Gibson's red card rescinded

, 27 December, 67comments  |  Jump to most recent
But midfield star could still be out injured
Everton have successfully appealed Darron Gibson's sending-off at West Ham on Saturday.

In a similar incident to that which led to Carlton Cole being dismissed for the Hammers earlier in the game, the Irish midfielder was shown a straight red card late after catching Mark Noble with a high boot.

The Club lodged an appeal that was delayed until today because of the Christmas break, allowing Gibson to feature in Boxing Day's win against Wigan, and the red card has now been overturned.

The midfielder will not now serve a ban and will be available for Sunday's clash with Chelsea if he overcomes a thigh strain.

Cole's red card has also been rescinded by the disciplinary panel, believed to the first time in English football history that a referee has had two of his red cards from the same game wiped out.

An FA Statement read: "The FA can confirm that red cards shown to both Carlton Cole and Darron Gibson have been rescinded. Their three match suspensions have been withdrawn immediately and written reasons will be provided at a later date."

Quotes or other material sourced from Sky Sports



Reader Comments (67)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Jamie Barlow
1 Posted 27/12/2012 at 15:34:09
Both have been successful.

Good news if he is fit for Chelsea.

Tony J Williams
2 Posted 27/12/2012 at 15:42:52
Watch him be injured for three games instead...
Henrik Lyngsie
3 Posted 27/12/2012 at 15:44:25
I stand to be corrected since I thought they had no chance. So good news, let us just hope he is fit!!
Michael Kenrick
4 Posted 27/12/2012 at 15:42:50
Well, that's a relief... and a reassurance that there is hope the referees will sort themselves out.

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.

Kase Chow
5 Posted 27/12/2012 at 15:56:48
Glad it's been overturned.

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

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

Jim Knightley
6 Posted 27/12/2012 at 15:57:19
Great to see...and validated the notion that the red cards were not supported by the rules, as argued by the majority in the post-match thread.
Derek Williams
7 Posted 27/12/2012 at 15:57:18
Well done the FA for seeing sense, I have to say I thought they would probably 'close ranks' and go with the ref.

Hope he gets a good lick up the arse from Mavis Riley!!
Derek Williams
8 Posted 27/12/2012 at 15:59:45
Ha ha, freudian slip there, I meant 'kick up the arse' obviously!!!
Steve Pugh
9 Posted 27/12/2012 at 15:51:22
I have to say that I half expected it following the weekend refereeing. The penalty not given for Wigan, Newcastle's second against Man U, the foul not given in the build up for Sunderland's goal.... It's almost as if the refs have been told to placate the rest of the Premier League for a few days.
Si Cooper
10 Posted 27/12/2012 at 16:00:27
Not waiting for the written reasons then Jim?
David Barks
11 Posted 27/12/2012 at 16:20:05
Si,

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".

Franny Porter
12 Posted 27/12/2012 at 16:27:23
He's probably injured anyway now, he does seem to be a bit of a sick note/crock/hypochondriac. I'm not decided on which.
David Barks
13 Posted 27/12/2012 at 16:52:42
Franny,

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.

Danny Kewley
14 Posted 27/12/2012 at 16:57:54
Williams... yer miserable sod!
Fergus McCarthy
15 Posted 27/12/2012 at 16:50:48
Maybe it is my rugby background, but I am not that comfortable with FA overruling a ref's decision. He should be the sole judge of fact. Players make mistakes, refs make mistakes, get on with it... it's sport.

I can see an appeal for mistaken identity (not many of those with household names) and a discipline panel should not be tied to strict sentencing guidelines, and the sentence could be appealed to them, but refs have everyone looking over their shoulder and I believe that creates mistakes. A back seat driver.. but with authority, can make navigation even more difficult.

Help refs on the day with technology, but back them and respect them, if you want better refs. If they are instructed that a high boot, tackle from behind, an elbow in contact, etc., MUST gain a card, you are giving them no judgement, and then examining all in slow motion afterwards, just has them in a difficult position, and spending too much time considering the outcome.

Much reffing should be almost automatic with "foul", "penalty", "card" popping into his mind based on the experience and training. "not sure" has assistants and hopefully goal-line technology, soon. Otherwise... leave them alone. If the red cards stood, but the removal from the game considered enough by the panel, then I would be much more comfortable.
Michael Kenrick
16 Posted 27/12/2012 at 16:59:59
It really annoys me that they can't produce the reasons on the day.

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.

Si Cooper
17 Posted 27/12/2012 at 17:00:47
I am prepared to wait and see David, but personally wouldn't be surprised if they have decided that it was an error of judgement by the referee and they don't agree with his original assessment of the incidents. He may even have changed his mind having had a chance to look at the challenges again.

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

David Barks
18 Posted 27/12/2012 at 17:16:26
Si,

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.

