Mark Halsey, the referee for the Chelsea / Man City match last weekend gave John Terry a red card for his "rugby tackle" on Jo. Later, during the week, he had to rescind his red card as the FA found that it was not a "serious infraction".
Halsey's post-match report said that he gave the card for "Serious foul play" and he clearly felt that he was correct in hus desicion and at first stuck to his guns. But the FA got their way.
Halsey also found himself "relegated" to refereeing a League 2 match of Chester City against Shrewsbury Town on Saturday. Some feel this is a punishment for him.
Should john terry's red card have been rescinded?
33 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by Yooj Bigullz » Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:00 pm
GYBS wrote:As much as i hate Terry it should never of been a red card in the first place
You dont mind rugby tackles on a football pitch, however poorly executed?
- Yooj Bigullz
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:15 pm
by skatesy » Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:01 pm
I do not think the FA is prepared to follow through with the prescedent that they have set. If they are going to rescind a red card that a referee gave a player due to the fact that they believe that the red card was not justified, then they should also change every other mistake that a referee makes on the field if it has been deemed to have been a mistake.
What about last year when Styles rewarded Lampard with a free-kick at Anfield which was CLEARLY not a foul. In that case, based on the prescedent that that they have set here, if that were to happen in the future the FA should step in and state that this penalty should've not been awarded and, therefore, Liverpool win 1-0.
What about last year when Styles rewarded Lampard with a free-kick at Anfield which was CLEARLY not a foul. In that case, based on the prescedent that that they have set here, if that were to happen in the future the FA should step in and state that this penalty should've not been awarded and, therefore, Liverpool win 1-0.
-
skatesy - Posts: 727
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:57 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
by GYBS » Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Yooj Bigullz wrote:GYBS wrote:As much as i hate Terry it should never of been a red card in the first place
You dont mind rugby tackles on a football pitch, however poorly executed?
he pulled him back simple as that - wasnt a red card offence and should of only been a yellow.
-
GYBS - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 8647
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:42 pm
- Location: Oxford
by Redman in wales » Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Yooj Bigullz wrote:GYBS wrote:As much as i hate Terry it should never of been a red card in the first place
You dont mind rugby tackles on a football pitch, however poorly executed?
it wasnt a rugby tackle.
it was not a red card offense.
--
oh, and what's the relavance to LFC?
- Premiership general discussion thread next time tonyeh
-
Redman in wales - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 4342
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:02 pm
- Location: Oxford
by Yooj Bigullz » Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:15 pm
Beggars belief how many people find this acceptable on a football pitch
- Yooj Bigullz
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:15 pm
by GYBS » Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:16 pm
No one said its acceptable just thats its a foul a yellow card not a sending off offence , if so carra would of been sent off the amount of times he has bear hugged someone in the box.
-
GYBS - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 8647
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:42 pm
- Location: Oxford
by Yooj Bigullz » Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:34 pm
Just look at the picture. If you cant see it from that there's no point me trying to explain
- Yooj Bigullz
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:15 pm
by Bad Bob » Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:12 pm
Some food for thought from the Ref365 column over on footy365:
-----
Terry Appeal Exposes Holes In Rules
Posted 16/09/08 15:57
Nobody ever said life was fair.
If it was I'd be writing this from my penthouse suite in Sandbanks overlooking the sea, thinking about booking the jet to take me out to the Seychelles next week, while my live-in partner Kelly Brook asks if Nadine out of Girls Aloud can 'come to play' tonight.
As it is, I'm in my small office in my house, wearing socks with holes in them, bemoaning the fact that the girl I met Saturday who said she see me Monday never turned up, and I'm going nowhere near the Seychelles. Although I am working two days in Wolverhampton later this month. Exciting.
So life, in short, isn't fair. And neither is football.
And, after the weekend's fixtures, and looking ahead to next week's, there will be conflicting ideas between Manchester United fans and Chelsea fans about who has been harshly treated. Some will be suggesting -it's not fair.
I talk, obviously, about the fact that both Nemanja Vidic and John Terry - both centre halves, both enforcers, both important players for their respective sides - were sent off on Saturday.
But when Chelsea meet United next week, Terry will play. Vidic will not.
I speak of course of the fact that John Terry and Chelsea have appealed successfully against his dismissal against Manchester City on Saturday.
Manchester United are unable to appeal Vidic's red card, because it was two yellow cards, rather than a straight red, which is what Terry received. Mind you, I don't think that United would have held out much hope had they been allowed to petition the FA.
Frankly, Vidic could have been sent off for either one of his misdemeanours that led to cautions. They would still have been talking points and I'm not saying that either incident definitely warranted a red card by itself, but you could certainly see a case for it.
