Gibson's red card rescinded

Good news if he is fit for Chelsea.

Interesting that some decided to defend the referee in this case. I thought it was clear-cut, as did most on here, and would now expect there to be some form of discipline for the referee's double incompetence.

I thought FA would dismiss the appeal but am glad to be wrong.

Just hope he's not injured for too long now though...

What reason could it be, other than the ref was wrong? If it was in the rules, why the hell would they have overturned it? Or are you expecting the FA to come out with something like "the ref was right, it was in the rules, we're just going to overturn it out of the goodness of our hearts".

He has a long term thigh injury, it's been documented. From Moyes a month ago "He's going to have an ongoing problem because he's got a bit of a growth into a tendon in his thigh, where there's a bit of bone growing". So unless his hypochondriac brain powers have given him the ability to alter an X-Ray or MRI, I think it's a real injury. Sounds like they're just trying to get through the season until he can have the surgery to repair this in the off season.

Why, in this day and age, is there any rationale for having to wait for written reasons to be given 'at a later time'? Do the reasons have to be vetted, approved by the FA hierarchy?

The reasons must have been set forth in making the decision to rescind the cards in any case, so why not just include a sentence or three in the statement? It's complete bollocks but of course the plebs have top be kept in the dark so that those with the authority can go on their own little power trip. How very English.

Whatever it is, claiming to have been proved right before anyone has seen what the reason actually is seems a bit presumptious and provocative.

The red cards were overturned. How much more is needed to be proved right? If they were valid reds, they would not have been over-turned. It really is that simple. Bad calls by the ref, they were over-turned. Just drop it.

I have argued for a long time that there should be another official who can immediately look at the footage and assist the referee if he is unsure about a major decision (IE Goals, penalties, violent conduct and red cards). The games are filmed and the refs have radio's, so the technology is already in place. I don't buy the argument that it would slow the game down. Just look at how long it takes for all the arguing with the ref to die down before a free kick or penalty is taken! If we cannot give the referees this assistance then we should judging them by it!

Fergus, the rugby referees always have the luxury of putting something on report which I think is used far to much. Bit of a cop out in my mind.

However overall the correct decision has been made and the reds have been rescinded.

It is forgivable to know the rules and apply them incorrectly due to a level of inherent subjectivity; it is unforgivable for a paid professional to not know the limits of his authority.

It is also important to know what the ruling actually is as the players need to know whether they are risking a red anytime they put their feet above waist height, or whether referee's are going to be reminded to be sensible and look at each incident in context.

Crow all you like if the given reasons turn out to back you up, in the meantime keep a lid on it.

A 30 second appeal to the video recorder does not take any longer than 30 seconds of referee's shooing away indignant footballers claims of offside, penalty or otherwise. A football TMO would have a much easier/faster job than a rugby TMO trying to check if a ball was grounded amongst a 300 stone maul. I dream of the day.

In the end, this bad decision didn't cost us any points and the correct decision has been subsequently reached. A rare win for fairness. Fingers crossed all round Gibbo is fit enough to take advantage.

No idea what presumption has to do with it...red cards are rescinded for one reason: they are not red cards.

But, if the FA release their decisions, and state that 'we decided to let them off because its Christmas', then I will retract my comments.

Jim, high feet and studs hitting heads and torsos are possible red card offenses. Only possible of course because every challenge is different and only Gibson's warranted a yellow.

The rules book tries to cover every act but the ref need's to use his own head more and the rule book less... such as we saw.

Gibson and Cole were sent off because the referee fucked up, and misread a freekick for which 99% of football fans would have given a yellow card at best. Really, he should be sent to the lower leagues to referee a few matches as punishment. However, I doubt that will happen.

Ironically, Gibson may now miss our next three games....making the entire argument redundant.

In case you do still believe the referee had no right to show a red-card for what he decided were dangerous challenges, I will elaborate on my point of view (that I expressed in support of Ciaran due to what I considered to be an unwarranted attack on him based on a mis-reading of his words). There are few incidents that warrant a red card irrespective of the severity of the challenge (any foul that denies a clear goal-scoring opportunity being one). For every challenge, however, the referee has the opportunity to show a red card if he considers it to have been recklessly dangerous (i.e. has potential to cause injury whether the intention is there or not) or if it is violent conduct (i.e. intended to cause harm). There is a real difference between the rules of the game and whatever training / guidelines the referees have to help them decide on the appropriate punishment for any transgressions.