Drew Shortis
19 Posted 27/12/2012 at 17:21:56
I'm glad the FA made the correct decision. It would be very unfair to uphold the bans when they were blatantly not warranted. I don't think this undermines the Referee. He does not have the luxury of video replays and has to call it how he sees it from his point of view during the game. It has to be almost impossible for the ref to get every decision right when there is so much going on and the game is moving so fast..

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!

Jamie Barlow
20 Posted 27/12/2012 at 17:24:15
I don't understand what other reason there could be? The ref got it wrong.

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.

Ian McDowell
21 Posted 27/12/2012 at 17:33:24
To be honest I’m a little surprised not because I thought they weren’t sending’s off, but because I thought the premier league may side with the referee as it could be argued that Cole and Gibson’s foots where raises and it was slightly dangerous.

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

Doug Harris
22 Posted 27/12/2012 at 17:49:09
At last, common sense prevails. In all the years I have watched and played football, I've never seen two ridiculous decisions given as those two were...

It's a pity Gibbo has a recurrence of his last injury — maybe the medical staff can sort him out. I would love to see him in the team against Chelsea but don't think we will ... can we get 9 out of 9 points come Sunday... COYB
Si Cooper
23 Posted 27/12/2012 at 17:37:56
But did the ref simply misinterpret the incidents as dangerous, David, or was he making up his own rules as he went along (which is your apparent stance)? One means the ref had the right to send them off but simply got it wrong in assessing the severity / intent (which was Ciaran's point of view) and will receive a rap on the knuckles at most, the other means he was making it up as he went along and he will have to be demoted and/or the FA will have to examine why their referees don't understand the rules they are supposed to be experts in.

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.

Aidan Wade
24 Posted 27/12/2012 at 17:56:41
Fergus, 290, I'd be more than happy to bring football in line with "Ref's rule is law" aspect of Rugby, just as soon as we also see TMOs checking penalty area decisions the same as Rugby and NFL.

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.

Jim Knightley
25 Posted 27/12/2012 at 17:58:21
Si...are you kidding? Im completely with David on this point. As my comments in the forum thread after the game illustrated, I did not believe that the red cards were justified under the rules...that they have been overturned, illustrates that. The FA want to protect referees...they will not overturn a decision unless they have too, and this is of even more relevance given that two red card decisions, not one, were involved. And Si, if it was decided that an error of judgement was made...well that means the red cards were not justified under the rules.

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.

Nick Entwistle
26 Posted 27/12/2012 at 18:21:44
I don't believe for one minute had a perfectly good goal been disallowed and the similar reds being awarded would any action have taken place. This decision is the authorities running scared because they've lost control of what is and isn't a foul and for that I blame the players too, but more the refs because they need not pander to sprawling children holding their calves pointing out how many fouls each person has made.

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.

Jim Knightley
27 Posted 27/12/2012 at 18:28:49
Si...every referee's mistake is a misinterpretation... Any tackle which wrongly receives a red card is a misinterpretation...however ridiculous it may be, because the 'excessive force' component of serious foul play is based on a subjective judgement. Ciaran struggled with this issue, as you seem to be as well. A red card is rescinded because it is not supported under the rules...end of. I don't know where you've got a notion of the referee making up rules from. A referee could give a red card for an over-exuberant handshake in theory...because it involved excessive force (even though a lunge is an implicit part of the FA ruling re.excessive force). But that red card would be inane, and not supported by the rules (because a misjudgement, is a red card not supported by the rules).

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.

Jeff Beaumont
28 Posted 27/12/2012 at 18:41:43
The Ref should never be allowed to officiate any game featuring us or West Ham in future as if not knowingly then sub-consciously be biased either for us or against us.
Si Cooper
29 Posted 27/12/2012 at 18:20:08
Jim, are you and David for real? You have switched from a very clear condemnation of the official for effectively exceeding his authority and implementing a punishment he had no right to, to now simply saying his punishment was heavy-handed (which NOBODY disagreed with the other day even though you chose to believe they did even when it was spelled out for you). Your free flowing from terms such as 'supported' and 'justified' (which are not the same) does not help make clear either your own view or what you find so objectionable in what others have written.

You are saying that the panel would have no option but to uphold the referees decision if it was in anyway supported by the 'body' of the rules, but I think they can make a judgement to excise the punishment based on what they regard as the 'spirit' of those same rules. That will not be known until they publish their reasons.

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.

Si Cooper
30 Posted 27/12/2012 at 19:28:58
Fouls were committed for which the referee had the option of simply giving a free-kick, having a word with the offender, yellow card, or red. We don't know what the panel have decided was the appropriate punishment other than it shouldn't have been a red.
Ernie Baywood
31 Posted 27/12/2012 at 19:38:34
Jim, your post baffles me. You talk about the subjective element and then say "A red card is rescinded because it is not supported under the rules...end of"

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).

