Both clubs ask for red card reviews

The managers need to be united and call for a meeting asap to sort out what is the worst season for officials that many of us can remember.

The good news is think how good we'll be when Mirallas comes back and Jelavic rediscovers his finishing boots.

Baines should have a mild talking to for ' dangerous heading '

When a little fella puts his head down and a big longlegged bloke lifts his leg up then all that's required is a bit of fingger wagging common sense.

Will the RS knowalls on MotD be all over these 3 mistakes like they were last week

I doubt it.

I've heard it all now.

The red cards were a tad harsh, but if you raise your studs to head height, that's wreckless.

Got to agree with the Victor stuff... when he gets a chance up top, he can actually play.

Both managers confirmed they will appeal against the expulsions and Allardyce said he will take the matter further. "I'd like to know what the referees' coaches or whoever think about what happened and what is the right way forward for Anthony Taylor," he said. "I'll pursue that quite vigorously to see what answers they give me. He has a difficult job but if he's not getting the right feedback and coaching and just told 'Well done, carry on,' then we've got a real problem."

Amen to that!

Merry Christmas to everyone who partakes in TW and of course to all those who put in such hard work to make it happen.

COYB

"And Gibson then saw red for an almost identical challenge to Cole’s on Mark Noble, although this one was slightly less debatable."

So Cole's wil be rescinded and Gibson's will be confirmed.

Nice to know who our friends are isn't it!

Where did I put that hair-splitter?

That said, both were yellows at most.

I do believe the 3 match ban can be appealed and I'd also like to see Moyes take a similar line to Allardyce on this one. Sam is rightly standing up for his players and also openly questioning the ref's competency which needs to be done.

Gardner is totally out of his depth at this level.

Both incidents were dangerous play. Whether Cole had his eye on the ball is frankly irrelevant.

Harsh reds, but hardly as ridiculous as some of these posts would make us believe.

Yet another forget the game let's concentrate on the officials weekend.

So, in theory at least, we will not lose Gibson.

But...does anyone know when an appeal will be heard? under the fast track system, it should be heard promptly, but given the Christmas period, will be there be time to consider an appeal before Boxing Day?

Objectively, aside from any specific rules etc, I don't believe either were a red. Sometimes players will be kicked in the chest/arm/head, it is what happens in football. Just as sometimes heads will smash into heads. Both players tried to play the ball, and imo, both were yellows at best.

BTW, does anyone know when suspensions for 5 yellows cease? I'm imagining a horror scenario where Osman receives a yellow next match(I read somewhere that he was on 4), Gibson's ban is upheld, and we go into the Chelski match without 4 of our first choice 5 midfielders.

When we have people on here saying it wasn't even a yellow, then I think that's a bit silly.

Considering just how many millions are at stake in place and prize money and how much emotion most supporters invest in their team's success, this abysmal Match Official quality is just not sustainable. I can foresee a situation in the future where it might boil over too either on or off the pitch. Then of course it's the supporters or players who will be blamed and not the pathetic Match Officials. I am sure most teams in the Prem, with the possible exception of the 'Big Four' who always – 'amazingly' – seem to be on the benefit side of Ref's and other Officials mistakes, can point to matches they should have won or not lost or had players red-carded in due to pathetic referee and linesman decisions.

Everton I know have been deprived of at least 6 or more points due to this malaise and I am sure many other teams have their hard-luck stories too. The Match Officials should never be the story but it seems this season far too often they are — and some of it, I am sure is deliberate narcissistic posturing.

What a load of shite.

I've seen more aggression in a three-year old.

I'm too young to remember the Leeds game but I certainly remember Mark Clattenburg's epic display of incompetence in the derby a few years ago. Now THAT was bad refereeing.

8:10 — if you get past the 30 seconds of ads... http://www.soccer-blogger.com/2012/12/22/man-city-vs-reading-1-0-highlights-2012-gareth-barry-goal-video/

Violent conduct only applies when the ball is not in play, and serious foul play does not require intent as you erroneously suggest.

As I said, harsh reds, but the ref obviously seen them as reds... as he's entitled to do under the rules.