I think that Vidic, by virtue of one, the other or both, got what he deserved. He will not play against Chelsea on Sunday.
John Terry will. And I think that is absolutely correct.
Referees must deal in fact, and to me if anyone thinks that Terry was rightfully sent off then I believe they are clouded by a dislike for Terry, Chelsea, or both.
Let's deal in the facts.
Jo gets past Terry, and Terry attempts to hold him back. That's a foul. Terry deliberately did it, he knew what he was doing and it was cynical, so that's at least a booking.
It can become a red card if one of three things happen: it's violent conduct, it's serious foul play, or Jo has an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Straight of the Laws of the Game: "A player is guilty of violent conduct if using excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."
Looks like a double whammy there, since Terry did not use 'excessive force or brutality' and he was, at least loosely, challenging for the ball. 'Challenging for the ball' in this case, refers to an incident that takes place with the ball elsewhere.
Next, we'll look at serious foul play. "A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play."
Ah, so we have the ball being challenged for now, but we still don't have the 'excessive force or brutality.' As a matter of fact, he didn't catch Jo very high on his body or catch him that hard.
There's more to the law - "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." I don't think Jo's safety is particularly being endangered in this incident.
That's two possibilities down, so let's look at the one remaining reason, and the one I believe was given. Denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity. I have heard that Halsey has actually reported it as Serious Foul play, but that's even more ridiculous.
I'll give you the wording from the law book in full so you can see it for yourself.
"Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
- The distance between the offence and the goal
- The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- The direction of the play
- The location and number of defenders
- The offence which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or indirect free kick"
Looking at those five bullet points, I'd say the second, third and fifth support Mark Halsey's decision, but the first and fourth do not.
Firstly, the distance between the offence and the goal is virtually half of the pitch. Jo was in the centre circle when he was brought down. That's far too far out to be concerned with sending a player off for an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity'.
Next, 'the location and number of defenders'. (This is the point where you ignore the 'last man' theory but actually look at the proper law) Well there were two other defenders in reasonably close proximity to the incident. I am not saying that they definitely got there, and I'm not saying that Jo would not have danced past both and been through on the goalkeeper. What I am saying is that it was not an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' because it is far from sealed that Jo would get past the surrounding defending players.
As for the appeal itself, I'll admit to being surprised that this was overturned, mainly because there were so many ludicrous sendings off last season which were not thrown out (in some cases had games added to the suspension for 'frivolity') that I felt sure that the first high-profile incident this season would see the FA supporting their referee.
I am very pleased they didn't. In this new era of 'Respect' the managers and player ought to be respectful, but as one manager said at the weekend (I think it may have been David Moyes) Respect has to be earned.
If the FA support every decision blindly that is neither helping the Respect initiative nor helping the referees.
Finally, the biggest gripe in this whole situation has to be the fact that this appeal means Terry has no blip on his record. It is not a red card, for me, but it is obvious to everyone (including Frank Lampard in his post-match interview) that it was a cautionable offence.
Why can't it be downgraded to a yellow card? He deserves some sort of censure for the challenge.
Funnily enough, this could well fall into the subject I spoke about a few weeks ago, which is the sin-bin debate. This kind of tackle could well be considered worse than the standard booking, but not enough to merit a red card. Perhaps the sin bin is an answer.
Anyway, that is not an option right now. In situations like this you have to use the rule-book, and for once it is very clear and can assist us.
If, after reading the above, anyone still thinks that John Terry should have been sent off and his appeal quashed, I'd love to hear it.
Rob McNichol
-----
Terry Appeal Exposes Holes In Rules
Posted 16/09/08 15:57
Nobody ever said life was fair.
If it was I'd be writing this from my penthouse suite in Sandbanks overlooking the sea, thinking about booking the jet to take me out to the Seychelles next week, while my live-in partner Kelly Brook asks if Nadine out of Girls Aloud can 'come to play' tonight.
As it is, I'm in my small office in my house, wearing socks with holes in them, bemoaning the fact that the girl I met Saturday who said she see me Monday never turned up, and I'm going nowhere near the Seychelles. Although I am working two days in Wolverhampton later this month. Exciting.
So life, in short, isn't fair. And neither is football.
And, after the weekend's fixtures, and looking ahead to next week's, there will be conflicting ideas between Manchester United fans and Chelsea fans about who has been harshly treated. Some will be suggesting -it's not fair.
I talk, obviously, about the fact that both Nemanja Vidic and John Terry - both centre halves, both enforcers, both important players for their respective sides - were sent off on Saturday.