What none of us know is whether the referee was treating a studs-up high-foot challenge in the vicinity of an opponent as a challenge that warranted an automatic red card simply because it could not be (in his mind) anything other than recklessly dangerous, or whether he made a judgement that they deserved red cards on those occasions because they had strayed into the 'dangerous' category (which NONE agreed with but some thought he might have the right to make that judgement).

If you say referees never have to make a subjective judgement of a challenge and decide on the summary punishment (which could then be rescinded by a panel if they think he has got it wrong), then you have a very different understanding of how they routinely operate than I do.

You do understand that even the criminal justice system has many ways of reviewing sentences and they are often changed? They are changed not because the verdict was wrong or that the judge/ magistrate meted out a punishment that they were not entitled to issue, but simply because (on reflection) it has been decided that they have been to harsh / lenient. That means the original sentences were supported by the rules but ultimately not considered appropriate. Laws (or football rules) give the standard against which someone determines your guilt, but the length / type of punishment relies very much on how the arbiter considers the severity / mitigating circumstances.

Fouls were committed for which the referee had the option of simply giving a free-kick, having a word with the offender, issuing a yellow card, or a red card. We don't know what the panel have decided was the appropriate punishment other than it shouldn't have been a red.

Your world is very black and white, mine has many shades of grey as well.

The red cards were given because fouls were committed, they were dangerous, and the ref on the day felt they were reckless enough to be considered red cards. Them's the rules and back his decision completely.

The FA have overturned them because, like most of us, they felt they were not so reckless (though presumably they agree they were still both fouls and both quite dangerous).

Stop trying to twist it. Ciaran was rightly condemned by Michael Kenrick for his shifting of opinions and just trying to be tricky with his wording. What we and everyone else in the world said was it was never a red, and the ref had no right to give it as a red since it in no way warranted a red. Period, end of story.

Just because it was a foul does not mean the ref can interpret it however he wants. He was wrong, no matter what went through his head at the moment, THAT WAS WRONG. That's it and that is why it was overturned, because it was not deemed worthy of being a red. Doesn't matter what he thought at the time, it was wrong. Just drop it, nobody, not even the FA agrees with you or that official.

Now you are working under the assumption that the FA considers the 'spirit' of the game in relation to red cards in making decisions — where have you got that from? The process of 'wrongful dismissal' considers simply whether a red card should or should not be given, by applying it to rules. This has to be a subjective decision of course, but how exactly would appeals work if Fifa considered the harshness of fouls, not their relation to rules?

Now Si, your representations of the rules are misplaced: violent conduct is not applicable in the case of Gibson and Cole... because only Serious Play foul was relevant for the circumstances of the red card. Now, in considering serious foul play, as I keep repeating, only 'excessive force' (or brutality) is applicable for a red card. Now, as I kept asking in the previous thread, do you think excessive force was involved? Because... I can't see how their challenges were anything worse than a routine challenge.

Excessive force or brutality is necessary for a red card under serious foul play... neither challenges involved excessive force. If they had of done, they wouldn't have been rescinded.

You have not resolved the difference between the words 'supported' and 'justified' (one requiring a qualifier in most circumstances with the other taken as an absolute). I think most people can easily accept that the rules that the referees are asked to apply could be said to loosely support the authority of the referee to decide whether a red card could be given, but those same people would agree that he was not justified in his decision given the obvious lack of excessive force and or violence.

Unless you are prepared to argue that red cards have never been upheld for incidents that did not meet most people's judgement of what is excessive force or brutality, then you cannot deny that there is a sliding scale which only an individual can define at the time of an incident. He is supported by the rules (because subjectivity is inherent) but not justified in the severity of his punishment.

Unless you are a trained referee, I don't think you can simply read the rules and fully understand all the factors that they are expected to consider when determining punishment for an offence (just like reading law-books won't give you the full picture on sentencing). Simple observation of a myriad of decisions shows interpretation is key (and impossible to get rid of). At least, as Ciaran said, you couldn't argue that the referee was wholly inconsistent.