Violent conduct may occur either on the field of play or outside its boundaries, whether the ball is in play or not. He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person.

Any player who lunges at an opponent when challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent, is guilty of serious foul play.

Objectively, in your opinion, were they sendings off? Because I fail to see how they were not yellow card offences? They were high feet, which made contact whether the opponent, but were not materially any more dangerous any normal challenge on a football pitch. I think that if the red cards are upheld, it will set an impossible precedent for referees. Consequently, and under the rules, I think they will be withdrawn (hopefully for our sake).

As for your interpretation of serious foul play (which I assumed is what you meant when you referred to 'dangerous play' - as there's no such thing)..

It is simply your interpretation of whether it meets excessive force or not... it is not factual and rule based as you implied earlier. At least you've dropped the 'intent' nonsense...

As for you concluding that I think they were red cards – please see my opinion stated several times above.

The whole thing was ridiculous and I think best summed up in the reactions of the Everton players to Carlton Cole as he went off and Matt Taylor and Jack Collison when they saw Gibson's red card.

Get out on the ale — it`s Christmas.

I think we should put our Stoke game to bed now... Especially given what victor did at our corner yesterday. Stoke may do it more than most... but we're in no position to overplay their actions.

And there is such a thing as dangerous play...or playing in a dangerous manner (alternative terminology). Both of these things are covered under Fifa rules, and are part of the footballing vernacular. My initial post (of those referred to you) specifically referred to playing in a dangerous manner, and the Fifa rules concerning it...What I also find interesting Ciaran, is that you state that there is no such thing as dangerous play... but who wrote this post again:

Both incidents were dangerous play. Whether Cole had his eye on the ball is frankly irrelevant.

In Victor's case yesterday, he was attempting one of those overhead kicks, just like Rooney and just like Cahill against Chelsea a while back. The fact that his attempt failed does not make it a foul any more than a successful attempt (like Rooney's and Cahill's) were fouls. Therefore the referee interpreted that one correctly. Otherwise all overhead kicks in the vicinity of other players would have to be outlawed.

Referees need to go back to school on this one as the rules are beginning to be interpreted in a way that is likely to lead to a fundamental change in how the game is played. Football is intrinsically a dangerous game. If it is made 'safe' by over-zealous refereeing then the game will continue its journey to nowhere.

Didn't Jags concede a penalty some seasons ago when he cleared a ball with an overhead kick?

Again you appear to refer to intent.. and ill repeat, there is no requirement for intent. There is also no requirement to 'kick someone's head off' as you wrongly state.

There is most definitely scope for red cards for yesterdays challenges, whether you agree with it or not.

I don't think anyone's saying he had a good game. There was a catalogue of decisions he appeared to get wrong.

"There is most definitely scope for red cards for yesterdays challenges, whether you agree with it or not."

Absolutely wrong. Rooney has just done the same thing as Cole and there weren't even calls for a foul. It was a ridiculous decision and one which set the tone for Gibson's dismissal.

Consistency is what we all ask of referees. Not just in 90 minutes, but from week to week. If they are red cards then its going to be 5-a-side every game.

I was a bit disappointed that Moyes went so easy on the ref in his MotD interview. The standard of refereeing in our games has been diabolical. All the grappling Stoke got away with and yet we get penalised for Anichebe touching a 'keeper and Fellaini laying a hand on a Citizen. It's hard to take when it seems we're on the wrong end of it 90% of the time.

How exactly does the failure to be consistent make me wrong in terms of scope for red?

You appear to be missing the point.

'Citizen' refers to a Man City player.

The consistency is everything. Football is a game with rules. If we don't all play to the same rules then what are we left with?

If Cole's challenge had 'scope for a red card' then why didn't Rooney's against Swansea half an hour ago? Both high feet. Both with an opponent trying to head the ball. Both only had eyes for the ball. This sort of thing happens every game and players get on with it.

You seem to be going against the grain on purpose lately, Ciaran. I've no problem with that but at least pick a valid argument.

You did this is your last argument on here.

