Roberts Red Card

[ZacNaloen]

I actually think it's the first time i've seen someone sent off for a flailing arm, how often does it happen?

[Woodcote Royal]

This rather depends on whether you live on this planet or Ian's parallel universe.

[marettes]

Because we stayed behind for photos etc on Saturday, and were part of a group kindly allowed by the club into the players' lounge to watch the end of the Middlesborough game (thank you RFC!), I had the opportunity to talk to Brian and, more interestingly, to Mr D'Urso.

Brian said "...the Referee has agreed to look at it again..."

I caught Mr D'Urso as he was loading his bags into his car and asked him politely for his view on the incident. He said that he saw elbow to face contact and that in his opinion it was violent conduct in accordance with Law 12 and therefore a red card. I then asked if he thought it was intentional and he replied "Intent has gone out of the game these days".

So, as I understand it, there is no mention of "intent" in the Laws of the Game although the Referee can use discretion in his interpretation of those Laws.

[blindedbythelights]

Not trying to troll or anything like that, but to me he just seems a really dirty player tbh

[sandman]

Because we stayed behind for photos etc on Saturday, and were part of a group kindly allowed by the club into the players' lounge to watch the end of the Middleborough game, I had the opportunity to talk to Brian and, more interestingly, to Mr D'Urso.

Brian said "...the Referee has agreed to look at it again..."

I caught Mr D'Urso as he was loading his bags into his car and asked him politely for his view on the incident. He said that he saw elbow to face contact and that in his opinion it was violent conduct in accordance with Law 12 and therefore a red card. I then asked if he thought it was intentional and he replied "Intent has gone out of the game these days".

So, as I understand it, there is no mention of "intent" in the Laws of the Game although the Referee can use discretion in his interpretation of those Laws.

Along with common sense apparently.

[LoyalRoyal22]

take off the BTG, he wacks him in the face. Cant be proven it was accidental. Accept the ban. move on.

[CavershamRoyal]

Where I was sitting in the Lower West, my gut instinct was that it was red. It definitely looked like Roberts' elbow caught Parr.

[SCIAG]

I caught Mr D'Urso as he was loading his bags into his car and asked him politely for his view on the incident. He said that he saw elbow to face contact and that in his opinion it was violent conduct in accordance with Law 12 and therefore a red card. I then asked if he thought it was intentional and he replied "Intent has gone out of the game these days".

So, as I understand it, there is no mention of "intent" in the Laws of the Game although the Referee can use discretion in his interpretation of those Laws.

There is a lot of mention of intent. A strike, kick or trip can be a foul even if there is no contact as long as there is intent. Spitting requires intent to be a red card.

Serious foul play and violent conduct talk about "excessive force" or "brutality". Brutality is not defined but to me implies intent. "Excessive force" is defined as "the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent", so intent doesn't matter. Now to me there is no way Roberts used excessive force.

As for frivolous appeals, the club are too worried about that. Ferdinand had an extra game added to his ban because United appealed just so he could play in their next game. Several ridiculous appeals, such as Ivanovic's recent appeal against his retrospective ban, have not had an extra game added. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Connor Sammon was involved in a very similar incident, against Man United, no less, and had a successful appeal.

[old woman]

So, just out of interest, Reading always go "Oh, well theres no point, he'll just get additional games ban if we appeal" with their tail between their legs. Now how often (when clubs actually appeal a red),has the request been denied, then the player was handed additional games ban just because they appealed?????

Michael Turner for Sunderland received 4 game ban. 3 for red card offence and 1 extra because the appeal was "frivolous"

[SLAMMED]

Reverse angle:

[paultheroyal]

[M-U-R-T-Y]

[Compo's Hat]

LOLz at people trying to justify why Roberts shouldn't have got a three game ban. Raise your arms and you're in trouble and an experienced pro like Roberts should know that. Except the ban and move on!

[SLAMMED]

Except the ban and move on!

