Yeovil (H) BFTG

[P!ssed Off]

Yeovil have appealed Webster's red card.
As they should. Was never a penalty/red card.

[WestRoyal]

You can use this match as a pretty good guide for who has a clue on this site. Just instantly discount anyone who says "we couldn't beat a side with 8 men".

They are after all, it seems, incapable of putting any thought in to realise Yeovil had 8 men for no more than 10 minutes, almost all of which was added time. Or that Yeovil started the match defensively and then went all out defence from the moment they got a player sent off, to the point they were playing 7-0-0 by the end of the match.

The reason they went down to 8 is because on the few occasions we did pull them out and looked to get through them, they scythed us down. So it was either force our way through a packed box with time running out or get fouled and force our way through a packed box.

We could certainly have done a better job. Particularly in the abysmal first half. But it just shows a complete inability to analyse beyond the most basic game headline.

For once I totally agree with you and I see a lot of Drenthe supporters have come out in force because of his cameo appearance
Lets hope he can kick on from there as I have a big feeling he will be starting against Brighton.

I was laughing when I heard the crowd whooing(must be the real Madrid effect) when he did a couple stepovers even though we see it from other players
But he did well when he came on so hopefully more of the same from him.

[wingnut]

Yeovil have appealed Webster's red card.
As they should. Was never a penalty/red card.

Not surprised. As I said earlier, both fairly comical decisions.

[bcubed]

Out of interest, how well did Obita do without the support coming from McAnuff?

he did fine
hes a fully functional left back these days and IMO he is consistently one of our best performers

WTF....He was absolutely diabolical on Saturday!

What do you think he did wrong?

[SHORT AND CURLY]

I thought he was poor as well.
As I said earlier the little no. 20 had the better of him.
He kept giving the ball away and his control was a lot poorer than of late. I have applauded his efforts and superb performances recently. Saturday he was pretty awful. (Not on his own though)

[JC]

Yeovil have appealed Webster's red card.
As they should. Was never a penalty/red card.

Red card overturned. So Drenthe should be done for diving then.

[Wycombe Royal]

Yeovil have appealed Webster's red card.
As they should. Was never a penalty/red card.

Red card overturned. So Drenthe should be done for diving then.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a foul.

[P!ssed Off]

Yeovil have appealed Webster's red card.
As they should. Was never a penalty/red card.

Red card overturned. So Drenthe should be done for diving then.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a foul.

It means exactly that.

In the above scenario: foul = red card. no red card = no foul.
You'd have to be absolutely stupid to look at the image and argue otherwise.

[SCIAG]

You'd have to be utterly stupid to try and judge DOGSO by looking at a single still image...

The panel could have decided, for example, that Drenthe did not have the ball under sufficient control for that to be an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity.

[P!ssed Off]

Bollocks.
If a foul is given in such a scenario a red card will be produced 100% of the time.
We've seen some shit referring decisions recently but had that been given as a pen and not a red...

There'd be a meltdown.

[SCIAG]

The problem is your use of a still image more than anything, it presents a misleading picture. You could just as easily show a screenshot of Afobe through on goal with the ball by his feet and Gorkss out of shot.

I increasingly think the appeals panels have been told to be extremely generous, there have been a number of stonewall reds that wouldn't have been overturned in the past overturned this season (Brown, Rose, Gorkss, this, even Pearce).

On Obita: he was fine defensively at the weekend, not troubled at all. He put a few simple passes out of play, but that happens, and has nothing to do with his position.

[Royal Prince]

When sending a player off for denying an 'obvious' goalscoring opportunity a ref should consider several other aspects of the play, including:

- Distance from goal
- Direction of play
- Location and number of defenders (see Pearce's recent appeal when Gorkss was covering)
- The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball

I believe Yeovil have won their appeal based on the last consideration raised above, given that it was seemingly unlikely Drenthe would have maintained control of the ball.

As such to suggest in these situations that it's a red card 100% of the time is simply incorrect, there are other considerations that must be taken into account.

[P!ssed Off]

The problem is your use of a still image more than anything, it presents a misleading picture. You could just as easily show a screenshot of Afobe through on goal with the ball by his feet and Gorkss out of shot.

How on earth have I presented a misleading picture?
The only other defender that was nearby is in the picture.
You appear to be accusing me of cropping out a player that has quite obviously not been cropped out.

[SCIAG]

There is more than one way of presenting a misleading picture...

With DOGSO, a screenshot is inherently misleading, because it doesn't show the movement of players or, crucially in this case, the ball.

For all we know, the panel have thought "well, Drenthe's not moving straight towards goal... and he didn't have the ball under great control... a yellow card wouldn't have been crazy..."

