That penalty

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Spratts corner
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:36 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

That penalty

Post by Spratts corner » Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:02 pm

I think that was one of the most outrageous penalty devotions I've ever seen :crazy:

Spratts corner
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:36 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by Spratts corner » Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:10 pm

Sorry ,ment decisions,

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sat Feb 06, 2021 9:20 pm

Spratts corner wrote:
Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:02 pm
I think that was one of the most outrageous penalty devotions I've ever seen :crazy:
Doesn't look a pen on the replay like looks like it hits his shoulder.

Had it hit him a few inches lower there can't have been too many complaints the ball has come a long way and the arm is outstretched away from his body.

Imagine it's been judged that it hit lower on the arm than it appears to.

My opinion
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by My opinion » Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:56 am

It was an horrendous decision and could have cost us, However they were a poor team and we recovered from it.
The ref also got quite a few decisions wrong, not least the booking of Wheatlley. That was a great tackle and one every ball winning midfield player would relish.

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:39 pm

I leave horrendous for ones where it's difficult to see how it could be the seen in that way.

The penalty is fact based wrong with the benefit of frame pausing it the ball hits Hunt. It looks like it hits below the part of his arm which is in line with the bottom of his armpit. In real time that is a judgement where there is a 1/128th of a second moment of contact.

The rest are opinion based. Did Wheatley consider "what if the player changes direction and I end up tackling him rather than the ball, could it injure him" if the answer to that is no (or is judged to be no) then a yellow is correct.

It is equally a game management technique - you let that go and incrementally tackles go up in intensity and where do you draw the line. Nip it in the bud and the problem goes away - and if it doesn't you have set a boundary and anyone gets close to it for rest of the game the outcome is expected.

My opinion
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by My opinion » Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:37 pm

Yes, I am sure that Wheatley saw the ball run into a situation like yesterdays and thought
"what if the player changes direction and I end up tackling him rather than the ball, :roll: :roll:
.But he didn't tackle the man. The fact remains he clearly won the ball
Does any ball winning midfielder think that? . If so, they might find that the ball has gone and they do end up clattering the man
Some of these modern day referees will have the game as a spectator sport done away with in my opinion.
I know you will stand by the referee as you always do.. regardless..

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:41 pm

No it's the law. Tackling without consideration for the safety of an opponent is a caution - by the laws of the game. Agree or not that is the definition of a reckless tackle.

If a referee doesn't caution they are incorrect in law. They get marked accordingly in the system and their 'career' trajectory is affected accordingly.

LoidLucan
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by LoidLucan » Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:45 pm

Surely it was just a well timed, well executed tackle in which Wheatley only played the ball and not the man. Never a booking.

My opinion
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by My opinion » Sun Feb 07, 2021 2:34 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:41 pm
No it's the law. Tackling without consideration for the safety of an opponent is a caution - by the laws of the game. Agree or not that is the definition of a reckless tackle.

If a referee doesn't caution they are incorrect in law. They get marked accordingly in the system and their 'career' trajectory is affected accordingly.
How can the referee know if the person tackling made a consideration or not without mind reading.?
Wheatley's tackle was not reckless. As LoidLucan said, and I agree with him it was well timed and well executed.

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 3:10 pm

It's a difference of opinion...which is actually fine.

I don't actually feel that strongly I can see why it was cautioned in the scheme of things, it wasn't wrong but that doesn't mean I actually agree.

A lot of decisions tend to split rooms in football. Its a judgement but the law is written in that manner to enable discretion.

Fans tend to be awfully definitive on things, and rarely apply any balanced perspective. Inevitably not only is it definitively wrong but it's always the worst, most horrendous, obvious decision ever - never is it simply "I disagree".

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6355
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by loan_star » Sun Feb 07, 2021 4:07 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:41 pm
No it's the law. Tackling without consideration for the safety of an opponent is a caution - by the laws of the game. Agree or not that is the definition of a reckless tackle.

