Regarding J Terry's red card against City, what a pearler from SAF:  To paraphrase "If that had been us no way would they have done that", who is he kidding?  Cos Man Utd don't get their fair share of luck/dodgy decisions from the ref.    

This aint an anti Utd or Ferguson thing but I'm really tired of all the bollocks that managers come out with an an almost weekly basis.    

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/7625789.stm

Jesus, can someone just get them to STFU?  They make the referees job nigh on impossible and its hard enough as it is.

Anyone else just sick of the shit these managers come out with?

ps. mourinho was the worst offender in this regard, like i said its not a chelsea/utd thing.
_________________
CFC

Well under rules you can rescind the whole red card or nothing (i.e. if they deemed it was a yellow card then the red had to stay - only if they didnt think it was even a yellow could they rescind the red).
So SAF is right to be dubious about the decision. Its not about the refs it's about the review panel.

But in this case, the decision to review and rescind the red card is the correct one.

A review panel would be made redundant if the use of TV was utilised by the referee at the time. It would take less than 30 seconds and would eliminate many controversies.

The comment by SAF is completely laughable, of all people he cannot complain about decisions going against him and his Manure.

And right on cue...........Thierry Henry on Soccer AM


If theres one thing I could change

"More refs, or video.It's impossible for one human being to see everything"

So many people want this introduced, bloody FIFA.

So many people don't.

Two points.

Firstly, John Terry's cynical rugby tackle on Jo WAS worthy of a yellow card and so the red card should not have been rescinded. I repeat, yellow cards cannot be rescinded (or the equivalent - i.e. less than a red) so they deemed it not worthy of a booking.

Secondly, video evidence is a bad idea. Football is a sport and as such is a game that relies on human skill and judgment. Refereeing is a part of that. Even a video panel would require human judgment and in tight situations would be controversial (it's not always clear with replays).
How would you propose it be used?
It's tough. Only to determine goals (as in rugby with tries)? If so we are staring into the impossible. Inter v. Catania '08, England v. Germany '66 etc etc. Times when its not clear are in abundance.
This seems to be unsatisfactory though if you want the game to be clear of incorrect decisions then would you have every foul and every kick monitored?
If not then you accept there is an element of judgment and flow in a match.

You could argue that it would be enough to reduce, not eliminate, incorrect decisions for it to be beneficial.
For me that's a high price to pay for the integrity of the referee and would do nothing to bolster respect for referees (the players probably have to earn this sort of rule change even if it were called for).  Can you imagine players pressuring the ref to use video evidence at every available opportunity?
"That WAS a corner you ***** *******".
Corners can change matches too...

And you still need a workable system with clear benefits.
I aint seeing them..

Good posts.  

For me I would just like to see a general "culture of respect" to the refs that exists in other sports but is sadly lacking in football.

At the risk of repeating myself as in basketball two technical fouls for dissent = an ejection and we all know how the rules apply in Rugby with the 10m.  

Managers and players keep giving the   to the refs and its about time that FIFA or the FA took a zero tolerance policy.  Something like "any comment directed at the refs which is deemed inappropriate, unsporting or detrimental to the game is punishable by a one match touchline ban per offense".
_________________
CFC

Agreed. Sir Alex does say some extremely silly things on occasion, and this was one of them. It appeared that the majority of commentators thought that the red card was too harsh, and Terry should've received a yellow.

Equally, I can't help thinking that if it had been RIo Ferdinand who'd been in the same position - with most observers suggesting that the ref had fouled up considerably - the FA would've done the same thing (assuming Rio had remembered to appeal).

Granted, the rule is pretty clear that the FA shouldn't really have binned the red card if a yellow had been merited, but I can't help thinking that they ought to be looking at that law - it's rather akin to a judge giving someone life for shoplifting, and the appeal court saying 'Well, as a jail sentence was merited, we can't reduce it. Hope you don't find the next ten years too taxing' - and that this misapplication of the rule was probably fair enough.

