Roberts Red Card

[Hoop Blah]

I'm presuming that D'Urso looked at the video and has decided that there isn't enough doubt there to change his mind. I can understand that to be fair, his arm was raised and there is a little movement to block the defender off.

I'd argue that what Roberts did wasn't violent conduct as such, but he was looking to use his arms, at face height, to block off the defender following a bit of a coming together.

Although I don't think it's a red card offence I can understand the ref thinking that it isn't a clear mistake and as much as I'd love officials to put their hands and admit when they've got things wrong, I'm not sure this is a blatent error.

I never thought an appeal would be worthwhile, and was amazed at what people were saying McDermott had said. I've not heard what he said directly, but I'd guess what he said was more along the lines of asking the ref to look at it as opposed to 'appealing' which is what a lot of people seemed to be saying was said.

[FiNeRaIn]

The fact the club feel they can't appeal an obvious error of judgement, from yet another incompetent official, for fear of further retribution for an offence that never took place, says everything about where the real lack of respect lies in our relationship with today's referees.

In comparison to many other clubs, we've got off lightly this season with just the one red, yet we've still got our main striker out for three games and a midfielder who suffered a broken ankle with the perpetrator not even seeing yellow

I believe nothing needs sorting more in today's game than a proper system of OPEN and INDEPENDENT assessment of our officials whereby those who consistently fail to reach the required standard are removed, and incidents such as Karacan suffering serious injury from a player who received no punishment are reviewed as a matter of course, rather than being brushed under the carpet within 24 hours. As ever, respect is a two way street

Fantastic post.

Anyone who has seen roberts's red knows that of course there as contact, but it wasn't violent conduct and was a harsh, harsh red. The fact he's receiving the same type of punishment as players who make deliberate violent actions really shows the flaw in the system. The fact that the club feel they can't appeal to common sense over this for fear of an added game ban unfortunately shows what a complete joke the set up is.
Modern day football is quite frankly sickening, all these unwritten laws that referee's uphold...i.e you can't touch a goalkeeper in the area without a foul being given, why have they started to do this? The goalkeeper already has an advantage with his hands but yet for some reason there is common acceptance that they should have further advantage by not even being able to be shoulder barged or come into contact yet they can pole axe any striker and its completely fine for defenders to tussle for a ball without a penalty being given
They allow defenders to obstruct people shepherding the ball out of play, yet this happens when a striker is time wasting in the far corner of a game and they give a free kick.
Referee's are allowed to make HORRIBLE trends in what they give free-kicks for and get supported even when they make errors, yet they then claim they have to stick to the laws of the game for sendings off...even though they make their own rules half the time.

Farcical.

[andrew1957]

D'Urso has presumably indicated that he is not going to change his opinion so there is absolutely no point appealing.

To be fair to the ref having seen the clip of this you can see why he would stand his ground on this. I think there was intent so a 3 march ban is fair enough really.

At the end of the day Roberts only has himself to blame for missing the first two PL matches.

His arms are raised yes, but if you really believe there was "intent" then you have obviously never played the game (not at a high enough level anyway!)

Like all things it is a matter of opinion but having watched thye slow motion of the event yesterday I think it is hard to argue there was no intent. Looked intentional to me.

[mr_number]

D'Urso has presumably indicated that he is not going to change his opinion so there is absolutely no point appealing.

To be fair to the ref having seen the clip of this you can see why he would stand his ground on this. I think there was intent so a 3 march ban is fair enough really.

At the end of the day Roberts only has himself to blame for missing the first two PL matches.

His arms are raised yes, but if you really believe there was "intent" then you have obviously never played the game (not at a high enough level anyway!)

Like all things it is a matter of opinion but having watched thye slow motion of the event yesterday I think it is hard to argue there was no intent. Looked intentional to me.

Couldn't disagree more. For me, there's absolutely no intent. It looked that way from Y26, and it looks that way on TV.

[Horsham Royal]

Appears Parr twice tries to pull Roberts back by his right arm. Second time Robert's pushes Parr's arm off and catches his face in the process.
So first offence from Parr, but you could argue 'retaliation' from Roberts.
Parr only shoves Roberts in the back and catches his legs after being caught in the face.

Intentional from Roberts only in the sense of shaking off Parr's arm from pulling him back.
Therefore not violent conduct in my opinion, so yellow not red.

Appeal would have no chance because common sense does not enter the equation.

(Is that Robert's first red ?)

[TBM]

(Is that Robert's first red ?)