If a referee doesn't caution they are incorrect in law. They get marked accordingly in the system and their 'career' trajectory is affected accordingly.
In that case lets ban all tackles as a player can change direction without considering he may get tackled if he doesn't.
It was a pathetic decision and more suited to netball than football. Take that type of tackle out the game and we might as well pack in.

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 5:13 pm

loan_star wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 4:07 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:41 pm
No it's the law. Tackling without consideration for the safety of an opponent is a caution - by the laws of the game. Agree or not that is the definition of a reckless tackle.

If a referee doesn't caution they are incorrect in law. They get marked accordingly in the system and their 'career' trajectory is affected accordingly.
In that case lets ban all tackles as a player can change direction without considering he may get tackled if he doesn't.
It was a pathetic decision and more suited to netball than football. Take that type of tackle out the game and we might as well pack in.
Lol if you can bare it I challenge you to watch a game of u23s PL football and see where football is headed. I could count on one hand the number of sliding challenges I've seen in past 3 season. I've seen a player substituted for going to ground despite winning the ball with no foul awarded this season.

It's more about the force put into a tackle than anything else mind.

The game will change as time goes on anyway.

Remember heading is banned for u12s now (well banned from practising it - it actually makes it more unsafe to allow it in games if never trained). I suspect that training ban will be gradually expanded out until the point where it is outright banned - it will either be that or the way the game is taught means it will be an ineffective skill. Wouldn't surprise me to see throw-ins become kick ins and corners be adjusted to be taken short (see the impact of the law change on goal kicks on football above League 1).

Can't remember which Spanish footballer it was who said he couldn't believe that tackling was a skill that was "coached" in English football as if it was to be applauded. For the past 15 years the focus in English development has been away from 'tackling' - in a training session each player should have a ball or as many touches of a ball as possible.

My opinion
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by My opinion » Sun Feb 07, 2021 6:20 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 5:13 pm
loan_star wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 4:07 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:41 pm
No it's the law. Tackling without consideration for the safety of an opponent is a caution - by the laws of the game. Agree or not that is the definition of a reckless tackle.

If a referee doesn't caution they are incorrect in law. They get marked accordingly in the system and their 'career' trajectory is affected accordingly.
In that case lets ban all tackles as a player can change direction without considering he may get tackled if he doesn't.
It was a pathetic decision and more suited to netball than football. Take that type of tackle out the game and we might as well pack in.
Lol if you can bare it I challenge you to watch a game of u23s PL football and see where football is headed. I could count on one hand the number of sliding challenges I've seen in past 3 season. I've seen a player substituted for going to ground despite winning the ball with no foul awarded this season.

It's more about the force put into a tackle than anything else mind.

The game will change as time goes on anyway.

Remember heading is banned for u12s now (well banned from practising it - it actually makes it more unsafe to allow it in games if never trained). I suspect that training ban will be gradually expanded out until the point where it is outright banned - it will either be that or the way the game is taught means it will be an ineffective skill. Wouldn't surprise me to see throw-ins become kick ins and corners be adjusted to be taken short (see the impact of the law change on goal kicks on football above League 1).

Can't remember which Spanish footballer it was who said he couldn't believe that tackling was a skill that was "coached" in English football as if it was to be applauded. For the past 15 years the focus in English development has been away from 'tackling' - in a training session each player should have a ball or as many touches of a ball as possible.
As usual lo you have twisted the debate to your own agenda.
we are not talking about under 23's football. We were talking about National league North standard football, and specifically the Trophy game yesterday and an incident within that game
The ref (in my opinion) made a mistake in booking Wheatley and made further errors throughout the game.

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:34 pm

Haha it was more to illustrate where the game is going. Law makers are IFAB. Law makers write laws based on opinions of elite clubs. Because who brings the most revenue into country FAs.

Elite clubs don't want £100m+ assets which cost £10m+ a year in wages to be sat in the sideline because of tackles. It is bad for business.

Therefore law becomes "Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"

All a referee does is apply that law at their discretion as law is the same at all levels of football.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

That penalty

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:43 pm

lo36789 wrote:Haha it was more to illustrate where the game is going. Law makers are IFAB. Law makers write laws based on opinions of elite clubs. Because who brings the most revenue into country FAs.

