Gorkss: Red Card-Yes or No?

[Woodcote Royal]

again (Woodcote)....it gets back to that same old, same old argument

A simple < 1 minute delay whilst the fourth official reviews the video evidence (yes just like the rugby does) of so many controversial scenarios, would put paid to all of this....and if done correctly, it wouldn't particularly affect the flow of the game anymore than it does already.

Until then, rightly or wrongly, the refs word is final....or at least it is overturned by the FA (by those that DARE challenge them).

For starters, the referees decision (mercifully ) wasn't final in these cases.

Secondly, I'm pig sick of split second decision making being used as an excuse for sh*t refereeing.

The pen more than compensated Wednesday for Pearce's error and never in a month of Sundays was he clearly the last man. Would he have given a goal if he wasn't sure a ball had crossed the line?

You can't give what you can't see and there's no way he could see Pearce was the last man.....................sh"t and arrogant referees are ruining the game but this last week has given me a modicum of hope for the future.

[AthleticoSpizz]

nothing much more to add to that Woodcote.

The onus has changed....back in the good old days, Refs made sh1te decisions...of course they did.....however, there were no cameras at the majority of games, there were no post mortems....and if an opinion were to be voiced from the wrong-done-by, nobody bothered listened anyway.

Things have changed (personally, I think its sh1t,) but this is where we find ourselves...the FA and the rest of the game need to catch-up....bring in the video ref.

[Ian Royal]

again (Woodcote)....it gets back to that same old, same old argument

A simple < 1 minute delay whilst the fourth official reviews the video evidence (yes just like the rugby does) of so many controversial scenarios, would put paid to all of this....and if done correctly, it wouldn't particularly affect the flow of the game anymore than it does already.

Until then, rightly or wrongly, the refs word is final....or at least it is overturned by the FA (by those that DARE challenge them).

For starters, the referees decision (mercifully ) wasn't final in these cases.

Secondly, I'm pig sick of split second decision making being used as an excuse for sh*t refereeing.

The pen more than compensated Wednesday for Pearce's error and never in a month of Sundays was he clearly the last man. Would he have given a goal if he wasn't sure a ball had crossed the line?

You can't give what you can't see and there's no way he could see Pearce was the last man.....................sh"t and arrogant referees are ruining the game but this last week has given me a modicum of hope for the future.

It might help you if you realise that 'last man' is an irrelevance spouted by commentators, pundits and players who are clueless. It's about preventing a "clear goal scoring opportunity".

[Woodcote Royal]

again (Woodcote)....it gets back to that same old, same old argument

A simple < 1 minute delay whilst the fourth official reviews the video evidence (yes just like the rugby does) of so many controversial scenarios, would put paid to all of this....and if done correctly, it wouldn't particularly affect the flow of the game anymore than it does already.

Until then, rightly or wrongly, the refs word is final....or at least it is overturned by the FA (by those that DARE challenge them).

^ this.

In fairness to the ref, the initial reaction from the majority of our lot in real-time was that it was a bad tackle, even Adkins thought it was fair. It was only debatable in the replays, which of course the ref doesn't have.

A bad tackle doesn't make it a red. He could and should have given a yellow because that's all he could be sure of..........................but he was on telly on Sunday afternoon and we are still talking about what should have been his moment of glory rather than the match he did his best to ruin

[winchester_royal]

I thought it was fine Live

'Greed. I was annoyed the ref gave a foul.

Think it was the speed of the challenge (and Hoilet's subsequent reaction) that swayed the ref.

The television replays showed the ref's view of the challenge and he was a long way from it with a few bodies in the way. It's not too hard to make excuses for him, but at the end of the day refs should only show red cards when they are absolutely certain that the challenge deserves it, not when it's a debatable decision like the last two have been.

[Woodcote Royal]

again (Woodcote)....it gets back to that same old, same old argument

A simple < 1 minute delay whilst the fourth official reviews the video evidence (yes just like the rugby does) of so many controversial scenarios, would put paid to all of this....and if done correctly, it wouldn't particularly affect the flow of the game anymore than it does already.