I am not 'missing the point'.

You stated: 'There is most definitely scope for red cards for yesterday's challenges, whether you agree with it or not.'

I'm saying that Cole's was never a red and a dismissal shouldn't have even entered the referee's head. Take care reading that Ciaran. My opinion is the exact opposite of yours which I gather you find impossible to understand.

Comparing what Anichebe did yesterday to what Shawcross does just makes you sound like an argumentative ass. Shawcross wraps his arms around the player and bear hugs them. Anichebe was standing in front of the the keeper, faced away from him, so obviously not able to bear hug the keeper. No hands were used, he was using his body positioning to disrupt the keeper. Unless your understanding of the rules is that the 6 yard box is entirely the domain of the keeper and that any opposing player must immediately move out of the keepers way?

If these cards are not rescinded, the FA will have set a precedent for any challenge above waist height being a sending off offence. My money is on the decision being overturned. The panel sits on Christmas Eve, according to MotD.

If you think Victor didnt use his arms to impede the keeper then I can only conclude that your fuckin blind.

Phil,

There is no consistency in giving penalties for holding in the box, does that mean there's no scope to give one?

The point that was made was that the referee had no authority to give a red card under the rules, that is not the case. Consistency has sod all to do with it.

If Gibson had been the one with the greater forward momentum he would have got to the ball before Noble and then been caught on the follow-through. Again a referee judging an incident on the consequences rather than the actual actions of each player.

Carlton Cole's offence was as bad / minor as either of the other two (as his foot was probably higher and came closest to contacting another player's head) despite some people trying to make out Gibson's was more dangerous.

All in all, simple free kicks all round (with a quiet word perhaps) and no-one is upset. Get the point that it gives the referee a decision to make based on his own interpretation of the appropriate rules, but any neutral observer would judge his decisions as excessive. Just have to hope panel is neutral.

He was one of the most controversial referees going.

I can only conclude that you're a fucking troll just wanting to wind people up. Victor had his back to the keeper. Watch the fucking replay. The commentators even explained how the keeper intentionally made no effort to get around him in hopes of getting the referee to give a foul.

Anichebe starts off standing in the middle of the 6 yard box, and starts sliding to the far post as the ball is played to that area. He actually does what every defender does when guiding the ball out for a goal kick, using his body to shield the player from the ball. What he did was in no way comparable to what Shawcross and Stoke do, which is what you insinuated.

Shawcross wraps his arms around the player from behind and holds on to him, not allowing the player to jump or move away from him. Anichebe had his back to the keeper and slid across the 6 yard box as the ball was played to the back post. Not the same fucking thing, so just drop it. You're becoming a joke on here.

Arms round the keepers waist.

Specsavers.

It was never a red card. I think there's scope to suggest you're a tosser.

Yes, you see worse all the time but it is a case of a relatively minor infringement rather than none at all.

I just watched it, you clown. Are his arms around the keepers waist, really? Anichebe's right arm is up in the air as he's moving across the box. His back is to the keeper. So how can he have his "arms round the keepers waist" with one arm up in the air and his back to the player. Unless he's some sort of mutant freak in the made up replay you've watched. Specsavers? You need to deal in reality.

For two weeks now you've been on an island from the rest of the footballing universe, by insisting that Stoke play good football and do nothing more illegal than anyone else. Despite the media displaying all week what Shawcross does and how he should not be allowed to get away with it. The pictures are all over the internet with Shawcross's arms wrapped around Fellaini making it impossible for him to get away from the defender.

Yesterday Stoke had 37% possession and were widely condemned from fans all over and pundits across the board for playing a horrible brand of football, whether it's effective at getting them a point or not. Infostrada pointing out that they lead all major European leagues this season with five 0-0 draws already.

Then you come on here and claim that both were justified in being red cards, despite every single person in the media and all sorts of former players, including both managers in the match yesterday, agreeing it was horrible refereeing and both decisions were wrong. Then you claim what Anichebe did was equal to what Stoke did. You're a joke.

I wish I could paste the damn freeze frame of the replay but then you would just not acknowledge that either.