David Barks
32 Posted 27/12/2012 at 19:47:27
Si,

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.

Jim Knightley
33 Posted 27/12/2012 at 19:35:55
Sorry Si, you are clearly misreading — as illustrated in my last post, I stated that EVERY decision a referee makes is a subjective judgement... but that if a red card is subsequently overturned, then the subjective judgement is judged to not be compatible with the rules. This is emphasised in relation to Cole and Gibson, because there are two decisions, not one.

Now, I cannot believe you are linking the criminal justice system to the FA, which are in no way comparable institutions. It would take thousands of words to set out the differences... However, we've just seen a primary difference: Terry was found guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand by the footballing authorities... he was not by the CPS. If you want to find why, go research, but please please please never compare them again.

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.

Jim Knightley
34 Posted 27/12/2012 at 19:57:54
Ernie... a subjective judgement still takes place in relation to the rules — how can you not understand this? Do you think the FA rescinded the red cards because they are supported by the rules?

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.

Tony Dove
35 Posted 27/12/2012 at 19:51:37
If the Gibson and Cole incidents had taken place the other way round and Everton had not won the game, I wonder what would have been said on ToffeeWeb. The refs make mistakes and we don't suffer more than any other teams (apart from those at the bottom).
Julian Wait
36 Posted 27/12/2012 at 20:14:42
Tony #332 - Did you see Osman's disallowed goal? I don't think we gained any net benefit over the course of the game ...
Jim Knightley
37 Posted 27/12/2012 at 20:48:35
Tony, can't agree with that... we've benefited from three big decisions: Cole's sending off, Fellaini not being sent off, and Fellaini's handball against Swansea. But we've had two players unfairly sent off this season, had two completely fair goals disallowed/not given, a couple of awful offside decisions, and a series of penalties not given in our favor. It makes sense that some seasons decisions go against a team... this season they've gone against us imo.
Si Cooper
38 Posted 27/12/2012 at 20:12:54
Jim, the very simple point I was trying to make is that there is a world of difference between determining whether an offence has been committed and what the appropriate punishment is (and this significant difference applies wherever an individual has a subjective input). If you can't see the similarities between the systems then I will have to assume you are being unreasonable simply to defend your apparent position.

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.

Si Cooper
39 Posted 27/12/2012 at 21:01:18
David, at least Jim has some substance to his opinion, whereas you just appear to be a disagreeing machine at times.

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.

Edward Simpson
40 Posted 27/12/2012 at 21:09:28
We'll find out tomorrow whether he'll be fit or not. Hopefully Moyes will answer the question on his fitness, and not bullshit us.

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.

Martin Scott
41 Posted 27/12/2012 at 21:18:50
Come on, Ciaran... Please!
Jim Knightley
42 Posted 27/12/2012 at 21:06:55
Si, you haven't addressed where the bullshit regarding the 'spirit' of the game comes in... where do you get this from? Are you under the conception that the FA look at red cards in this manner?!

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?

Si Cooper
43 Posted 27/12/2012 at 22:16:29
Jim, found this after a lot of searching:–
"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)."

I read this as confirmation that there is much more subjectivity in a referee's decision making than what you have set out so far. I agree that there was not excessive force in either challenge but it is unfortunately possible that the referee may have considered enough of the factors detailed above were present to elevate them to the level of serious foul play.

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 Knightley
44 Posted 27/12/2012 at 22:46:11
Si...I don't think we are miles away tbh. We both think the referee was wrong, which is the main issue anyway. My opinion is that, because excessive force was clearly not involved, a yellow card, not a red should have been given, and my belief therefore is that a red was not supported under the rules, because a red card is predicated on an act of excessive force. But, as you said, it is splitting hairs. Importantly, the FA made the right decision, for both clubs, and for the good of the game.
Ian Smitham
45 Posted 27/12/2012 at 22:55:09
Si, interesting article, thanks, but can you let me know where you got the information from, ie, the source please?

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.

Si Cooper
46 Posted 27/12/2012 at 22:43:20
Jim, just to be clear, I think we are using subjective to mean two different things.
It is because it is such a subjective matter (due to the large number of factors that may be involved) that you can argue that the rules "support" lots of different decisions at the same time.
Si Cooper
47 Posted 27/12/2012 at 23:05:46
Jim, I know we aren't too far apart on this, but neither was Ciaran and you really went for him.
I expected the red cards to be dropped but I didn't think they would shred the referee in doing so (and I don't think that is necessary as long as he learns from his mistake(s)) so I am waiting to hear what the reasons are.

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.