Until then, rightly or wrongly, the refs word is final....or at least it is overturned by the FA (by those that DARE challenge them).

For starters, the referees decision (mercifully ) wasn't final in these cases.

Secondly, I'm pig sick of split second decision making being used as an excuse for sh*t refereeing.

The pen more than compensated Wednesday for Pearce's error and never in a month of Sundays was he clearly the last man. Would he have given a goal if he wasn't sure a ball had crossed the line?

You can't give what you can't see and there's no way he could see Pearce was the last man.....................sh"t and arrogant referees are ruining the game but this last week has given me a modicum of hope for the future.

It might help you if you realise that 'last man' is an irrelevance spouted by commentators, pundits and players who are clueless. It's about preventing a "clear goal scoring opportunity".

Gorkks presence made clarity impossible in either context.

[Ian Royal]

To you. The ref see's it in a split second and most of 'seeing' is the brain showing you what it thinks happened.

[Woodcote Royal]

No, to anyone who was attempting to make a decision of which they could be sure.

It was a stonewall penalty but with nothing to justify ruining the afternoons expensive entertainment of 18,000 people. It's happening every weekend up and down the country and I really hope these interventions from the FA will make some of our glory hunting officials realise that it's not all about them.

[AthleticoSpizz]

It happened way back when Marriner sent off Sonko v Pompey, way back then....and that really f11cked me off on the day I can tell you!

It's nothing new....and it aint going to change

You've heard the fixes for it....now tell us your utopian solution

[Woodcote Royal]

I'm all for technology and agree with you in that much can be done in this respect without detracting from the game.

The Pearce gaff ruined all bar a few minutes that day so even a 5 minute stoppage to get it right would have been a massive improvement

[SW12Royal]

At least we'll have a chant for the next red card ''Well appeal when we want, we're Reading FC, we'll appeal when we want.'

[bcubed]

again (Woodcote)....it gets back to that same old, same old argument

A simple < 1 minute delay whilst the fourth official reviews the video evidence (yes just like the rugby does) of so many controversial scenarios, would put paid to all of this....and if done correctly, it wouldn't particularly affect the flow of the game anymore than it does already.

Until then, rightly or wrongly, the refs word is final....or at least it is overturned by the FA (by those that DARE challenge them).

Agree (with WR) that refs are poor and that reviews are long overdue
Football is so slow to change anything compared with other games

I would go further and use sin bins and only very very rarely a red card.

I don't want to go to a game and see 10 v 11 -whichever side is penalised it spoils the game.
In US football for example, even if a player is expelled from the game it's still 11 v 11.

[Handsome Man]

again (Woodcote)....it gets back to that same old, same old argument

A simple < 1 minute delay whilst the fourth official reviews the video evidence (yes just like the rugby does) of so many controversial scenarios, would put paid to all of this....and if done correctly, it wouldn't particularly affect the flow of the game anymore than it does already.

Until then, rightly or wrongly, the refs word is final....or at least it is overturned by the FA (by those that DARE challenge them).

For starters, the referees decision (mercifully ) wasn't final in these cases.

Secondly, I'm pig sick of split second decision making being used as an excuse for sh*t refereeing.

The pen more than compensated Wednesday for Pearce's error and never in a month of Sundays was he clearly the last man. Would he have given a goal if he wasn't sure a ball had crossed the line?

You can't give what you can't see and there's no way he could see Pearce was the last man.....................sh"t and arrogant referees are ruining the game but this last week has given me a modicum of hope for the future.

It might help you if you realise that 'last man' is an irrelevance spouted by commentators, pundits and players who are clueless. It's about preventing a "clear goal scoring opportunity".

Which in practice means being the last man.

