Really begin to dislike Burnley, not to CFC proportions but they are getting on my nerves now, horrible little team with awful tactics and Frankly how they ended up with 11 men on the pitch is beyond me
Just watched the Diop interview on the official site. He doesn't think he is playing well at the moment. Cant wait to see him when he thinks he is good!
Does anyone else think Mr Probert should have used a bit of compassion, based on the circumstances, when booking Gray for taking his shirt off to reveal a t shirt in honour of their late owner after scoring the wining goal at Cardiff?
Law 12 states that “A player must be cautioned for”...“removing the shirt or covering the head with the shirt". It isn't discretionary so what was the ref supposed to do? Say he didn't see it?
Problem is, as someone said earlier, if an exception had been made for this, then nobody could be booked going forward because all they'd need to do is have an emotional message on their tee shirt and claim it meant something deeply personable.
It's a difficult one. The ref waived play on and we scored from the attack. A ref can then go back and yellow card an offender but I don't think he can issue a red card. Retrospective red cards can only be issued during a match, as far as I'm aware, if the ref missed the incident and it was later brought to his attention. This rule change was implemented this season following the use of VAR at the World Cup. The ref saw it so if he deemed it a red he would have had to stop play and issue it. Luckily Grady was not injured and we scored so I'll settle for that but I wouldn't be surprised if the assessor mentioned it.
I don't think that's right thornbury, I see no reason at all why a ref can't allow play to continue and then issue a red in the same way that he can issue a yellow. Why do you think that he would have had to stop play to issue it, rather than issue it at the next break in play?
Buffy the law stated that the ref can go back and issue a red when the ball is next out of play BUT he can't play advantage if there is serious foul play, violent conduct or a second yellow offence unless there's a clear opportunity to score a goal. However this could lead to the offending player getting involved again before he was sent off. Therefore the law now says the ref must stop the game and issue the red. In this case my guess is that either the ref didn't think it serious or violent.
I think you've just proven my point thornbury, as there very obviously was a clear opportunity to score, so no reason whatsoever that he couldn't have issued a red after the goal if he had wanted to.
Buffy you missed the point that the law now says the ref must stop the game to issue a red card. He can't play advantage and then go back to issue it as the player could still be involved when he wouldn't have been on the pitch. The beginning of my post was how the law stood but it has been changed so the ref had to stop the game if he thought it warranted a red card. He obviously didn't so played advantage then went back and gave the yellow. Retrospective reds are only for offences missed by the ref of mistaken identity.
The tackle on Diangana was a fully front-on tackle that IMO was clearly intended to simply take him out. In Noble's case, Ndidi was coming in at an angle (ie. not front-on) and they both had a 50-50 chance to win the ball but unfortunately Noble's studs were up. I actually think that the tackle on Diangana was more deserving of a red card than Noble's.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree thornbury, this is from the current, 2018/9 Laws of the Game from the FA website:
Advantage If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except for the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity when the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.
Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball next out of play but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick unless the player committed a more serious offence.
Nothing here, to my mind, that says he couldn't have sent him off after the goal was scored.
Must admit he has been different class this season. Not only his attitude (which I have never criticised) but the level of his performances as a RB have been brilliant.
I do think having Pelle here is helping him. He obviously worked with him at City & there may be some influence from the coaching staff. Last season I felt he struggled due to his lack of pace (gave away a few penalties in the early parts of the season) but that doesn’t seem to have been an issue this season.
He would always be in my predicted team at the moment.
Am I the only one who wasn't convinced it was a pen on Grady? Couldn't see contact for certain & although he didn't make a meal of it I can see why the ref wasn't sure as it looked like he was leaving a leg in?
Comments
Roger East is shocking
“As with all the young players, we need to make sure we give him the confidence. I’m playing behind him so I’m trying to keep talking to him all the time, telling him ‘no worries, next time’ if he loses the ball and giving him confidence.
Read more at https://www.whufc.com/news/articles/2018/november/05-november/zabaleta-grady-looks-dangerous-every-time-he-has-ball#R6tl1XdjM1DcSlme.99
As someone said earlier there is deeply personal to one individual or something which the whole football community can relate to. ;ok
Imo, it was as bad, or worse, than the challenge that Marky Mark was sent off for.
The ref saw it so if he deemed it a red he would have had to stop play and issue it.
Luckily Grady was not injured and we scored so I'll settle for that but I wouldn't be surprised if the assessor mentioned it.
In this case my guess is that either the ref didn't think it serious or violent.
The beginning of my post was how the law stood but it has been changed so the ref had to stop the game if he thought it warranted a red card. He obviously didn't so played advantage then went back and gave the yellow.
Retrospective reds are only for offences missed by the ref of mistaken identity.
In Noble's case, Ndidi was coming in at an angle (ie. not front-on) and they both had a 50-50 chance to win the ball but unfortunately Noble's studs were up.
I actually think that the tackle on Diangana was more deserving of a red card than Noble's.
Advantage
If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except for the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity when the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.
Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball next out of play but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick unless the player committed a more serious offence.
Nothing here, to my mind, that says he couldn't have sent him off after the goal was scored.
I do think having Pelle here is helping him. He obviously worked with him at City & there may be some influence from the coaching staff. Last season I felt he struggled due to his lack of pace (gave away a few penalties in the early parts of the season) but that doesn’t seem to have been an issue this season.
He would always be in my predicted team at the moment.
But then even Dyche said pen. ;hmm
Must be me