There may well be scope to suggest I'm a tosser. However that doesn't change the obvious conclusion that you're failing to grasp the point being laid out in front of you... as further evidence by the childish insult. It also appears you haven't read any of my posts properly either – I have never claimed I thought it was a red card.

Over to you, Wittgenstein.

One arm around the side is not "arms around his waist", and for someone to say he might have had hold of the shirt without being able to see it is hardly evidence that it was done.

The point is that it was in no way equal to what Stoke do, which is what Ciaran tried to suggest. What was done is very much equal to how every single defender shields the ball out of play for a goal kick. So if that is a foul, then every shielded ball out for a goal kick should be a penalty. But it is not and they are never called for.

It's called good defending and an excellent job by the defender of shielding the ball out of play. The keeper made a meal of it to try to get the foul and was successful in doing so. But was it equal to what Stoke do? — not a chance in hell.

---------------

(Facepalm)

"the ref obviously seen them as reds... as he's entitled to do under the rules." You think they're a tad harsh, but that the ref was essentially right to give them "as he's entitled to do under the rules."

If you're saying the rules state it was a red, which you must since you think the ref was entitled to give them under the rules, then you must agree with the decision. How could the decision be wrong but the ref be right under the rules?

One thing you cannot get away with in the modern game, however, is the slightest impediment of the keeper. Big Vic didn't just shadow Jaskelainen, he effectively attached himself to him and limited the keeper's ability to move away from him. Not two hands around the waist maybe, but still extremely likely to be given as a foul when you consider how much more protection keepers get compared to other players when the ball is crossed into the box.

You seem obsessed with an irrelevant exactitude rather than accepting that Big Vic was penalised for wrapping an arm around Jaskelainen, which is what we all think Shawcross should get penalised for on a regular basis. Not exactly the same, but the same nevertheless.

If your wife is around do a little test. First put your back to her and put one arm backward and around her, with the other arm in the air and ask her to try to get away from you. See how easily she can separate herself from you. Then face her and wrap both arms around her and hold onto her, and ask her to try to move away from you. Seriously, do that little test and tell me how similar they are.

Whether we think shielding should be done away with, the fact is that it is never whistled. Players actually do it all the time in the open field as well and it is never penalized. If anything the defender trying to go through the player who's team is in possession will be whistled for the foul. Yes, keeper are given far too much protection, which is exactly what happened yesterday.

As the referee is the sole arbiter during the game his opinion / interpretation effectively becomes the rules and so his decision can't simply be said to be wrong (as long as it is based on what has actually occurred, i.e. a high boot being used in a way that could be interpreted as reckless in regard of another player's safety).

In yesterday's game the referee obviously decided that the particular challenges recklessly endangered opposing players. It is that fact that we disagree with, not his interpretation of the rules.

'There is most definitely scope for red cards for yesterday's challenges, whether you agree with it or not.'

'I have never claimed I thought it was a red card.'

Is it any wonder I don't understand your point Ciaran? You're all over the place!

Even someone with average intelligence could understand that those two quotes are not mutually exclusive..

The 'scope under the rules' point has been explained repeatedly to you.. I'm not prepared to do it ad-infinitum.

I can tell you from my various sporting activities that it is actually very easy to obstruct someone, and using my strength and a little restriction I can prevent a player from getting to where he wants to go. A keeper needs to keep his arms free, so the job becomes even easier.

Shielding the ball to keep possession is one thing, simply shepherding the ball out and physically preventing another player from trying to play it is negative and should be called for the obstruction it undoubtedly is.

A ref can give a red card for serious foul play. He obviously interpreted it in that way, and has scope to do so under the rules.

What's so hard to understand here?

So I know what you're talking about, but there is just no comparison between being behind the man with both arms wrapped around him, and being in front of the man facing the other way and having one arm backwards around his side. I don't disagree that it could be called a foul; my disagreement was comparing it to what Stoke do. It is nowhere near the same thing.