That said he wasn't wholly consistent either. How do you explain the referee differentiating between Gibson's challenge and Noble's (since a lot of people have claimed that Gibson transgressed more than Cole) considering that Noble leapt into the challenge with more pace / force than Gibson. He was obviously making his decision on something other than excessive force or brutality?

This is the grey area that some of us want to be explained by the panel. Are referees expected to be ultra efficient robots or are they encouraged to use their judgement to fill in some of the areas that the rules can't / don't cover? I would take the latter over the former any day as long as there is a way to correct the poor decisions that are inevitable. When the poor decisions become too numerous then you look at over-hauling the system.

Ciaran was backed-up by a few who could see what he actually meant, so you cannot claim that everyone took exception to his point of view. That he didn't choose to really engage with some who seemed to only want to interpret his comments in the most ridiculous way possible may have been churlish but it didn't seem too unreasonable given that some people were not prepared to try to understand what he had written. Michael simply sided with one group which neither necessarily makes him right, nor automatically settles the debate in his group's favour.

I'm glad it's been rescinded — we need as many players as possible for the game against Chelsea, it's probably going to be the toughest game of the season at Goodison.

And are you seriously trying to make an argument from your subjective readings of two words... Really?... Are you Ciaran in disguise?

Now how many times do I have to say that every decision the referee makes is subjective? You consistently ignore this, and invent an argument you find easier to defend. Let me quote you what I said in the last post:

"I stated that EVERY decision a referee makes is a subjective judgement."

Now a subjective decision, any subjective referring decision, must have a basis in the laws Fifa set down. In this regard, the related Fifa ruling relates to 'excessive force', so for a red card to be given, excessive rule needs to be involved. Now the referee's decision on 'excessive force' as your post seems to suggest, appeared wrong. Therefore, if excessive force was not involved, the red card was not supported by the rules. I am not arguing that the referee CANNOT give a red, but that the referee SHOULD NOT have given a red. The referee may give a red card for any incident, but it does not mean he should, and that his decision would be substantiated by the rules. That both red cards were rescinded, illustrates that they were not correctly given. But please... come up with an alternative explanation. If the red cards were not incorrect, why were they rescinded?

I don't know why my notion is so difficult to grasp. I predicted in the last thread, which evidently your knickers are still in a twist about, unlike some others, that the card would be withdrawn, on the basis that excessive force is a requirement of a red card for serious foul play, and no excessive force was involved. Now congratulations on realising, time and time again, as I have that the referee makes a subjective judgement. But because the referee makes a subjective judgement, it doesn't mean that every judgement he makes is supported by the rules. If they were, we wouldn't have a system of appeals would we?

But please explain how '...an error of judgement by the referee' is different from a card not supported by the rules? If he had made a correct judgement, the card would have been correct no? So do you not think that if the referee has misjudged, then the red cards are not supported by the rules?

"The difference between the yellow card and the red card is the difference between a reckless challenge or one made with excessive force or brutality. Fifa Laws indicate that a reckless challenge is merely one taken without considering the safety of the opponent. To help referees make the distinction, Fifa offers videos of fouls with guidelines about the appropriate sanctions.

There are about 19 factors that a referee may consider in determining the seriousness of the foul. I extracted the strongest considerations below:

1. Does the player act with complete disregard of the danger to the opponent?

2. Is the player putting the opponent in a dangerous situation?

3. What degree of speed/intensity is the player using when making a challenge?

4. Does the player show clear malice when making the challenge?

5. Does the player use his studs when making the tackle?

6. Which part of the body does the player use to make contact?

7. In which part of the opponent's body is the contact made?

Questions 6 and 7 highlight a very important consideration in determining the seriousness of a foul. Using the elbow will make a player a candidate for serious foul play or misconduct, especially is it is an elbow near to or on the face. There are a few other questions, but those are the most important when distinguishing between a careless foul (no sanction), a reckless foul (yellow card) and serious foul play (red card)."

We all know that was nonsense – the challenges fall into the 'dangerous play' category and probably not even reckless for which the maximum punishment would be a yellow (and the panel agree)... but, as others have already stated, referees do have the scope to take various factors into account to raise the level of the offence.

