Clearly i had no problem with the red card just the bit i had in bold.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSFShels
Printable View
Clearly i had no problem with the red card just the bit i had in bold.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSFShels
Seriously, reading back, how do people have any issues with the decision? Go to 44 seconds in this video. Rogers hands by his side, 2 seconds later Dawson going by(with the ball completely out of Roger's reach), hands up in the air and out like a mad yoke. Once he makes contact with Dawson then, the referee has an easy decision to make.
http://www.stpatsfc.com/watch_video.php?id=418
He didn't say in his opinion, he said "after what they have done". That is a statement of fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Don't really understand why a cork fan is trying to pee on our bonfire tbh. Anyway I will attempt to enjoy the cup final!!
because its not as clear cut as you're making out. The fact people are discussing it at all shows thatQuote:
Originally Posted by CSFShels
And again, Id rather it wwas just left alone
I don't understand how it isn't. Once his hands spring out when the ball is already gone, he has no excuses if contact is made. You could possibly say that Dawson went looking for the foul, and maybe he did, but he found the foul. Stupid from Rogers really. At 1-1 from a Dawson goal, 11 v 11 you'd have to fancy Pats to have alot more chance than they did once he'd done it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Just watched it and that is very very very harsh. There is no way in that split second the keeper could have gotten out of the way. He genuinely goes for the ball and as its quickly put to the side of him then the Shels player collides with him. The centre back had it well covered and definitely would have cleared before the Shels player got to shoot or at the very least would have blocked it. Also Dawson doesn't go down easy looking for it nor does Rogers throw out his hands. It was a simple collision that was still covered by another man back.
We have all seen them given for a hell of a lot less too though.
That does look harsh. I think if you give a foul you have to give a red card but it's hard to tell if it was a 50/50 ball or if the Shels player had it under control.
Congrats to Shels - super achievement. Heres hoping you win the cup but dont get promoted.
Commiserations to St. Patricks even though it brought a wry smile to my face. But as a famous Bohs fundraiser once crooned, whats another year.
According to the rules as currently enacted you are right CD, ref required to give a red card once he decided it was a foul. Not sure if ref has much/any lee way on this but I believe they should as in such cases a penalty is punishment enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Red cards should be for serious/cynical/dangerous fouls with refs making an effort to keep players on the pitch. Caving in to the "off off off" from terraces is not helping the game as a spectacle.
Are you sure you are not on the board at Dalymount SkStu ?:o (although if you were it would more likely be "whats another million"):rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
TBH, I think it was a pretty awful decision.
Good to see that everyone on MNS agreed with you.......Quote:
Originally Posted by CSFShels
debatable penalty - never a red card.
The fact is even if it was a penalty (debatable in my opinion) there is no earthly way it was a red card as there was cover behind the keeper (therefore not last man). Unfortunately ref's seem conditioned now to reach for red card in almost any penalty award, thus often making a bad decision a horrendous one :(. As I said previously, I really think ref's need to pause before making a call, to judge - is this going to benifit the game ?Quote:
Originally Posted by sligored
I do appreciate that they often have limited latitude/independance and if this is what is hindering them it should be raised with the relevent authorities.
Cover doesn't matter in that situation - it was a goalscoring opportunity. The only issue is whether it was a foul.
No, they should just stick to enforcing the rules. Every sending off effects the game. If you leave it open to a referee's judgement on whether the game is affected, players will adapt their fouls to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
A prime example of that is the 2010 World Cup final. Webb didn't send De Jong off because he didn't want to "ruin the game". In turn, he actually ruined the game as Holland knew they could get away with dirty tactics
If its a bookable offence book him, if its a red card offence, send him off. Don't try and decide what decision would help the game.
Not a foul btw ;)