[melonhead]

again (Woodcote)....it gets back to that same old, same old argument

A simple < 1 minute delay whilst the fourth official reviews the video evidence (yes just like the rugby does) of so many controversial scenarios, would put paid to all of this....and if done correctly, it wouldn't particularly affect the flow of the game anymore than it does already.

Until then, rightly or wrongly, the refs word is final....or at least it is overturned by the FA (by those that DARE challenge them).

For starters, the referees decision (mercifully ) wasn't final in these cases.

Secondly, I'm pig sick of split second decision making being used as an excuse for sh*t refereeing.

The pen more than compensated Wednesday for Pearce's error and never in a month of Sundays was he clearly the last man. Would he have given a goal if he wasn't sure a ball had crossed the line?

You can't give what you can't see and there's no way he could see Pearce was the last man.....................sh"t and arrogant referees are ruining the game but this last week has given me a modicum of hope for the future.

It might help you if you realise that 'last man' is an irrelevance spouted by commentators, pundits and players who are clueless. It's about preventing a "clear goal scoring opportunity".

surely a covering defender means the opportunity is no longer clear.

[SCIAG]

It happened way back when Marriner sent off Sonko v Pompey, way back then

Unless I have forgotten a different Sonko sending off against Pompey, that was Mike Dean.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 163894.stm

I find the hysterical over-reactions in this thread to be rather amusing.

Firstly, so many decisions ultimately come down to opinion. The one with Gorkss is one such decision. We've got lucky that the panel selected seem to have disagreed quite strongly with the official (and most fans on here), but it could quite easily have gone the other way, particularly if it had just been one fourth official.

To my knowledge, no sport uses video referees to determine subjective things like exactly how bad a foul is, and I don't think football should either.

[Croydon Royal]

again (Woodcote)....it gets back to that same old, same old argument

A simple < 1 minute delay whilst the fourth official reviews the video evidence (yes just like the rugby does) of so many controversial scenarios, would put paid to all of this....and if done correctly, it wouldn't particularly affect the flow of the game anymore than it does already.

Until then, rightly or wrongly, the refs word is final....or at least it is overturned by the FA (by those that DARE challenge them).

Agree (with WR) that refs are poor and that reviews are long overdue
Football is so slow to change anything compared with other games

I would go further and use sin bins and only very very rarely a red card.

I don't want to go to a game and see 10 v 11 -whichever side is penalised it spoils the game.
In US football for example, even if a player is expelled from the game it's still 11 v 11.

Not sure on the US-style 'player expelled' front (and this is coming from someone who is a big fan of American sports), but agree on everything else. I think it was Alan Partridge (the HobNob one, not Coogan) who summed it up best at the weekend on Twitter: For a referee, a red card should be a last resort, not a badge of honour. Too often it's the other way round. Referee's egos, cheating diving players and a general acceptance that anything with force is a red card is spoiling too many games.

[bcubed]

again (Woodcote)....it gets back to that same old, same old argument

A simple < 1 minute delay whilst the fourth official reviews the video evidence (yes just like the rugby does) of so many controversial scenarios, would put paid to all of this....and if done correctly, it wouldn't particularly affect the flow of the game anymore than it does already.

Until then, rightly or wrongly, the refs word is final....or at least it is overturned by the FA (by those that DARE challenge them).

Agree (with WR) that refs are poor and that reviews are long overdue
Football is so slow to change anything compared with other games

I would go further and use sin bins and only very very rarely a red card.

I don't want to go to a game and see 10 v 11 -whichever side is penalised it spoils the game.
In US football for example, even if a player is expelled from the game it's still 11 v 11.

Not sure on the US-style 'player expelled' front (and this is coming from someone who is a big fan of American sports), but agree on everything else. I think it was Alan Partridge (the HobNob one, not Coogan) who summed it up best at the weekend on Twitter: For a referee, a red card should be a last resort, not a badge of honour. Too often it's the other way round. Referee's egos, cheating diving players and a general acceptance that anything with force is a red card is spoiling too many games.

so conversely do you think American sport suffers without a Red Card?