Elite clubs don't want £100m+ assets which cost £10m+ a year in wages to be sat in the sideline because of tackles. It is bad for business.

Therefore law becomes "Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"

All a referee does is apply that law at their discretion as law is the same at all levels of football.
However the referee is not always right. And in this case, the referee incorrectly applied his own discretion in penalising a perfectly legitimate challenge.

That’s not a matter of opinion. If you’re trying to argue Wheatley was reckless and dangerous, I’d love to hear the explanation as to why. At no point was it dangerous, or unnecessarily high. He clearly goes for the ball, so there’s plenty of consideration there. I would love to hear an explanation as to why that was even a foul, let alone a yellow.

I think the referee was weak and got swayed by the Wealdstone players’ protestations.

Personally I think referees should be held more accountable for mistakes like this. I’d like to see proper, public explanations for those decisions. Or even an admittance they got it wrong.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:01 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:43 pm
That’s not a matter of opinion. If you’re trying to argue Wheatley was reckless and dangerous, I’d love to hear the explanation as to why. At no point was it dangerous, or unnecessarily high. He clearly goes for the ball, so there’s plenty of consideration there. I would love to hear an explanation as to why that was even a foul, let alone a yellow.
A disregard for safety of opponent basically - you hit someone with that force you could injure them simply put. Add in the words from my position and at the time. and you have the answer you need. Add "in my opinion + definition by law" and you have your reason.

He couldn't stop himself, and couldnt stop his trailing leg from following through. If you pause it at the point of the tackle he has a straight right leg, he is completely off the ground. Had it been any higher it would have been red.
Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:43 pm
ersonally I think referees should be held more accountable for mistakes like this. I’d like to see proper, public explanations for those decisions. Or even an admittance they got it wrong.
They are entirely accountable.

All games are observed with match footage, 100% of key match decisions (cautions, red card, penalties) are reviewed on footage and submitted to an independent three person panel made up of ex-professional players and managers to judge whether or not the decision was correct.

Promotion / Reclassification criteria is 30% based on judgement of key match decisions. 70% based on a technical mark which if a KMD is incorrect will usually be affected by about 10%.

A public explanation will achieve nothing. "My judgement was that the challenge was reckless in nature, there was not consideration for the safety of the opponent".

Open door changing room 20 minutes after the final whistle to discuss any decisions club secretaries or managers want to clarify.

Accountability doesn't come from reciting law to a TV camera or in a written statement. It comes in your actual performance review, including your annual bonus, being fundamentally based upon the accuracy of decisions which make a difference.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

That penalty

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:29 pm

lo36789 wrote:
A disregard for safety of opponent basically - you hit someone with that force you could injure them simply put. Add in the words from my position and at the time. and you have the answer you need. Add "in my opinion + definition by law" and you have your reason.
In what way did Wheatley disregard his opponent’s safety?

It was a well-timed tackle, his intent was clearly on the ball. It doesn’t discuss force in the rulebook, I’ve checked. Force doesn’t come into it. That’s all part of the referees’ discretion.

What you’re arguing for is the eradication of the slide tackle. No slide tackler can stop themselves, that’s the nature of it. Do you believe the slide tackle should be eradicated?

I also don’t understand why you say “If his foot had been higher, he’d have been sent off”. His foot wasn’t higher. Let’s disregard hypotheticals and keep with events that happened.
lo36789 wrote:
They are entirely accountable.

All games are observed with match footage, 100% of key match decisions (cautions, red card, penalties) are reviewed on footage and submitted to an independent three person panel made up of ex-professional players and managers to judge whether or not the decision was correct.

Promotion / Reclassification criteria is 30% based on judgement of key match decisions. 70% based on a technical mark which if a KMD is incorrect will usually be affected by about 10%.

A public explanation will achieve nothing. "My judgement was that the challenge was reckless in nature, there was not consideration for the safety of the opponent".

