United won? What has it got to do with them?

An important question. Do you see yourself as Polly or more Melanie? Deborah used to have nice hair.

[No Fixed Abode]

If you throw a punch does it have to land in order to be sent off?

There are no circumsances in which throwing a punch is acceptable though. Tackling is allowed. Two problems with the sending off...firstly he gets the ball and doesnt make significant contact, secondly its not a real two footed lunging tackle.

The intent was there for all to see. I recall Gerrard diving and getting a penalty at Sheff Utd. The player didn't make contact with Gerrard, but the ref gave it as he said there was no contact but the intent was there.

[Seal]

Thing is, if Nani had gone down and rolled around for a while then nobody would be complaining about the red......you dont have to make contact with someone to be sent off these days.

People moan that refs aren't consistent, to be consistent they must apply the law as it is stated - as soon as "common sense" is bought in then you get inconsistency as everyone has a different view to the next.

So what's the exact wording of the law that you think justifies this decision? As far as i'm aware, I don't think there's any mention of "both feet off the ground", there are just terms like violent/wreckless/dangerous which are open to interpretation and I don't think Kompany's tackle were any of these.

This is the key point. I've heard of loads of people spouting rubbish like "the referee applied the letter of the law". If you ask them to show you where "two footed tackle = red card" is written down, they all go quiet. It is simply the FA applying an interpretation of what is "serious foul play" and using "excessive force".

The 3 grades are:-
Careless - free kick
Reckless - free kick & caution
Excessive force - free kick & red card

It's the FA that are causing the problem, they need to clarify what direction they are giving referees. At worse Kompany's challenge was reckless and maybe a yellow.

[Maguire]

The lads at the bottom clearly didn't read the memo

[Hoop Blah]

So what's the exact wording of the law that you think justifies this decision? As far as i'm aware, I don't think there's any mention of "both feet off the ground", there are just terms like violent/wreckless/dangerous which are open to interpretation and I don't think Kompany's tackle were any of these.

This is the key point. I've heard of loads of people spouting rubbish like "the referee applied the letter of the law". If you ask them to show you where "two footed tackle = red card" is written down, they all go quiet. It is simply the FA applying an interpretation of what is "serious foul play" and using "excessive force".

The 3 grades are:-
Careless - free kick
Reckless - free kick & caution
Excessive force - free kick & red card

It's the FA that are causing the problem, they need to clarify what direction they are giving referees. At worse Kompany's challenge was reckless and maybe a yellow.

Spot on Seal.

I think Schards has it about right on this tackle. It's not dangerous and it probably wasn't even a foul. All this stuff about being in control too, that's a red herring as well. At the time he makes the decision to commit to the tackle he's in full control and makes the decision that he can get the ball.

When you're making any tackle, sliding or otherwise, there comes a point when you can't stop the momentum of the tackle (see Ryan Shawcross breaking Ramsey's leg last season which was a swinging leg going for the ball) and it will become dangerous. I'm all for penalising dangerous tackles but ref's need to get them right (which they won't 100% of the time of course).

I blame the over analysis of every decision for this current interpretation of the clamp down that's now going too far.

[TBM]

The former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher, speaking on radio, defended Foy's decision, pointing out how officials are under instructions to clamp down on potentially dangerous tackles.

Also remember the ref gets one look at it......i was listening to 5Live when it happened and as soon as it happened Robbie Savage said "red card" before it was shown.....so maybe in real time it looked worse

Another case for video replies!

[No Fixed Abode]

The former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher, speaking on radio, defended Foy's decision, pointing out how officials are under instructions to clamp down on potentially dangerous tackles.

Also remember the ref gets one look at it......i was listening to 5Live when it happened and as soon as it happened Robbie Savage said "red card" before it was shown.....so maybe in real time it looked worse

Another case for video replies!

And also - lets not forget Nani managed to get out of the way. If Kompany had connected with him, it could have been a leg breaker. So to say it was a 'terrible' decision is a bit silly really. You can see why a red card was given. Most people (aka Schards) are only being biased in their opinion because they like to see United lose.

[RobRoyal]

Another case for video replies!

Would cause plently of lols of HNA, but I don't see what it would be for controversial referring decisions.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Another case for video replies!

Way too many stops in the game - unless you want to wait for maybe 5 minutes or more until the game next stops.

[Simon's Church]

Especially in this case where there's still no consensus on whether it was a red a day after the match.