Personally i dont think so and yet there is way more respect for officials
Partly because the officials are more competent and have earned that respect

I still think kicking someone out of the game is a deterrent. It still penalises the team as they lose a key player, but it doesn't spoil the game as it is still 11 v11

[Platypuss]

It happened way back when Marriner sent off Sonko v Pompey, way back then

Unless I have forgotten a different Sonko sending off against Pompey, that was Mike Dean.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 163894.stm

I find the hysterical over-reactions in this thread to be rather amusing.

Firstly, so many decisions ultimately come down to opinion. The one with Gorkss is one such decision. We've got lucky that the panel selected seem to have disagreed quite strongly with the official (and most fans on here), but it could quite easily have gone the other way, particularly if it had just been one fourth official.

To my knowledge, no sport uses video referees to determine subjective things like exactly how bad a foul is, and I don't think football should either.

IMO it wasn't overturned due to a difference of opinion on seriousness, but more on a matter of fact - Gorkss did play the ball first (which it would appear the ref did not see).

[Croydon Royal]

Agree (with WR) that refs are poor and that reviews are long overdue
Football is so slow to change anything compared with other games

I would go further and use sin bins and only very very rarely a red card.

I don't want to go to a game and see 10 v 11 -whichever side is penalised it spoils the game.
In US football for example, even if a player is expelled from the game it's still 11 v 11.

Not sure on the US-style 'player expelled' front (and this is coming from someone who is a big fan of American sports), but agree on everything else. I think it was Alan Partridge (the HobNob one, not Coogan) who summed it up best at the weekend on Twitter: For a referee, a red card should be a last resort, not a badge of honour. Too often it's the other way round. Referee's egos, cheating diving players and a general acceptance that anything with force is a red card is spoiling too many games.

so conversely do you think American sport suffers without a Red Card?

Personally i dont think so and yet there is way more respect for officials
Partly because the officials are more competent and have earned that respect

I still think kicking someone out of the game is a deterrent. It still penalises the team as they lose a key player, but it doesn't spoil the game as it is still 11 v11

I don't necessarily think some American sports suffer who use that format, but that's more because they have so many players naturally changing around during games. Ice Hockey, for instance, you have rolling subs and a large squad off the field where they can have like-for-like swaps in every position. So if you lose a star player and have to swap him for a lesser player in that position then yes, I believe it works.

My problem with implementing it in UK sports like football and rugby would be that clubs could abuse it. Almost using it as a 'free substitution' (although it would obviously depend on whether that expelled player gets additional punishments)...With limited subs, and some positions on the field that aren't covered on the bench, I just worry that you'd get yourself into a whole new world of conspiracies. Take the Tom Williams bloodgate example in rugby from a few years ago - have a winger come off because you need a fly-half to come on to take a kick. How long before a striker is ordered to deliberately get himself expelled from the game because a team is 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, have used all their subs but want to get an extra defender on?

I'm sure there are plenty of holes in that theory, but that's a thought...

[Ian Royal]

For starters, the referees decision (mercifully ) wasn't final in these cases.

Secondly, I'm pig sick of split second decision making being used as an excuse for sh*t refereeing.

The pen more than compensated Wednesday for Pearce's error and never in a month of Sundays was he clearly the last man. Would he have given a goal if he wasn't sure a ball had crossed the line?

You can't give what you can't see and there's no way he could see Pearce was the last man.....................sh"t and arrogant referees are ruining the game but this last week has given me a modicum of hope for the future.

It might help you if you realise that 'last man' is an irrelevance spouted by commentators, pundits and players who are clueless. It's about preventing a "clear goal scoring opportunity".

surely a covering defender means the opportunity is no longer clear.

Not necessarily. General rule of thumb maybe, but far better to actually pay attention to what the law really is, not focus on what moron pundits repeat when they frequently call decisions wrong.