9th

[Tony Le Mesmer]

I believe nothing needs sorting more in today's game than a proper system of OPEN and INDEPENDENT assessment of our officials whereby those who consistently fail to reach the required standard are removed

And replaced by who exactly? Even worse one's?

[RoyalBlue]

So McDermott's faith in D'Arsole doing the right thing, accepting that he had made an honest mistake and rescinding the red card (thus negating the need for an appeal) was completely misplaced.

Let's hope the lump of human excrement that is D'Arsole never darkens our doors again. A truly dreadful and arrogant official. No respect for him whatsover, nor does he deserve any.

Roberts threw his arm back, caught the bloke in the face.....its not as if anyone cheated

I didn't say D'Urso cheated, I said he was a truly dreadful and arrogant official. I stand by that assessment and believe it is supported by plenty of evidence in previous games and by his fall from grace in terms of the level at which he is now officiating.

D'Urso has presumably indicated that he is not going to change his opinion so there is absolutely no point appealing.

To be fair to the ref having seen the clip of this you can see why he would stand his ground on this. I think there was intent so a 3 march ban is fair enough really.

At the end of the day Roberts only has himself to blame for missing the first two PL matches.

Why would Roberts deliberately hit his opponent (OS pictures seem to show it was across the throat rather than in the face as Parr's mortally injured reaction suggested) when he was already in an advantageous position? He had beaten Parr for pace and strength and was breaking free. Furthermore, regardless of Robert's arm, Parr was already committing to a challenge that was going to trip Roberts.

[Matt de K]

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?????

[TBM]

IF there was no contact made then they would have appealed but the fact that he did catch him makes it hard to prove if it was intentional or not

[robb the royal]

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?????

It doesn't happen very often, because teams do exactly what we have done and not take the risk...having said that I am sure I remember an arsenal player (or maybe man united) get an additional ban for a frivolous appeal last season. And Rio has been done for it as well: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ppeal.html
Just because they turn down the appeal, doesn't make it automatically frivolous, its simply aimed at stopping the FA being swamped with appeals every week (and to be fair, it works), otherwise, every red card would just get automatically appealed.

[robb the royal]

And also, if we appealed, the ban wouldn't come into effect until after the appeal, potentially meaning Roberts would be available for brum, but then the 3 games would all be at the start of next season.
On a slightly different note, what would happen if we sold Roberts? Would the ban go with him? Would we have to nominate a player for the ban? or would it simply disappear...if so, why can't we release him from his contract, and then offer him an identical one at the start of next season (with a gentleman's agreement he won't sign with someone else)

[79Royal]

IF there was no contact made then they would have appealed but the fact that he did catch him makes it hard to prove if it was intentional or not

This is the crux of the matter for me. We cannot prove that it wasn't Roberts' intention to hit him in the face (although I'm sure it was accidental), therefore, there's no point in risking a further ban. Doesn't make the decision or the appeal system right, but it does make appealing it a bit of a gamble. McDermott said that D'Urso agreed to look at it again (which I assume he's done by now) and it hasn't been rescinded, so it seems unlikely that an appeals panel would turn it over, unfortunately.

Anyway, gives McDermott the opportunity to try Hunt and Alf up front on Saturday, which I'd like to see.

[PieEater]

There are much softer red cards given, for example head contact with the face or the slightest push that sends players rolling around on the floor. There was never any chance of this being rescinded as there was clear contact, and it was unlikely D'Urso would admit he was being a complete cock.

[TBM]

Kinda evens itself out, for us, though as HRK should have seen red against Watford - he then went on to set up the first goal

[beakemanrfc]

Not worth the extra game ban!

[Horsham Royal]

And also, if we appealed, the ban wouldn't come into effect until after the appeal, potentially meaning Roberts would be available for brum, but then the 3 games would all be at the start of next season.
On a slightly different note, what would happen if we sold Roberts? Would the ban go with him? Would we have to nominate a player for the ban? or would it simply disappear...if so, why can't we release him from his contract, and then offer him an identical one at the start of next season (with a gentleman's agreement he won't sign with someone else)

Nice try, but bans are against the player not the club

[Millsy]

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.

[Terminal Boardom]

How anyone can suggest there was intent is beyond belief. Only Roberts will know what was going through his mind at the time. All this does is show how inconsistent one referee is compared to another. Had D'Urso refereed the Leeds game, how many players would have been left on the pitch at full time?

That the club have decided not to appeal is probably a wise move. That Roberts will be unavailable for 2 games next season is a tough pill to swallow but far better than missing the first 4.

[Wycombe Royal]

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.