Open door changing room 20 minutes after the final whistle to discuss any decisions club secretaries or managers want to clarify.

Accountability doesn't come from reciting law to a TV camera or in a written statement. It comes in your actual performance review, including your annual bonus, being fundamentally based upon the accuracy of decisions which make a difference.
Actually I disagree. That’s precisely where accountability comes from. It’s not about reciting laws, it’s about giving honest explanations as to why
a decision has been made. A little thing called transparency.

Think about it, you’ve just argued the laws allow referees their own discretion. So you’d be asking the referee why they applied a certain law in a certain way. You’re asking about their decision and how they came to that. Not what the law is.

Managers and players have to do it, so why not referees?

All the above just sounds like you arguing to maintain the status quo.

Threatening not to promote isn’t much of a threat if the referee is part-time. Only from the Championship upwards are referees full-time. If a referee is happy officiating around the lower leagues
because they’re on better income in their other jobs, then it’s no threat whatsoever.

Proper accountability only happens when there is transparency to go with it. Saying accountability should lie behind-closed-doors with assessors and refereeing bodies opens the doors for cronyism, mates protecting each other, cliques and bad governance.

It’s generally accepted standards of refereeing are declining (see Keith Hackett’s recent criticisms of referees, two UK referees failing fitness tests to remain on the international list, no UK refs at the most recent World Cup).

So I see very little evidence that the current methods of improving standards are actually working. Greater public accountability, and better transparency will help overturn this.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

JE93
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by JE93 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:30 pm

Not the worst ref we’ve had by a long stretch. But I hate the thought that Wheatley’s challenge is getting pushed out the game. With fans in the ground those tackles are as good as goals, they get everyone going. The penalty I thought hit him above the T-shirt line which I thought was now no pen?

My points would be, why was it not a hand ball in the lead up to Joe Wheatley’s yellow card. Strikes their lads hand which is stretched well away from his body which completely changes the direction of the ball and the play. Which then put Hedley under pressure and in the second challenge Wheatley gets his yellow.

Secondly, Why was their no.7 not booked for trying to bring down Sousa in the run up to the 4th goal, the referee plays the advantage so clearly sees it as a foul. But no yellow after the goal was scored when it was exactly the same kind of challenge as Wheatley and Liddle both received their yellows for.

For me I think all referees should have to give press conferences based on 3 questions (each) proposed by either team. It would help to understand what they saw to make a decision and break down the us and them. I also think all refereeing scores should be published as part of the official match report, we can walk away thinking the ref got all the major decisions wrong for both sides, yet we never actually find out if that is reflected in their scores.

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:48 pm

JE93 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:30 pm
Secondly, Why was their no.7 not booked for trying to bring down Sousa in the run up to the 4th goal, the referee plays the advantage so clearly sees it as a foul. But no yellow after the goal was scored when it was exactly the same kind of challenge as Wheatley and Liddle both received their yellows for.
The guidance changed in the summer.

The offence would be "stopping a promising attack", had the attack actually been stopped, since it was not stopped then no cautionable offence was commited.

Unless it is deemed a reckless challenge it is incorrect in law to go back and caution, assume it has been judged as an (attempted) trip rather than anything else.

To be honest though just watched it back you could argue it as more.

Liddle's is scissors motion with legs which is always going to be a minimum caution.

JE93
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by JE93 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:55 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:48 pm
JE93 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:30 pm
Secondly, Why was their no.7 not booked for trying to bring down Sousa in the run up to the 4th goal, the referee plays the advantage so clearly sees it as a foul. But no yellow after the goal was scored when it was exactly the same kind of challenge as Wheatley and Liddle both received their yellows for.
The guidance changed in the summer.

The offence would be "stopping a promising attack", had the attack actually been stopped, since it was not stopped then no cautionable offence was commited.

The only exception is if it is a reckless challenge it is incorrect in law to go back and caution.
Sorry don't understand that application. This wasn't an arm on the shoulder or clipping a heel to stop the player running away from him. This was a lunge at the ball in which he was just as likely to take out the man and cause some damage. Personally I don't see how it was any different to the Wheatley or Liddle challenges which both earned yellow cards, other than he missed, the intent was the same. Just my take on it.