[P!ssed Off]

When sending a player off for denying an 'obvious' goalscoring opportunity a ref should consider several other aspects of the play, including:

- Distance from goal
- Direction of play
- Location and number of defenders (see Pearce's recent appeal when Gorkss was covering)
- The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball

I believe Yeovil have won their appeal based on the last consideration raised above, given that it was seemingly unlikely Drenthe would have maintained control of the ball.

As such to suggest in these situations that it's a red card 100% of the time is simply incorrect, there are other considerations that must be taken into account.

Obviously the most important consideration is "Was it a foul in the first place?"
I believe that is why Yeovil have won their appeal.

As for 'The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball', if you watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGj9LriPLZg you will see that the ball is not travelling at great speed, or high power. It would have taken an absolutely horrendous touch from Drenthe in order for him to lose control of the ball.

[Royal Prince]

When sending a player off for denying an 'obvious' goalscoring opportunity a ref should consider several other aspects of the play, including:

- Distance from goal
- Direction of play
- Location and number of defenders (see Pearce's recent appeal when Gorkss was covering)
- The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball

I believe Yeovil have won their appeal based on the last consideration raised above, given that it was seemingly unlikely Drenthe would have maintained control of the ball.

As such to suggest in these situations that it's a red card 100% of the time is simply incorrect, there are other considerations that must be taken into account.

Obviously the most important consideration is "Was it a foul in the first place?"
I believe that is why Yeovil have won their appeal.

As for 'The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball', if you watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGj9LriPLZg you will see that the ball is not travelling at great speed, or high power. It would have taken an absolutely horrendous touch from Drenthe in order for him to lose control of the ball.

The red card has been overturned, nowhere does it state that it was no longer a foul. This process is all about ascertaining whether the red card was the most suitable and indeed correct punishment, which in this case it was not.

As for Drenthe gaining and keeping the ball, it may well have been travelling at a slow speed, but he didn't get a single touch to it so how can we be sure he would have achieved either?

[ZacNaloen]

In that picture it actually looks like the defender has his knee in in the back of Drenthes leg and his fall wasn't that unnatural. I can understand why it was given at full speed.

[P!ssed Off]

The red card has been overturned, nowhere does it state that it was no longer a foul. This process is all about ascertaining whether the red card was the most suitable and indeed correct punishment, which in this case it was not.

As for Drenthe gaining and keeping the ball, it may well have been travelling at a slow speed, but he didn't get a single touch to it so how can we be sure he would have achieved either?

Pretty obvious from this picture that if he had not been pulled back/dived the ball and Drenthe would have collided.


Given the speed of the ball and Drenthe's technique (about the only thing he does have), it's rather easy to conclude that he would have gained the ball and controlled it, thus creating a goal scoring chance.

The video shows no evidence of proper contact between Drenthe and the defender. Why would that not be valid grounds to rescind a red card?
Surely you are not completely naive to the possibility that Drenthe dives.
He's already been booked this season for diving in the penalty area, even Adkins criticised him for it at the time.

[Royal Prince]

The red card has been overturned, nowhere does it state that it was no longer a foul. This process is all about ascertaining whether the red card was the most suitable and indeed correct punishment, which in this case it was not.

As for Drenthe gaining and keeping the ball, it may well have been travelling at a slow speed, but he didn't get a single touch to it so how can we be sure he would have achieved either?

Pretty obvious from this picture that if he had not been pulled back/dived the ball and Drenthe would have collided.


Given the speed of the ball and Drenthe's technique (about the only thing he does have), it's rather easy to conclude that he would have gained the ball and controlled it, thus creating a goal scoring chance.

The video shows no evidence of proper contact between Drenthe and the defender. Why would that not be valid grounds to rescind a red card?
Surely you are not completely naive to the possibility that Drenthe dives.
He's already been booked this season for diving in the penalty area, even Adkins criticised him for it at the time.

So you believe there was some contact, not enough for a foul, but enough to stop Drenthe getting the ball? Guess that makes sense and would be grounds for an appeal, but I'm still of the opinion that a foul has been committed here, and that it's just the punishment that has been overturned.

I'm certainly not naïve to the possibility that Drenthe dives by the way, and that is a fair point to raise. I think he's gone looking for it, and made sure to get his body in front of the defender making it awkward for him. Maybe that's why he never touched the ball, he was too busy looking for the foul instead?

[P!ssed Off]

I'm personally of the opinion that it was a dive.
I'm confident there's been no contact to warrant Drenthe going down like that.
It's not 100% possible to rule out any contact whatsoever. The defenders arm may well have brushed Drenthe's shoulder when he ran past.
Certainly not fall over worthy, and likely not even enough to justify the old "I felt contact, so I went down" cliche.

It was fair that their keeper saved it.
And it's fair that the card has been rescinded, and no suspension will result.