My point was in regard to this quote "I think we should put our Stoke game to bed now... Especially given what Victor did at our corner yesterday. Stoke may do it more than most... but we're in no position to overplay their actions". The two incidents, one arm behind you versus an entire match of Shawcross and Huth bear-hugging Fellaini or Distin or Jelavic at every set piece are not comparable.

There's plenty of scope on TW for different perceptions and views!

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't basketball essentially a non-contact sport which gives the player in possession much more security? In response, defending space becomes an integral part of the game. Football allows shoulder to shoulder challenges and a player to stand their ground, but what isn't supposed to be permitted is moving around specifically to impede the opposing player because that is obstruction. Holding your ground is okay, actively defending space is (supposedly) not. Wrapping an arm around just elevates it to holding. Victor's foul may be much lower on the scale compared to what Stoke tend to get away with, but it is still on the same scale which makes Ciaran's point valid (if a little over-stressed).

It just seems to be one of those things that officials cannot grasp, with the likes of Michael Owen getting loads of free-kicks for running into a stationary player (not obstruction) whilst others get away with knocking a player who is trying to go around them to the ground whilst the ball is actually yards away and they have no intention of playing it.

Just started reading your post, and thought we were going to get some tips for a Christmas goose!

"As for the red cards. I don't think you can get more consistent refereeing than that. Dodgy and dangerous challenges."

Sounds like he thought they were valid red cards. At least that was his starting position. Of course he's subsequently been doing his usual 'slippery fish' thing, seemingly just to keep the arguement going.

Like I said, Si, consistency. However, I think that Anichebe is very unlucky to be penalised for his actions, they're hardly comparable with Odemwingie. Just my opinion.

Fyi, when I referred to intent again, I was referring to violent conduct...which, as I mentioned before, was because there were NO RULES for which the players should have been sent off. Now you either agree with this, or don't. If you believe the red cards will be rescinded, then you believe there is no scope in the rules for a red card. If you believe there is scope in the rules for red cards to be given, then why exactly do you think they will be rescinded? because of the bullshit political/media pressure argument, which evidently does not effect the FA's decision making(The 3 game ban of Fellaini, and the 4 game ban for Terry being perfect examples).

But, if you want to emphasis your extremely flawed logic, how about a bet? I'm confident that my interpretation of the rules are correct, and as a consequence, I am confident both reds will be rescinded. If you think there is scope for a red for Gibson's and Cole's offences, then they will won't be rescinded. £10, says the cards are downgraded, or simply expunged.

Consistent. Tick

Dodgy. Tick

Dangerous. Tick.

Did I think they were harsh red cards? Tick.

Of course they rescind 'harsh' cards. They make an objective decision on whether the subjective decision of the ref meets the test for the infringement. That doesn't change the fact that the ref is free to interpret it on that basis in the first instance.

Firstly lets be clear, I don't think either challenge was worthy of a red card. I was at the game and was amazed when the red was shown for Cole (less so for Gibson simply because of the first one being punished).

However I honestly don't think they'll be rescinded simply because they were both high challenges and technically could be deemed to be reckless. We all know that it's hardly ever given and I personally think it was an awful interpretation of the rules but strictly speaking he's not actually wrong.

It's similar to the idea of a 'soft' penalty. It just comes down to the referee's interpretation. I was flabbergasted when Fellaini was penalised against City simply because you see worse all the time but it isn't an incorrect decision in itself, just shows a lack of understanding and consistency.

His left arm was behind him, and if it did impede the 'keeper it only would have done so if the 'keeper subsequently chose to move left, away from the ball.

However, I think he was just feeling out where he was, and zero impediment was made.

Unfortunately, the more rules you have in any walk of life, the less room common-sense has to prosper.

You're spot on. The rules allow the interpretation that we saw. Mr Knightley flew into this thread claiming the rules didn't allow him to show a red.. hence the ensuing denial, misinterpretation and slight of hand.

Refereeing will always have a huge degree of subjectivism, irrespective of well meaning calls for consistency.

The point is the lack of consistency. In the previous match Shawcross was allowed to wrestle and hold our players in place, not allowing them to move without both his arms wrapped around them. But no fouls called. Then Anichebe puts one arm around the players side, facing the other way, and he's whistled for a foul and our goal is disallowed. It's the inconsistency that we have a massive problem with.

