Roberts Red Card

[Silver Fox]

Football is a joke until the option of vid replays for big decisions (goals, penalties, red cards) comes in as standard. Neanderthals will disagree. Enough said.

Why is that relevant in this case, video evidence certainly didn't prove conclusively that D'Urso got it wrong

[Elmer Park]

Football is a joke until the option of vid replays for big decisions (goals, penalties, red cards) comes in as standard. Neanderthals will disagree. Enough said.

Why is that relevant in this case, video evidence certainly didn't prove conclusively that D'Urso got it wrong

If a way can be found to use video technology in factual incidents without slowing the game too much I am all for it but it will only eliminate controversy in factual issues like ball over the line and possibly offsides. Even if it is brought in one day I think video referees will only overturn a referee's decision if it is a clear error so in this case the decision may well have been upheld anyway. Like most decisions in football It's an individual's opinion.

I have a feeling before deciding on an appeal Reading will have spoken not just to D'Urso but maybe to Mike Riley or someone else who is involved in disciplinary matters and been told their chances of getting it overturned were zero.

[Man Friday]

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!

Except that he didn't raise his arms. He was running. ("Accept", not "Except", by the way.)

[Man Friday]

Not for nothing is he known as "D'Arsehole".

[Compo's Hat]

Some people really need to go on a refereeing course and stop being so biased towards their own players.

[Horsham Royal]

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.

http://ar.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12e.pdf
Quick scan shows no mention of intent with regard to contact fouls, though there is with regard to handball.
So if D'Urso was commenting just on the Robert's/Parr incident he was right to say intent's been removed.
If he was commenting on the game as a whole, he was wrong, as you point out.

[Ian Royal]

Some people really need to go on a refereeing course and stop being so biased towards their own players.

Can you explain how it's violent conduct if you're trying to hold off the player and there's accidental contact between your forearm and their face?

It's never a red card in a million years. At the time I thought it was a foul to us, seeing it again there is clearly contact and I'll conceed a foul to them, but it's borderline for giving a yellow, let alone a red. It's not like he jumped towards the guy into a header and led with his elbow.

[Franchise FC]

Some people really need to go on a refereeing course and stop being so biased towards their own players.

Can you explain how it's violent conduct if you're trying to hold off the player and there's accidental contact between your forearm and their face?

It's never a red card in a million years. At the time I thought it was a foul to us, seeing it again there is clearly contact and I'll conceed a foul to them, but it's borderline for giving a yellow, let alone a red. It's not like he jumped towards the guy into a header and led with his elbow.

I've watched the second goal against Leeds and that is more of a foul than the one against Palace.
Even then, Robinson runs into the back of Roberts arm as he raises it.

[Ian Royal]

Agree that could very easily have been given as a foul.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

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.

http://ar.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12e.pdf
Quick scan shows no mention of intent with regard to contact fouls, though there is with regard to handball.
So if D'Urso was commenting just on the Robert's/Parr incident he was right to say intent's been removed.
If he was commenting on the game as a whole, he was wrong, as you point out.

Intent was only about the intention to bring a player down. It changed to be a foul if the player was brought down, regardless of whether it was felt the player was trying to bring him down.

Dangerous play also requires no intent to be an offence, which is why claims that two-footed challenges were OK as the player was going for the ball, are a decade or two out of date.

Intent still is there for handball, albeit it refers to a player consciously putting his arm in a certain position rather than actually intending to handle the ball. A player with his arms out who gets struck by a cross has committed handball, even if it is "ball to hand". A player blocking a shot heading towards his face can be judged as not handball, is it's a reflex.


Violent conduct is something rather different though, as the implication behind "violent" is that there is intent. You can't be accidentally violent.

[RoyalJames101]

He hit him in the face, so he probably did deserve the red. Fair enough it may have been accidental, but what if someone goes in for a tackle with to feet two get the ball, but accidently misses the ball and takes the player?

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

He hit him in the face, so he probably did deserve the red. Fair enough it may have been accidental, but what if someone goes in for a tackle with to feet two get the ball, but accidently misses the ball and takes the player?

That's dangerous play - the reasoning being that going in two-footed means you are not in control of the tackle and it could easy cause serious injury.

An arm catching somebody in the face is not the same thing. Nobody risks having their career ended by getting a bang on the nose.

[Shackleton Royal]

Some people really need to go on a refereeing course and stop being so biased towards their own players.

Can you explain how it's violent conduct if you're trying to hold off the player and there's accidental contact between your forearm and their face?

It's never a red card in a million years. At the time I thought it was a foul to us, seeing it again there is clearly contact and I'll conceed a foul to them, but it's borderline for giving a yellow, let alone a red. It's not like he jumped towards the guy into a header and led with his elbow.

I've watched the second goal against Leeds and that is more of a foul than the one against Palace.
Even then, Robinson runs into the back of Roberts arm as he raises it.

Even though replays clearly show he didn't touch him and Robinson dived... I completely agree

[Ian Royal]

I don't know what replays you've been watching, but the ones I've seen don't show that. And given I seem to recall Robinson stayed down and got treatment after the goal it seems pretty unlikely.

[rhroyal]

With appeals, it's barely about right or wrong. It was an accident, but to rescind the red it has to be obvious, horrendous error. When contact is made between forearm and face, that's not the case. It was a big misinterpretation and not an absolute howler; it will not be overturned.

[Great Knolly]

What ever you say about it, it's not natural to have your arm horizontal as your running. I don't think it was misinterpretation. It was borderline and the ref saw it as a red.

[AthleticoSpizz]

red it is then and

Reading aren't appealling

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

What ever you say about it, it's not natural to have your arm horizontal as your running. I don't think it was misinterpretation. It was borderline and the ref saw it as a red.

It's pretty common to hold a player off with an arm. To be violent there needs to be a suggestion of intent arounding swing the arm into the face.

To me D'Urso knows there was no violent intent behind it, but would rather hide behind the fact that there was contact and see a player banned than admit he might have been wrong.

If the defender hadn't gone down clutching his face, it would never have been a red. Like the arched-back swan dive in the box, and the rolling around the floor in agony, the "two hands to the face" flop to the ground is a blatantly obvious example of simulation, yet for some reason refs fall for it every single time.


Reading aren't appealing as they know they have no chance of winning. Common sense plays no part in appeals. It's just about mistaken identity or decisions that are 100% certain wrong.

[AthleticoSpizz]

Rev..common sense...you hit the nail on the head (no pun with hitting heads). The FA are often devoid of it....this is just a taster for next season when we face the Chelsea Formation Diving Team etc

[SCIAG]

He hit him in the face, so he probably did deserve the red. Fair enough it may have been accidental, but what if someone goes in for a tackle with to feet two get the ball, but accidently misses the ball and takes the player?

That's dangerous play - the reasoning being that going in two-footed means you are not in control of the tackle and it could easy cause serious injury.

An arm catching somebody in the face is not the same thing. Nobody risks having their career ended by getting a bang on the nose.

Think you're getting your terminology confused, dangerous play is an offence committed where there is no physical contact and the maximum punishment is a yellow card and a IFK (unless it is also DOGSO, in which case red instead of yellow). You are thinking of serious foul play.

Tackling with two feet is nearly always reckless (and thus a yellow) and usually involves excessive force (a red card for serious foul play). I don't think Roberts' actions could be described as using excessive force or brutality.