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:05 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:29 pm
Threatening not to promote isn’t much of a threat if the referee is part-time. Only from the Championship upwards are referees full-time. If a referee is happy officiating around the lower leagues
because they’re on better income in their other jobs, then it’s no threat whatsoever.
Not the situation. Some take breaks or drop to part time at NL level - by FL that number increases significantly.

Remember a referee from say Darlington can be told on lunchtime Monday they are going to be at Dover on the following night.

It can actually be quite hard to have another job when you only get advised on a Monday whether you have a game, on what day and where you are travelling to in the next week.

Either that or you need a very flexible employer.
Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:29 pm
It’s generally accepted standards of refereeing are declining (see Keith Hackett’s recent criticisms of referees, two UK referees failing fitness tests to remain on the international list, no UK refs at the most recent World Cup)
This was for one reason only. The nominations for world cup get made 2 years in advance, as that is when their dedicated coaching / training in the build up started. Who was the English FA nominee...Mark Clattenburg.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... -world-cup

By the time the World Cup came around he was no longer a FIFA list member.

Hackett is unfortunately bitter. He lost his job in favour of Mike Riley and they don't like each other on a personal level.

On the interviews. Many would do them if asked - which is why all are happy to discuss with clubs openly and historically with spectators post match. It is actually more of a PGMOL directive any press / media involvement needs their approval - their rationale is that it wouldn't help (for the reasons above)
Last edited by lo36789 on Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:07 pm

JE93 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:55 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:48 pm
JE93 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:30 pm
Secondly, Why was their no.7 not booked for trying to bring down Sousa in the run up to the 4th goal, the referee plays the advantage so clearly sees it as a foul. But no yellow after the goal was scored when it was exactly the same kind of challenge as Wheatley and Liddle both received their yellows for.
The guidance changed in the summer.

The offence would be "stopping a promising attack", had the attack actually been stopped, since it was not stopped then no cautionable offence was commited.

The only exception is if it is a reckless challenge it is incorrect in law to go back and caution.
Sorry don't understand that application. This wasn't an arm on the shoulder or clipping a heel to stop the player running away from him. This was a lunge at the ball in which he was just as likely to take out the man and cause some damage. Personally I don't see how it was any different to the Wheatley or Liddle challenges which both earned yellow cards, other than he missed, the intent was the same. Just my take on it.
I don't disagree tbh - per my "you could argue it deserved more"

The reason would have been that it was assessed as a deliberate attempt to trip rather than a reckless challenge. Different angles, different perspectives.

Vodka_Vic
Posts: 2203
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by Vodka_Vic » Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:20 pm

I feel as a football fan a complete disconnect between the laws and football supporters which should not happen. Rule changes and referees seem to be some sort of secret society where football laws and rules are on a need to know basis. Even managers and players seem to have little idea. Look at rugby where referees are micd up when explaining decisions. In cricket rule changes are shared openly and commentators explain them well, and DRS decisions are on a live feed where spectators hear them. As a result there isn't a them and us situation between players and officials in these 2 sports like there is in football.

JE93
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by JE93 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:21 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:07 pm
JE93 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:55 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:48 pm
JE93 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:30 pm
Secondly, Why was their no.7 not booked for trying to bring down Sousa in the run up to the 4th goal, the referee plays the advantage so clearly sees it as a foul. But no yellow after the goal was scored when it was exactly the same kind of challenge as Wheatley and Liddle both received their yellows for.
The guidance changed in the summer.

The offence would be "stopping a promising attack", had the attack actually been stopped, since it was not stopped then no cautionable offence was commited.