As for the red cards, we are all in agreement that they were terrible decisions, both of them, except for Ciaran. Of course Ciaran wants to have it both ways, which Michael pointed out when putting up his original thoughts where he called it "Dodgy and dangerous challenges".

Now Jimmy...there are two possible rules which allow this to be a red card. Dangerous play is not relevant, because a red card is not given for 'dangerous play' (which I believe this was an instance of, and thus a yellow card).

Now Ciaran, seemingly, thinks they were understandable red cards under the serious foul play rule. However, for a red card to be involved, 'excessive force', as per Fifa rules, has to be involved. Would you Jimmy, or Ciaran, say that 'excessive' force was involved? I fail to see how the force of either challenge exceeded that of any standard challenge. That both kicks hit the upper chest area was irrelevant...high feet is a rule in football for a reason, and players are not sent off for high feet, despite what Ciaran has suggested with: However t'his doesn't change the scope to give a red for putting your studs in and around someone's head'. Luckily we don't play football using Ciaran's very strange understanding of the rules. If we did, we would have seen some of the greatest overhead kicks in history ruled out.

But seriously guys, do you actually think those challenges counted as excessive force?

Yes, what's he on about?!? I was laughing my head off when he said "He's lucky to be alive."

Now Ciaran, seemingly, thinks they were understandable red cards under the serious foul play rule. However, for a red card to be involved, 'excessive force', as per Fifa rules, has to be involved. Would you Jimmy, or Ciaran, say that 'excessive' force was involved?
--------

If missing the point was an Olympic sport..

Even Graham Poll, who loves to defend the officials, disagrees with both calls.

I love it. You just won't admit you're wrong. You don't make arguments, just add meaningless comments about everyone else failing to understand. You're on an island but act as if everyone else is stranded. It's just funny now. So no, it obviously isn't sinking in.

You just can't accept that the referee made mistakes, they can't be defended. He was wrong, on all accounts, can't defend it. You sound like a global warming denier who just keeps trying to poke a little hole here, a little hole there, not all the science is in, blah blah blah. You're just too funny now; please keep it up.

"VILLAIN OF THE DAY

Referee Anthony Taylor, whose decision to send off two players during Everton's win at West Ham managed to unite both managers in festive outrage. He also ruled out a perfectly good goal from Leon Osman. Apart from that …"

Because you say so?
Because you can't grasp what's being handed to you on a plate?

Your argument is idiotic. You've been told repeatedly I don't agree with the decision, yet you're continually trotting out the same old shite.

Stick to basketball.

I guess we'll all have to wait till tomorrow to see what they say... but the reason for rescindment (if they are rescinded) will be interesting to review in light of the points raised here.

BTW, please don't call each-other names; I'm supposed to take action if you do... and hey... it's the Festival of Sol Invictus or something...

Because everybody says so, everyone. You have not repeatedly said you disagree with the decision. If that was the case, there would not be anyone arguing with you. But that's not what you said, as Michael and many others have pointed out numerous times. So lets restate where you started, since it's so nice to use your argument.

"As for the red cards. I don't think you can get more consistent refereeing than that. Dodgy and dangerous challenges."

That doesn't sound like you disagreeing with the decisions, does it now? No, no it actually sounds like you defending the calls, which you repeatedly did, but in the same breath you'll throw in the line about you not agreeing with the calls.

And just because I played basketball as well as football doesn't mean I can't enjoy football mate and know that this official was wrong, which everyone across the media agrees with. I just happened to have a very good jump shot on me and could jump reasonably high. Thought it would be my ticket to a free college education until I hurt my knee and then picked up a spinal injury, which required surgery. So I actually am medically not allowed to play basketball anymore. But thanks for the thoughts, I would love to be able to still play. Are you not able to comprehend two sports, is football all your brain is able to hold?

Physical sport, tick.

Contact sport, tick.