I suspect that the panel will say that the referee took a stricter view on some of these factors than is necessary or wanted, and that is why the ban has been rescinded, rather than saying that he defined the challenges wrongly and then misjudged the amount of force used. It may be splitting hairs but it isn't the same as saying the rules don't support his decision.

Jim, I also think that you and Si are not too far apart from each other — it's just a question of agreeing the wording.

Ian, this is the web address:

http://spiffyd.hubpages.com/hub/Soccer-offences-Playing-in-a-dangerous-manner-versus-serious-foul-play

I looked at some official Fifa presentations but couldn't find anything that went down to the murky depths that I suspected existed. I am of the mind that referees are working with much more complex ideas than those represented in the bare facts of the Laws of the Game.

I'm not going to go into the whole thing again. It went on for an entire day already, why go through and restate everything again and again. The crux of the argument came down to was the referee wrong to give a red, which he was, and has been proven by the fact that it has been over turned. I'm hardly just being a disagreeing machine when I agreed with everyone in the media and all but about 2 on here. This is all so pointless at this time. The red is gone, it's done, there is no reason to go over it all again in such detail.

I said it shouldn't have been a red at the time, Ciaran started off with saying it was consistent refereeing for dangerous play. I found that to be a ridiculous argument, and you all but agreed. Here is what you said afterward "Neither player had any intent other to win the ball and the challenges were at nearly a right angle so contact wasn't inevitable; never a red card offence. If you DO judge Gibson's challenge to be reckless or dangerous then Noble's was equally so and he should have sent both off irrespective of who was hurt in the process. Ridiculous refereeing made worse by using the 'consequences' as the determination of guilt". What are we disagreeing on exactly. How am I being a disagreeing machine when we agree?

The debate, such that it was, was whether the referee has a remit to make judgements that can potentially supercede the very narrow definitions of what a red card can be awarded for. I agree with Jim in his definitions, but think that there are many factors that cloud the issue and as such a referee could easily claim that he made his decision in accordance with the rules as he has been made aware of them. The panel have voided his punishment but are yet to baldly declare that he was wrong. If they choose to say he was simply misguided or overly punitive then will you still claim outright victory?

NO-ONE on this site thought the ref was right, EVERYONE thought justice would be served if the card was over-turned' but you kept accusing Ciaran of saying the opposite when it was obvious to a few of us that he wasn't. I don't blame him for getting so frustrated as he was unfairly baited and his words were twisted.

(If he's fit).

Bring on the Rent Boys.

I still don't understand why this is so contentious. They shouldn't have been red cards, they have been overturned because they shouldn't have been red cards, that's really all there is to it. I'm just not seeing where the anger is coming from here, it seems like people are just wanting to have some deep argument when it really isn't needed. They were bad calls and the authorities have admitted they were bad calls and as a result our player isn't suspended.

I completely agree. I think it's long overdue for football to join the modern world and start using the technology that is readily available. Both red card decisions could have easily been reviewed while play was stopped and the ref could have been told they weren't red cards. Same with disallowed goals or contentious offside calls. Give it a32ik quick review.

A great example would be the United v Newcastle match when play was stopped for at least a minute with the official discussing whether to allow Evans's own goal or not. Why not just send it to an official in a booth to look at the same replays we are, with the rule book in front of him, and get the call right.

I do agree that the TMO would be pretty important if the red card law was the same as in rugby. For the record, if you get a red card in rugby, you go to a panel to be SENTENCED, not to defend your case. Very few, if any cases have ever been overturned in rugby. The difference is, they are quite rare in rugby, mainly due to the yellow card being a 10 minute sin bin. In the 15 years I've played rugby I've only ever seen one player get a second yellow (automatic red) in a match, and probably only been on the field for maybe a dozen red cards (once for myself).

On the original point of the TMO, I say keep it out. I'm fairly against the introduction of technological assistance in sport. It's played by humans, officiated by humans, and watched by humans. Not sure what your rugby league is like in the UK, but if you watch an NRL game Down Under, you spend about half the time watching slow mo replays because the refs (umpires now in my mind as there is more than one on the field) have lost all their balls and use the video EVERY time just about.