The only exception is if it is a reckless challenge it is incorrect in law to go back and caution.
Sorry don't understand that application. This wasn't an arm on the shoulder or clipping a heel to stop the player running away from him. This was a lunge at the ball in which he was just as likely to take out the man and cause some damage. Personally I don't see how it was any different to the Wheatley or Liddle challenges which both earned yellow cards, other than he missed, the intent was the same. Just my take on it.
I don't disagree tbh - per my "you could argue it deserved more"

The reason would have been that it was assessed as a deliberate attempt to trip rather than a reckless challenge. Different angles, different perspectives.
Fair play. Always an air of subjectivity to these things and we can't expect them to get everything right. But understanding their thought process would help sometimes.

Thats where I think the after match questions would be valuable. You find out what they thought of an incident like that not to follow it up with a yellow. Just 3 (respectful) questions like 'what was your take on the x tackle'. Shouldn't be a trial by any means.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4654
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by Darlofan97 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:22 pm

Wheatley's tackle: Yellow card was the right call. I winced a little when he flew in. Rightly or wrongly, you're asking for trouble when you go in like that, whether you win the ball or not!

Penalty decision: Probably one of the worst decisions I've seen at this level (and I've seen a few!). Hits Hunt on the bicep, arm is by his side and no attempt of a deliberate motion towards the ball. Can only think the referee was in two minds about sending Wheatley off and wanted to 'level it up'.

Tackle on Sousa: Non-starter really. Poor attempt, but Sousa managed to get over it well. Any proper contact and it would have been a yellow.

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:26 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:29 pm
It was a well-timed tackle, his intent was clearly on the ball. It doesn’t discuss force in the rulebook, I’ve checked. Force doesn’t come into it. That’s all part of the referees’ discretion.
"- Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

- Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

- Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"

Doesn't mention force anywhere at all...(https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... misconduct)
Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:29 pm
What you’re arguing for is the eradication of the slide tackle. No slide tackler can stop themselves, that’s the nature of it. Do you believe the slide tackle should be eradicated?
Slide tackles are fine - slide being the operative word. You can take evasive action / roll and change trajectory.

Wheatley lunged. He was off the ground when he made contact with the ball his entire body was off the ground.

A lot of this is implementation guidance - this website isn't up to date but kind of illustrates the considerations required - http://www.yorkreferee.co.uk/ref-help/l ... excessive/

All about judgement.
Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:29 pm

Simple.

There are boxes for a red card;
- Speed / Distance (Was the challenge made at speed and / or from distance)
- Control (could they stop themselves)
- Height (Was the point of contact high)

Tick all three and you have a red card, below that and it's caution for reckless.

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:27 pm

Vodka_Vic wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:20 pm
I feel as a football fan a complete disconnect between the laws and football supporters which should not happen. Rule changes and referees seem to be some sort of secret society where football laws and rules are on a need to know basis. Even managers and players seem to have little idea. Look at rugby where referees are micd up when explaining decisions. In cricket rule changes are shared openly and commentators explain them well, and DRS decisions are on a live feed where spectators hear them. As a result there isn't a them and us situation between players and officials in these 2 sports like there is in football.
This has been considered, unfortunately this happened last time it was trialled in England.

https://youtu.be/G4ruNosLNOE

Not sure fans would like the human side of the conversations which take place mind - nor the language.

Football fans are exceptionally tribal and would read way too much into officials and players being on first name terms, and the more matter of fact conversations "look if I've missed it - I apologise - when I get the next one wrong the other way we can call it even" (for example)

https://youtu.be/UR9wwqjbO1I

This was Jarred Gillet's last game in Australia before he moved to the UK for his job - kind of shows the side of it that I don't think that UK football fans would like.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

That penalty

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:50 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Not the situation. Some take breaks or drop to part time at NL level - by FL that number increases significantly.

Remember a referee from say Darlington can be told on lunchtime Monday they are going to be at Dover on the following night.

It can actually be quite hard to have another job when you only get advised on a Monday whether you have a game, on what day and where you are travelling to in the next week.

Either that or you need a very flexible employer.
Think you’ll find it is the situation for some referees.
Some are perfectly happy refereeing part-time. Unless you’ve decided you speak for all referees.