[TBM]

Another case for video replies!

Way too many stops in the game - unless you want to wait for maybe 5 minutes or more until the game next stops.

Not really....Look [currently] at when a red card is shown, penalty is given, goal is scored - the game is stopped for minutes at time anyway

An idea is each team gets to "call" 3 decisions - but only things like "was that a goal (ball crossed line, offside, foul etc)?" - "was that a red card" - "was that a penalty"

Anything else can't be used for video replay.

[Hoop Blah]

If that kind of thing comes in (for matter of opinion decisions) then I'll walk away from football.

I'm all for technology for ball in or out of play decisions and the like, but how often do you see a replay get mixed opinions from 'experts'. All it will do is delay the decision and you'll still get argument over whether the opinion was right or not.

It will kill the flow of the game and I'd be tempted to start up my own new sport taking 99% of the rules from Association Football as I used to enjoy it.

[TBM]

If that kind of thing comes in (for matter of opinion decisions) then I'll walk away from football.

I'm all for technology for ball in or out of play decisions and the like, but how often do you see a replay get mixed opinions from 'experts'. All it will do is delay the decision and you'll still get argument over whether the opinion was right or not.

It will kill the flow of the game and I'd be tempted to start up my own new sport taking 99% of the rules from Association Football as I used to enjoy it.

I do agree with you - and as a paying member of the public i just want to see a good game of football and not too bothered about the result

However, in the professional game now it is more a business than a sport.......

[Svlad Cjelli]

Another case for video replies!

Way too many stops in the game - unless you want to wait for maybe 5 minutes or more until the game next stops.

Not really....Look [currently] at when a red card is shown, penalty is given, goal is scored - the game is stopped for minutes at time anyway

What if you stop the game, and decide it's not a foul?

S
H
A
M
B
L
E
S

[Hoop Blah]

If that kind of thing comes in (for matter of opinion decisions) then I'll walk away from football.

I'm all for technology for ball in or out of play decisions and the like, but how often do you see a replay get mixed opinions from 'experts'. All it will do is delay the decision and you'll still get argument over whether the opinion was right or not.

It will kill the flow of the game and I'd be tempted to start up my own new sport taking 99% of the rules from Association Football as I used to enjoy it.

I do agree with you - and as a paying member of the public i just want to see a good game of football and not too bothered about the result

However, in the professional game now it is more a business than a sport.......

But the suggestion won't make it any less of a decision based on opinion which people may have different opinions on. All will do is delay the decision and put more pressure on the person making the decision to get it right.

The professional game may well think it's more of a business than a sport but the only reason it is like that is because the sport is so captivating. Take that away and the business dies.

[Schards#2]

Way too many stops in the game - unless you want to wait for maybe 5 minutes or more until the game next stops.

Not really....Look [currently] at when a red card is shown, penalty is given, goal is scored - the game is stopped for minutes at time anyway

What if you stop the game, and decide it's not a foul?

S
H
A
M
B
L
E
S

Drop ball surely?

I wouldn't want to see video replays that delay the game and, in some ways, awful refereeing decisions are part of the game (see Man Utd's blatant penalty yesterday). But a sending off that early virtually decides the result. The ref has stopped the game to administer the card anyway, I can't see why the team of the player can't ask for a referral and, much like cricket, the benefit of doubt sits with the ref and unless the ref's decision is clearly wrong, the sending off stands.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Because how long before a manager like Fergie uses a referral as a tactic to stop a promising opposition attack?

[TBM]

What if you stop the game, and decide it's not a foul?

S
H
A
M
B
L
E
S

See, as i suggested, you cant stop the game for that......referrals can only be made once the ball is "dead". So if the ref gives a penalty, the manager can challenge it if he doesn't believe it is, or if a goal is given but it was 2 yards offside (like the Swindon goal at the weekend).

When Kompany was sent off yesterday, it took about 5minutes before the game started again as all the players were arguing and he wouldn't leave the pitch. In that time a replay could be viewed by the 4th official to decide if the ref had a case for the red (doesn't have to be spot on, just enough to justify the card - not like the Rodwell incident against Liverpool)

[Schards#2]

Because how long before a manager like Fergie uses a referral as a tactic to stop a promising opposition attack?

But play will have already stopped for the ref to issue the red card

[No Fixed Abode]

If only Watford had the option of a referal for Readings phantom goal. The worst refereeing decision ever made.