We've had some bad calls cost us points this year, but let's not forget we benefited from a major fuck-up in the Derby, and that, for me, evens everything out.

But in rugby the refs will consult their linesmen and the video evidence in order to come to a correct decision whereas football refs have proven themselves to be incompetant if not plain biased so do not deserve to be considered the gods they think they are.

In football you look at the fixture info to see who the ref is with almost as much anticipation to see who is lining up on your team. In the NRL they have entire pages dedicated to discussion on who will ref the big games. It shouldn't matter, but it does because there's so few that are consistently good.

You said: 'No David, Ciaran said it was consistent refereeing full stop (which meant consistently bad but you didn't get that he was being tongue in cheek)'

But Ciaran at no point said that (and the rest of his quote does not necessarily support your reading - i.e that the challenges were dodgy and dangerous). If he had of done, or admitted his interpretation could be misinterpreted (as I said during the forum) then alot of the issues would have been avoided. He however consistently ignored the fact his words could support the reading some people gave them. He also attacks people for misinterpretation, but continues to misinterpret others. As a prime example, in one of the last posts, he took one of the words I used, not the sentence it was used in (And thus the qualifiers) to argue against!! and also stated he had not abused anyone, after I had called him up for insulting/aggressive posts (completely different imo).

Now Si...I put a similar point to Ciaran... In the thread in which he was involved, he was mentioned 105 times, in 184 posts. Does that sound normal to you? There is a reason Ciaran causes so many issues on here:
1) He is rude
2) He will never admit he is wrong
3) He is contradictory.

A mix of all three, often in the same post, rubs people up the same way.

But whenever the hypocrtical invective that Knightley has just produced comes my way, then I have to respond.

No doubt I'll get a ban for this - but that's rather inconsequential whenever the editor shows the blantant disregard for fairplay that he did in patting Knightley on the head and then closing down the last thread. If you want inconsistent referreeing, that was it.

Anyway..

Mr Knightley..you say

"But Ciaran at no point said that (and the rest of his quote does not necessarily support your reading - i.e that the challenges were dodgy and dangerous)."

This only confirms that I was right to take the robust stance I took in the previous thread.

Below are several quotes from that thread;

"The red cards were a tad harsh, but if you raise your studs to head height, that's wreckless." (my SECOND post on the cards - a qualification on my position on the cards being 'harsh' and being dangerous. i.e 'WRECKLESS'..

"Both incidents were dangerous play" (my THIRD POST on the cards)

Do you need me to go on Knightley? There's a catalogue of instances of my citing the challenages as being dangerous.. yet you come to the conclusion that - 'the rest of my posts do not necessarily support your [Si's] reading of - i.e that the challenges were dodgy and dangerous'..

This simply supports my long held view, that you have difficulty (and our Basketballing friend too) of evaluating and appreciating the points being made.. In fact, I'm not sure you could get a subtle argument if it was cut up into tiny pieces and flown into your mouth with an accompanying helicopter noise..

If you further evidence of that here's your post 570...Posted LONG AFTER I HAD UNEQUIVOCALLY (sorry, I know you don't know what that word means) STATED THAT THE REDS WERE HARSH..

"Objectively, in your opinion, were they sendings off? Because I fail to see how they were not yellow card offences"

Oh, but I'm so sorry...Am I being rude?

Let's look at rudeness on the offending thread, shall we?

"Comparing what Anichebe did yesterday to what Shawcross does just makes you sound like an argumentative ass"

"I can only conclude that you're a fucking troll "

"Not the same fucking thing, so just drop it. You're becoming a joke on here."

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

"Ciaran..I realise what is wrong now...we don't have your dictionary. Now, a series of your quotes, and contradictions..."

Do you need me to post more?Agressive, vitupertaive and simply outstanding lack of coherence that you think you can pull me for any of those things without looking like a prime hypocrite..

As for attacking my arguing style as 'reductive'' haha... laugh of the year..

Your style appears to be based on trying to get others to simply admit they're wrong...

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?"

However the sadest thing about this whole debate, is the fact that you have actually counted, COUNTED...the number of contributions I made..and actually provide this as evidence of, er... something..Im not sure what, but something.

Seeing you like bets, i'd be willing to bet a small fortune that the number of words from you on that thread outnumbers the number from me...proves nothing, but you like counting stuff, so away you go.