Therefore absolutely none of that changes the point that threatening not to promote someone isn’t an effective form of accountability.
lo36789 wrote:
This was for one reason only. The nominations for world cup get made 2 years in advance, as that is when their dedicated coaching / training in the build up started. Who was the English FA nominee...Mark Clattenburg.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... -world-cup

By the time the World Cup came around he was no longer a FIFA list member.
So my point is correct then. No UK referees at the 2018 World Cup. And two others, David Coote and Andy Madley actually failed fitness tests as raised earlier.
lo36789 wrote:
Hackett is unfortunately bitter. He lost his job in favour of Mike Riley and they don't like each other on a personal level.
Purely opinion. One man’s “bitter” is another man’s reasonable point. You unfortunately are very biased and won’t countenance criticism of referees. This undermines any points you make.

lo36789 wrote: On the interviews. Many would do them if asked - which is why all are happy to discuss with clubs openly and historically with spectators post match. It is actually more of a PGMOL directive any press / media involvement needs their approval - their rationale is that it wouldn't help (for the reasons above)
And? You’ve said you don’t think it would help. Now you’re saying many referees would do them. Which is it?
Last edited by Darlogramps on Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

That penalty

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:57 pm

lo36789 wrote:

Simple.

There are boxes for a red card;
- Speed / Distance (Was the challenge made at speed and / or from distance)
- Control (could they stop themselves)
- Height (Was the point of contact high)

Tick all three and you have a red card, below that and it's caution for reckless.
Again, Wheatley wasn’t a red card. Therefore your hypothetical can be discarded and ignored.

Sticking with actual events, I don’t see how any of the above can be applied to Wheatley.

It wasn’t careless or reckless in my view. It was controlled and didn’t have excessive force.

Describing it as a lunge is way too simplistic. It wasn’t high, it was controlled, it was neither careless nor reckless.

But as we’ve seen, you won’t countenance any criticism of referees and on EVERY referee discussion, you side with them.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

lo36789
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:57 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:57 pm
Describing it as a lunge is way too simplistic. It wasn’t high, it was controlled, it was neither careless nor reckless.

But as we’ve seen, you won’t countenance any criticism of referees and on EVERY referee discussion, you side with them.
No it isn't, lunging in is out of control. How can it be controlled he's put his entire bodyweight in midair - if that lands on a player it breaks his leg.

You say it's irrelevant but that is the rationale that the moment you take an action you have shown disregard for the safety of your opponent because that could happen.

I don't side, I justify - there is a difference.

I'm explaining why a challenge made in that manner is assessed as a caution. It is interpreted that if you lunge in you are showing disregard for the safety of your opponent.

You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that is the expectation.

You also conveniently ignore the following. I have said the penalty was incorrect, just with a bit more patience than "omg it's horrendous". I have also said that the Wealdstone defender could be argued to have got away without a caution for his challenge on Sousa - but the distinction / rationale why.

In fact in 3 decisions. I have said one was wrong, one was correct and one could go either way. Only actually agreeing with 33% is hardly siding on EVERY decision

My point still stands reciting lines to a camera would give you nothing more than the above coz you would still dispute it. So where is the value in that - who is made accountable by just saying "well that's how I saw it". It won't change any decisions.

At our level players and managers get interviewed by "friendly" media. If you want the same application (as you say it's the same as managers / players) then they could only be interviewed by another official - or the PGMOL would be allowed to edit any statements in the same way our club website does.

The only levels where participants are subject to independent challenge the players and managers are provided with dedicated media training. So the same would have to be provided.
Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:50 pm
So my point is correct then. No UK referees at the 2018 World Cup.
Sorry that is absolutely rubbish and you know it. You used it as evidence of a decline in standards.

The reason was because one man got offered £2millon a year to take another job.

You can't use a fact as a validation for a statement which doesn't validate it. That is pathetic.
Darlofan97 wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:22 pm
Wheatley's tackle: Yellow card was the right call. I winced a little when he flew in. Rightly or wrongly, you're asking for trouble when you go in like that, whether you win the ball or not!
Clearly I am not alone.

But ok it is just because I back every decision regardless.

Post Reply