But when Chelsea meet United next week, Terry will play. Vidic will not.
I speak of course of the fact that John Terry and Chelsea have appealed successfully against his dismissal against Manchester City on Saturday.
Manchester United are unable to appeal Vidic's red card, because it was two yellow cards, rather than a straight red, which is what Terry received. Mind you, I don't think that United would have held out much hope had they been allowed to petition the FA.
Frankly, Vidic could have been sent off for either one of his misdemeanours that led to cautions. They would still have been talking points and I'm not saying that either incident definitely warranted a red card by itself, but you could certainly see a case for it.
I think that Vidic, by virtue of one, the other or both, got what he deserved. He will not play against Chelsea on Sunday.
John Terry will. And I think that is absolutely correct.
Referees must deal in fact, and to me if anyone thinks that Terry was rightfully sent off then I believe they are clouded by a dislike for Terry, Chelsea, or both.
Let's deal in the facts.
Jo gets past Terry, and Terry attempts to hold him back. That's a foul. Terry deliberately did it, he knew what he was doing and it was cynical, so that's at least a booking.
It can become a red card if one of three things happen: it's violent conduct, it's serious foul play, or Jo has an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Straight of the Laws of the Game: "A player is guilty of violent conduct if using excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."
Looks like a double whammy there, since Terry did not use 'excessive force or brutality' and he was, at least loosely, challenging for the ball. 'Challenging for the ball' in this case, refers to an incident that takes place with the ball elsewhere.
Next, we'll look at serious foul play. "A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play."
Ah, so we have the ball being challenged for now, but we still don't have the 'excessive force or brutality.' As a matter of fact, he didn't catch Jo very high on his body or catch him that hard.
There's more to the law - "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." I don't think Jo's safety is particularly being endangered in this incident.
That's two possibilities down, so let's look at the one remaining reason, and the one I believe was given. Denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity. I have heard that Halsey has actually reported it as Serious Foul play, but that's even more ridiculous.
I'll give you the wording from the law book in full so you can see it for yourself.
"Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
- The distance between the offence and the goal
- The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- The direction of the play
- The location and number of defenders
- The offence which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or indirect free kick"
Looking at those five bullet points, I'd say the second, third and fifth support Mark Halsey's decision, but the first and fourth do not.
Firstly, the distance between the offence and the goal is virtually half of the pitch. Jo was in the centre circle when he was brought down. That's far too far out to be concerned with sending a player off for an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity'.
Next, 'the location and number of defenders'. (This is the point where you ignore the 'last man' theory but actually look at the proper law) Well there were two other defenders in reasonably close proximity to the incident. I am not saying that they definitely got there, and I'm not saying that Jo would not have danced past both and been through on the goalkeeper. What I am saying is that it was not an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' because it is far from sealed that Jo would get past the surrounding defending players.
As for the appeal itself, I'll admit to being surprised that this was overturned, mainly because there were so many ludicrous sendings off last season which were not thrown out (in some cases had games added to the suspension for 'frivolity') that I felt sure that the first high-profile incident this season would see the FA supporting their referee.
I am very pleased they didn't. In this new era of 'Respect' the managers and player ought to be respectful, but as one manager said at the weekend (I think it may have been David Moyes) Respect has to be earned.
If the FA support every decision blindly that is neither helping the Respect initiative nor helping the referees.
Finally, the biggest gripe in this whole situation has to be the fact that this appeal means Terry has no blip on his record. It is not a red card, for me, but it is obvious to everyone (including Frank Lampard in his post-match interview) that it was a cautionable offence.
Why can't it be downgraded to a yellow card? He deserves some sort of censure for the challenge.
Funnily enough, this could well fall into the subject I spoke about a few weeks ago, which is the sin-bin debate. This kind of tackle could well be considered worse than the standard booking, but not enough to merit a red card. Perhaps the sin bin is an answer.
Anyway, that is not an option right now. In situations like this you have to use the rule-book, and for once it is very clear and can assist us.
If, after reading the above, anyone still thinks that John Terry should have been sent off and his appeal quashed, I'd love to hear it.
Rob McNichol
-
Bad Bob - LFC Guru Member
- Posts: 11269
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:03 pm
- Location: Canada
33 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Football Related Polls
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- John Arne Riise - Should we keep him?
1 ... 4, 5, 6
by Fowler_E7 » Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:53 pm
- 78 Replies
- 8686 Views
- Last post by Woollyback
Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:43 am
- John Arne Riise - Should we keep him?
-
- John arne riise
1, 2by metalhead » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:50 pm - 19 Replies
- 3138 Views
- Last post by bigmick
Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:57 am
- John arne riise
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.