I agree they should revise the rule. Nonetheless the rule was incorrectly applied. There are rules and they should be applied consistently. It seems unfair (as with the government & HBOS) that a bigger player should be helped and given rule exemptions where a smaller player isn't. Would Crystal Palace really have been afforded the same leniency?
It is one thing for there to be natural barriers into the top 4, quite another for there to be barriers imposed by the rule-makers.

It should have been a red card?

Why? Because it was a clear goalscoring opportunity. I'm sure everyone on here is knowledgeable enough to know that is the definition of a red card tackle, nothing to do with being the last man.

Ok, so there was a defender covering behind Terry (Carvalho, was it?)

But if Carvalho had come across to meet Jo, he would have left his man (Robinho?) completely free. Simple square pass, Robinho would have had all the time in the world to get a shot away.

So basically, it WAS denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, and the red card should have stood.

I know no-one else will agree with me, but still...

Burden of proof = yellow card. It was - it should have stood. End of Im outta here.

I'll have to live up to your expectations, Michael, and disagree - the law is that it's a red card if it is an obvious goalscoring opportunity, as you say. This doesn't allow for the player to make a square pass for an opponent who may then gallop towards the area (having some distance to cover) to get a shot away.

If that was the case, you could have a situation whereby a side breaks away, and the right sided player  - let's use Walcott, since he's quick - is up against a slightly slower left back - say Ashley Cole.

In the middle of the pitch, Adebayor has come steaming up and is in the centre, three yards behind the offside line, in prime position to recieve the ball and get a shot away when it reaches him, with Terry and Carvallho some way behing trying to get back.

Cole then tugs Walcott's shirt and young Theo loses his balance and falls over as a result.  No doubt this is a foul. However, what to do with Cole (my preferred option of shooting the overbearing, arrogant git isn't under the laws, so we'll ignore that one)?

Has he denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity, with the ball yet to be passed to Adebayor?  That'd be pushing the Law too far, because you could end up with far more red cards.


Thinking about it, I suspect that the reason for the appeal succeeding may be because Mark Halsey claimed that he'd awarded the red for serious foul play rather than under Law 12 (despite apparently saying it was for denying the goalscoring opportunity, which almost every pundit said it wasn't).

You can't be booked for serious foul play - it's a red card - so, it could well be that the commission had a straight choice: was it serious foul play, or was it not? That, according to the ref, was what he was punished for, and you can't sit as an appeal panel and change the offence for which a player's been punished, in which case there wasn't a yellow card to be awarded.

Yes, it should've been a yellow card, but the referee's assertion that the offence committed was serious foul play meant that the appeal commission could only rule on whether it was that offence or not, and as it wasn't, there was no punishment to be awarded.

So it may be just that Halsey is the one to blame, not the FA.

Interesting points Dave, especially about the nature of the offence - in which you are entirely correct, making my point about denying a C.G.O rather useless, to be honest.

There are of course, so many variables to consider in these situations. However, with two fast City players breaking onto one Chelsea defender, one should expect that they should turn that into an obvious goalscoring chance. What's the chance they would have got a shot away? 90%+, I'd expect. In that case, Terry's rugby tackle (I know that technically the 'type' of foul doesn't matter in the rulebook, but the fact that it was a deliberate foul underlines the fact that Terry was seeking to gain an advantage (in denying a goalscoring chance) by hauling down Jo). Therefore, I can't help thinking that it was deserved. City were denied a great chance to score, and their 'reward' was a free-kick 50 yards from goal! That's simply not fair, and the red card wad adequate compensation.

As a side note, I personally think any 'last man foul' (to use the pundit expression) should result in a penalty kick, regardless of whether it was inside the area or not. I know this would make these decisions controversial, but surely the only way to compensate a lost goalscoring opportunity is to give, erm, a goalscoring opportunity?

If this all results in more sendings-offs, then that's something players will have to get used to. It will in turn result in more goals, which is not a bad thing.

Perhaps a penalty type situation from the edge of the box (so it's a little more balanced) if the foul was a long way out...
Fantasy stuff though as it's difficult to implement.