No doubt you'll be back with some long winded missive and pathetic attempt at a character assasination...and Michael will be along to pat you on the head... But don't worry, I won't be responding.

As for the red cards.. the right decision has been made.

Firstly...you've misinterpreted. Si claimed your statement was tongue in cheek...I stated that I did not agree. I referred to you comment that the reds were 'dodgy and dangerous' in order to consolidate my notion, that your comment was not tongue in cheek as Si suggested. I did not mean you never said the challenges were not dodgy or dangerous. We had a whole discussion about it, after you claimed, rather hilariously, that there was no such thing as dangerous play. But in doing so...you illustrate that words on a forum can be misinterpreted, and you can rightly claim my words suggested your subsequent point (although not supported by the last thread, or the context). However, surely be taking this reading, you acknowledge that it was right of some people, to assume that your statement, i,e:

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

Suggested that you supported the red cards? Rather than claiming that people missed the point, or were wrong?

And I didn't count...these days there are ways to use computers to count for you. Fascinating eh?

And Ciaran...in response to an allegation of rudeness, you quote other examples of people's rudeness. That is so typical of you.

I also love that you wait seven minutes after your 'test' post before replying. I can just imagine you exploding with anticipation...after SI doesn't respond immediately (this is a forum thread not a live argument..sometimes we don't reply straight away..someones people reply several hours later). Says everything about you really.

Also with respect to Michael. We've had a few disagreements in the past, and I've no idea why he would support me, instead of you, based on some notion of prejudice. I expect that he was irritated by your manner, and your constant unwillingness to accept a perfectly valid reading of the words you wrote.

Well here's the message as I call it, Ciaran: I think most people are turned off by it, no matter how 'correct' you think you might be. And if you don't at least make the effort to communicate clearly and respectfully, as others do, instead of point-scoring... well, you just waste everybody's time and effort, as you did on that other thread.

(1) Was the ref acting within his rights to issue red cards? — Yes; he's the ref and his decision is 'final' (except when it's not!!!)

(2) Could the rules be interpreted to support his decisions? — Yes, there is an element of danger in playing balls with the foot high, studs exposed, when other players are nearby. In the ref's opinion, that could merit red cards... obviously it did in his mind.

(3) What would have been the correct decisions in this case? — Yellow cards rather than red, without any shadow of doubt: the ref got it wrong.

[The strange thing for me is that there was no word of the red cards being dowgraded to yellows... or did I miss that?]

Now as to what the FA will say.... well, when they finally deign to enlighten us plebs with their reasoning, I look forward to Round Three...

Points 1 and 2 are the crux of the matter (in my opinion); how much leeway are the referees given / encouraged to use beyond the bare bones of the rules as they are written down for all to read. Doesn't mean the official always makes the correct decision, but does call into question whether you can simply declare him wrong. It is about what he thinks he sees, his understanding of the written rules, and what authority he has to consider many variables in coming to a decision.

I stand by my 'defence' of Ciaran on the basis I thought he clarified his position early on, but was then pursued insistently / incessantly. I may have assumed his comment on consistency to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek retrospectively given that he quickly acceded that the red cards were a "tad harsh" and I read it as in the punch-line "Well, at least he's consistent!" I don't think it is outrageous to call a high boot in the vicinity of an opponent "dodgy and dangerous".

Incidently Michael, dangerous play (which a high boot that makes contact with an opposing player is classed as) would only warrant a yellow card if it was made with obvious risk of injury but, as you could argue that any studs-up challenge above waist height has the potential to cause some sort of injury, it remains clear as mud as to whether we can expect it to be down-graded to a yellow or even less.

1. Cole should never have been sent off

2. Gibson was only sent off because Cole had been

3. Noble 'should' have been sent off as his foot was as high as Gibson's – but that would have been ridiculous wouldn't it.

4. The refs in this country are running scared and make random decisions. Fouls at corners? Never happen do they Mr Shawcross. They know they are a laughing stock and something needs to be done – urgently.

ps – who was that clown who set the wall then moved the ball back – twice! Against Norwich wasn't it. 30 fouls in and he gave a yellow – for dissent. And we pay their wages.