Man's game, tick

Correct ref's reaction, on seeing no one was hurt, word to Baines, watch where you put your head next time. word to Cole, watch your high feet next time, Bigman. tick

Decision: Freekick to Baines, tick

I don't know hat league(s) you ever played in Ciaran but they seem to be the sort where you could have a reign of terror with a balloon on a stick.

Most of the ref's nowadays seem out of their depth on a damp pavement.

If that's all you're going to say, Ciaran, I will take action. Your points have been so fluid and ethereal, a fucking reindeer wouldn't be able to catch them.

Merry Christmas!

''It also appears you haven't read any of my posts properly either – I have never claimed I thought it was a red card''.

"As for the red cards. I don't think you can get more consistent refereeing than that. Dodgy and dangerous challenges."

So....What exactly is it Ciaran? whatever meaning you like?

''As for your interpretation of serious foul play (which I assumed is what you meant when you referred to 'dangerous play' - as there's no such thing)..''

Never heard of dangerous play...or playing in a dangerous manner? check Fifa rules, or simply watch or play more than a handful of football games.

''However this doesn't change the scope to give a red for putting your studs in and around someone's head''

Finally Ciaran...because you really really are not grasping the point...

Only excessive force can lead to a red card for serious foul play...http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/7.%20law%2012_miscounduct_557.pdf - therefore Ciaran...you do not get sent off for putting your feet near someone's head. Interesting interpretation of football though.

Now please answer why question... because you always ignore them....Did you think excessive force was involved in both rule challenges?

If missing the point was an Olympic sport.....

I don't know why you had to throw that bit in about global warming.

It's a term you don't hear anymore, since the planet is not actually warming. Now we are told of 'climate change'. We don't know if the temperatures are going to go up or down or continue to fluctuate like they have for the previous 14 billion years... but it's a good excuse to increase the taxes on the masses.

Hmmmm. Several other posters appear to have picked up my point without due difficulty.

I'll repeat it, despite the impending ban... Which I might say is wholly predictable.

The referee can interpret what happened as excessive force.. and hence give a red. I don't think it met that test, but its a subjective decision which he's entitled to make.

A clear and concise point. But obviously one which the editor doesn't like.

Several posters have repeatedly accused me of agreeing with the red cards, despite the fact that I have repeatedly said they were harsh. Yet I get the banning threat, for stating the bleedin obvious.

I will be very surprised if they get rescinded......we aren't part of the Sky 4.

Do I think there was excessive force? No.

Do I think the referee could argue that there was excessive force? Yes.

I really hope it is rescinded, obviously, and I think it will be a victory for common sense if it is - I just don't think it will be. I think the referee will argue that the challenges were reckless and potentially dangerous and that he made a judgement call. I think he will say that there is scope in the rules for him to do that. There is a picture of Gibson showing both his feet off the floor making his challenge and I suspect the ref will use that to back up his case in saying that qualifies as excessive.

Sending-off offences:

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:

• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

Made me laugh. However would it be consistent?

"Tony, in every game there are occasions when two players both go for the same ball with their feet high. There is no intent to injure. Are you suggesting that both players should be sent off, even if there is no contact?"

@787 You are suggesting that "High feet = foul,". So, both players going for the same ball, feet are high. What does the ref do (assuming one team aren't from the Sky4)?

I think you'll find he does nothing, because it's not an offence to have your feet high providing you're not hoofing RvP in the head in which case you're taken out put up against the Stretford End wall and shot.

And Ciaran... a lot of these problems could be avoided mate, if you just acknowledge when you are wrong, by which I mean, that the statement Michael pasted, clearly suggested you agree with the red cards. Now you can't go and attack people for stating that you didn't say what we can all read and black and white, and which appears to suggest something which you continue to deny.

That several of us have considered that you did support the reds, illustrates that such an interpretation is supported by what you wrote. The problem is not with people's interpretations, but with your backtracking and terminology. Now if you didn't mean to write that, or changed your mind... why not just come out and say it? It is not like you can't change your mind, or state that past posts were erroneous. We all write quickly, in the heat of discussion after all.