And accept it as well

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I caught Mr D'Urso as he was loading his bags into his car and asked him politely for his view on the incident. He said that he saw elbow to face contact and that in his opinion it was violent conduct in accordance with Law 12 and therefore a red card. I then asked if he thought it was intentional and he replied "Intent has gone out of the game these days".

Is it possible to be accidentally violent?

Surely the whole point of the law is to ban players for committing acts of violence, not just catching a player because their arm is raised and there's contact.


Then again, you regulary see refs award corners/goal kicks when all the players of both teams think it's should have been the other way, so why would a ref be swayed by the "victim" of an offence saying he believed the contact was an accident?

He saw Roberts' elbow catch the defender in the face, and that's enough in his mind to be "violent conduct". No panel will ever overrule that, because disciplinary panels use common sense about as often as a goldfish uses a cricket bat.

[Franchise FC]

I caught Mr D'Urso as he was loading his bags into his car and asked him politely for his view on the incident. He said that he saw elbow to face contact and that in his opinion it was violent conduct in accordance with Law 12 and therefore a red card. I then asked if he thought it was intentional and he replied "Intent has gone out of the game these days".

Is it possible to be accidentally violent?

Surely the whole point of the law is to ban players for committing acts of violence, not just catching a player because their arm is raised and there's contact.


Then again, you regulary see refs award corners/goal kicks when all the players of both teams think it's should have been the other way, so why would a ref be swayed by the "victim" of an offence saying he believed the contact was an accident?

He saw Roberts' elbow catch the defender in the face, and that's enough in his mind to be "violent conduct". No panel will ever overrule that, because disciplinary panels use common sense about as often as a goldfish uses a cricket bat.

Our goldfish used to bat at 4 and has an average of over 30.

[Compo's Hat]

Except the ban and move on!

And accept it as well

May have had a few pints of Guinness last night

[loyalroyal4life]

Not sure if mentioned but this WONT be getting appealed, looks like we will have a new front 2 partnership for next season (well first 2 games at least)

[RoyalBlue]

Because we stayed behind for photos etc on Saturday, and were part of a group kindly allowed by the club into the players' lounge to watch the end of the Middlesborough game (thank you RFC!), I had the opportunity to talk to Brian and, more interestingly, to Mr D'Urso.

Brian said "...the Referee has agreed to look at it again..."

I caught Mr D'Urso as he was loading his bags into his car and asked him politely for his view on the incident. He said that he saw elbow to face contact and that in his opinion it was violent conduct in accordance with Law 12 and therefore a red card. I then asked if he thought it was intentional and he replied "Intent has gone out of the game these days".

So, as I understand it, there is no mention of "intent" in the Laws of the Game although the Referee can use discretion in his interpretation of those Laws.

Not sure how something can be deemed 'violent' when there is no intent at all. 'Reckless', 'dangerous', 'excessive force' possibly can exist without intent but not violent.

Maybe D'Arsehole was hallucinating because I don't know how he managed to see elbow to face.

LOLz at people trying to justify why Roberts shouldn't have got a three game ban. Raise your arms and you're in trouble and an experienced pro like Roberts should know that. Except the ban and move on!

LOLz at anyone stupid enough to believe you can play football without ever raising your arms! I think you will find that they have a very important role to play in things like maintaining balance and jumping - triple jump would be quite comical to watch if the athletes didn't raise their arms!!

The ban is EXceptionally silly and it is a shame that we have to ACCept it!

I think my politeness would have evaporated very quickly with his ridiculous response.

How anyone can suggest there was intent is beyond belief.

There was intent to hold off the player, and in doing that he caught him in the face with his arm, there is no way it was just a running motion as McD suggested.

Unfortuntely that will result in a red card in most cases.

Does that make Parr 'two-faced' then? because the arm appeared to catch him across the neck rather than in the face, albeit Parr then went into death throes holding his face!

[Pool and Darts]

Typical bullshit from D'Urso.

The offence relating to the situation where the ball may contact the arm/hand of a player is given for 'deliberate handball'.
If it isn't intentional - it isn't a foul. Intent removed from the game?? My arse!

What a pcunt.