James Flynn
48 Posted 27/12/2012 at 22:11:42
And McGlone got a moderator's warning.
David Barks
49 Posted 27/12/2012 at 23:41:50
Si,

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?

Si Cooper
50 Posted 28/12/2012 at 00:00:19
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). He also said that it was dangerous play, which technically it is by the way.

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.

Ian Smitham
51 Posted 28/12/2012 at 00:14:38
James #362, maybe it is the tone of the discussions. Here, for example, are two trying to display their views without insult or adverse comment about each other than they want to try to win a debate. Others have clearly decided they want to argue that they are right on any particular point they wish to intimidate others on, one way or another, and are prepared to use an aggressive style, whether they think it is or not, towards others, about any point they feel is worth getting embroiled in.

To constantly pick at other contributors and seemingly want to see each issue through to the bitter end to the extent that each thread becomes about them rather than the issue makes me feel that some contributors, thankfully moderated, think that he site is about them and how righteous Evertonians they are compared to others. As someone who has views, that are obviously right (joke) that I am happy to contest, I believe that there are some who want to impose themselves not only on me but everyone else on the site; for what it is worth, we are better off without them, him, and we all know to whom I refer.
Kevin Hudson
52 Posted 28/12/2012 at 00:31:45
An unexpectedly contentious thread...dear God! Bottom line: Happy for Gibbo and good news for Everton.

(If he's fit).

Bring on the Rent Boys.

Saegaran Kana
53 Posted 28/12/2012 at 00:54:10
If we had lost the match because the opponent scored a goal after our player was red-carded and later it gets rescinded, would we get back our points? Shouldn't all this be clarified while the game is on.. I mean why not view instant replay and finalise the decision?
David Barks
54 Posted 28/12/2012 at 01:39:01
Si, his words weren't twisted. Everyone including Michael kept quoting him, that's all that happened. He just kept responding with stupid comments like "face in palm" and "you just don't get it", with nothing else. There was a double digit series of these comments from him, that's all. It become pretty obvious he was doing this just to bait people on, which again, Michael called him on. That is all.

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.

David Barks
55 Posted 28/12/2012 at 01:48:27
Saegaran,

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.

Roman Sidey
56 Posted 28/12/2012 at 01:38:16
Aidan Wade, the TMO in rugby is a bit different to how you're assuming it would be applied to football. The TMO is only used in rugby for tries, not penalties (except where a penalty is the result in place of a try being scored), offsides, etc.

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.

Eric Myles
57 Posted 28/12/2012 at 03:22:10
Fergus #290 "Maybe it is my rugby background, but I am not that comfortable with FA overruling a ref's decision. He should be the sole judge of fact"

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.

Roman Sidey
58 Posted 28/12/2012 at 04:41:29
Another difference, Eric, is trying to get people to name rugby refs. I think when I was a kid I remember a South African called Watson, but other than that, they are pretty anonymous, which points out how good a job they do.

Aussie rules is the same, and they have three field umpires, four boundary umpires, and two goal line umpires on the field at once, and I'd be flat out naming more than two of them because they usually do a good job. There was one guy a few years ago, McLaren, who everyone knew because he was costing teams games, but since him, no names are ever remembered.

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.

Jim Knightley
59 Posted 28/12/2012 at 10:13:53
Si, my issue with Ciaran went way beyond the primary argument...we've had the same discussion, and it has taken us a few post to reach an agreement of difference....there is a reason that didn't happen with Ciaran.

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.

Ciarán McGlone
60 Posted 28/12/2012 at 11:08:04
I had no intention of returning to this subject - but was watching with interest as Si wasted his time..

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.

Jim Knightley
61 Posted 28/12/2012 at 11:59:42
Ciaran... what a surprise you are back...just when I was enjoying Toffeeweb again.

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.

David Israel
63 Posted 28/12/2012 at 17:26:59
Just our luck! The red card gets rescinded and he's out injured!
Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
64 Posted 28/12/2012 at 17:34:31
A couple of posts have characterized why I intervened before, and nailed the problem being with Ciaran's attitude as it comes over in his postings. Arrogance and derision are pretty hard to hide and he makes no effort to reign in his innate superciliousness when dealing with the incompetents he is so much smarter than.

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.

Michael Kenrick
65 Posted 28/12/2012 at 17:47:11
Trying to look back over this arguement, it seems to hinge on three questions:

(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...

Jamie Barlow
66 Posted 28/12/2012 at 17:59:09
It doesn't seem to bad David. A bit of a thigh strain. Moyes says they'll assess him and see how he is for Chelsea.
Si Cooper
67 Posted 28/12/2012 at 18:25:08
A nice summation (#499) and enough for me, Michael.

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.

Keith Glazzard
68 Posted 29/12/2012 at 10:22:49
Forgive me for not reading all of this wordy thread, but

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.


Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.


About these ads