Try to be objective... if I had stated:

"As for the red cards. I don't think you can get more consistent refereeing than that. Dodgy and dangerous challenges." — And then denied, in somewhat aggressive/insulting terms, that I had such a viewpoint... and attacked you for suggesting that I did, how would you react?

The statement clearly implies you agree with the reds... now you can argue about implication all day, in the same way that any of us could take any statement, and argue about implication. I could write now: "I really believe the referee was right in giving red cards". I then could suggest I was being satirical, or that by saying the referee was right, I didn't imply I thought he was right, but simply that the referee could give a red card. That he was right in his ability to give a red card.

But we are not engaging in literary analysis... Your name appears 86 times in this thread for a reason... and that is partly because your views go against the majority again (sometimes it seems you want an argument), partly because you have a way of getting people's backs up, partly because you come out with some very bizzare comments (The high foot one...), and because you seem extremely extremely contradictory.

I don't think you should get banned or anything like that... but I think you need to consider how you conduct yourself. Now you may argue with that interpretation, which you are entitled to do... but how many people have been mentioned by name 86 times in this thread? And how many have been threatened with a banning? There are reasons for both.

Both challenges had their studs showing, so it was easy, I imagine, in the ref's mind to think it was worthy of a red card.

Before this thread goes all The World v Ciaran Part II, I don't think it was a red card but I understand why the ref thought it might be and I still believe that neither card will be rescinded, as the board will probably back the ref and give a dodgy justification for upholding it.

I answered your question a long time ago... when I repeatedly stated that I didn't think a red was merited.

You'll excuse me if I don't respond to your lengthy post, as I'd be repeating myself and I'm trying to avoid a ban.

Merry Christmas folks... remember its only opinions about football..

ps: David Barks... regarding your basketball point: I played one of the most violent sports on the planet for a long time. So I'm no shrinking violet when it comes to contact sports.

Anyway, what's wrong with "The World v Ciaran, Part II"? I suppose it makes a change from Jimmy Saville and Andrew Mitchell.

Personally, I think you enjoy an argument...of engaging with the rhetoric of some Undergraduate days past. But something pervades everything you write....arrogance. Most people on here, would have acknowledge that the readings of some of their statements had validity. Most would acknowledge that their constant reference in this thread was not positive. But you continue to flame argument, and personally, I've never come across an arguing style as reductive as yours.

My first post after the match is not 'unequivocal' evidence that I thought they were red cards. The main point of that two sentences was about consistency. That the ref was consistent in his approach to both.

I added in the bit about them being dodgy and dangerous. I have not changed my mind on this, in fact I've repeated it since. They were dangerous challenges.

An 'unequivocal' statement evidencing that I thought they were reds would be 'I thought they were red cards'.

You have inferred your own meaning from my words, that is not 'unequivocal' at all.

I've been wholly consistent throughout this debate.

And by the way, I have not used abuse at all. Despite being provoked in that department.

Yes. those tiddlywinks tournaments can really get heated.

You offer advice on the basis of 'improving me'.. and then you have brass neck to call me arrogant.

No last word from me. I've had my say... I think this will run.

I'm off for some bird watching...

But he didn't take the opportunity being offered. I'm not sure why, but I guess there's "scope" to conclude that he was too bloody-minded to or too obtuse to see the opportunity.

You would hope though, that once the ref had seen replays of both incidents, he would deem them worthy of only yellow cards.

Brian, Ray, - The Ref will hand in his match report, and the appeal panel decide the fate of both players, he has no further part in proceedings.

Everton HAVE appealed the red card and Gibson is available for the Wigan match. (BBC)

Radio now reporting final decision will be announced on Thursday. One thing though, they cannot rescind one red without the other, the offences were identical.

It worked better for a while when I had Ciaràn on hold because something was fouling up the accented portion of his name. Since that stopped happening, the leash was let go... and this is what ensues.

He's not going to back down, though, however clearly you point up his inconsistencies. He delights in doing that to others, so the last person he will apply his own ultra-pedantic rules to will be himself.

And I think that will be the last word on this one. Merry Christmas!