Yaya Toure, Craig Bellamy, Billy Sharp.

[Copps is Magic]

.. all lashed out today. Will they get the same punishment?

[Donnywolf]

... probably NOT but then again there will have been identical hand to ball incidents that have resulted in Penalties and some that have not  Some fouls given that were not and vice versa

The Refs get one view and in the case of the (other) 2 you mention got NO view at all other than someone rolling about on the floor. They cant give what they DONT see and that is where the FA or whoever will step in

Refs are so inconsistent is what I am trying to say - and where some keepers get sent off when conceding Penalties others get a Yellow and some even see no Card The only thing in the Premiership that we CAN now rely on being consistent is whether the Ball crosses the line for a goal (cos the Ref does not decide !!!!)

[Al4475]

Did they all get straight Reds?

[Donnywolf]

Did they all get straight Reds?

No ... the Ref did not see either of the other offences

A sly little kick by YT which he will probably have to account for and Bellamy a sly raised forearm/elbow which he too will get an FA call about

Then all 3 probably WILL have been treated with parity

[ravenrover]

You've missed Rangel Angels kick off the ball on the Cardiff player was it Zaha?

[SoundbiteBarmyArmy]

Did they all get straight Reds?

No ... the Ref did not see either of the other offences

A sly little kick by YT which he will probably have to account for and Bellamy a sly raised forearm/elbow which he too will get an FA call about

Then all 3 probably WILL have been treated with parity

According to MOTD's footage the referee saw Craig Bellend lash out.

Coplete and utter Kitson that bloke! Despise the short arse, no necked, arrogant prick!

[GazLaz]

Bellamy and YaYa both been done.

[BigColSutherland]

Bellamy and YaYa both been done.

YaYa NoNo. Not been charged.

http://www.thefa.com/news/governance/2014/feb/craig-bellamy-violent-conduct-charge-swansea-yaya-toure-norwich

[GazLaz]

Sorry I misheard the wireless.

[The Red Baron]

The Bellamy one is an open and shut case. My only surprise is that the officials missed it on the day.

Toure- more difficult. From one angle it looks innocuous, but from behind you can see that it is a sly little kick. Certainly as bad as the incident for which Billy was dismissed if not worse, because it was clearly premeditated.

But- for anyone thinking that the Toure decision might strengthen our argument for an appeal- it is much harder to get a red card overturned than it is to avoid sanctions following a video review. It has to be shown to be a very clear error for the FA to overturn a referee's decision. In the case of video reviews, the panel has to be certain that the referee would have sent off the offending player had he seen the incident.

[bobjimwilly]

this all comes back to referees being made to look like they untouchable.

in american football a refereeing decision can be challenged if a coach thinks they have got a decision wrong. so the ref quickly reviews the incident from various camera angles, and in 99% of cases the decision is clear cut and he overturns the decision if it was wrong. The referees don't get embarrased, their refereeing association doesn't get embarrassed, people make mistakes and everyone moves on. The FA are so scared of making refs look bad they'd rather not overturn a decision. It's frankly ridiculous.

Everyone can see that Toure lashed out. Whether or not it was a hard kick is immaterial; the intent was there and he broke the rules. So how does he get away with it? Is it a co-incidence he plays for man city - one of the biggest (and richest) clubs in the country? I think not...

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've little time for the ref-bashing that goes on in situations like this. Human error is a basic part of football. Refs make mistakes just like players and managers do. If refs come across as being "untouchable" it's because that is exactly what they should be. It is deeply unhealthy for the game, for us all to obsess over every aspect of refereeing decisions. The overwhelming majority are correct. A few are wrong. The wrong ones generally balance out over time and the egregiously wrong ones are generally corrected very quickly.

We probably already have the least-worst system in place. For God's sake, let's not go down the path of stopping the game for video evidence to be brought in for every controversial decision. What little you'd gain there would be lost 10 fold by the break up of the flow of the game.

[RJHeader]

this all comes back to referees being made to look like they untouchable.

in american football a refereeing decision can be challenged if a coach thinks they have got a decision wrong. so the ref quickly reviews the incident from various camera angles, and in 99% of cases the decision is clear cut and he overturns the decision if it was wrong. The referees don't get embarrased, their refereeing association doesn't get embarrassed, people make mistakes and everyone moves on. The FA are so scared of making refs look bad they'd rather not overturn a decision. It's frankly ridiculous.

Everyone can see that Toure lashed out. Whether or not it was a hard kick is immaterial; the intent was there and he broke the rules. So how does he get away with it? Is it a co-incidence he plays for man city - one of the biggest (and richest) clubs in the country? I think not...

You think the reason he hasnt been banned is because he plays for the richest team in league? Or am i reading it wrong?

If thats what youre implying to. Thats 'frankly ridiculous'

[The Red Baron]

Graham Poll explains the process:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2556256/GRAHAM-POLL-Deciding-charge-Craig-Bellamy-let-Yaya-Toure-secret-vote-gang-three.html

He also explains the kind of hurdles we'd need to get over to get Billy's card overturned:

So what about Andy Carroll? He fell into a different category as the referee, Howard Webb, did see the incident and acted. For that to be overturned West Ham would have had to prove a clear and obvious error by the referee, which they could not.

 
If Webb had not dismissed Carroll and somebody had cited the incident, I believe that all three of those former referees would have said that they would have sent him off,  as did I and every senior referee I spoke to after the event.

[hoolahoop]

this all comes back to referees being made to look like they untouchable.

in american football a refereeing decision can be challenged if a coach thinks they have got a decision wrong. so the ref quickly reviews the incident from various camera angles, and in 99% of cases the decision is clear cut and he overturns the decision if it was wrong. The referees don't get embarrased, their refereeing association doesn't get embarrassed, people make mistakes and everyone moves on. The FA are so scared of making refs look bad they'd rather not overturn a decision. It's frankly ridiculous.

Everyone can see that Toure lashed out. Whether or not it was a hard kick is immaterial; the intent was there and he broke the rules. So how does he get away with it? Is it a co-incidence he plays for man city - one of the biggest (and richest) clubs in the country? I think not...

You think the reason he hasnt been banned is because he plays for the richest team in league? Or am i reading it wrong?

If thats what youre implying to. Thats 'frankly ridiculous'ft

I also saw the incident and I agree with the post that you are referring to. Quite frankly YaYa should have had a ban.....it's a bad decision not unlike the one that went against the Belles last season.

[bobjimwilly]

Graham Poll explains the process:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2556256/GRAHAM-POLL-Deciding-charge-Craig-Bellamy-let-Yaya-Toure-secret-vote-gang-three.html

So 3 former refs are asked their opinion by way of watch a video in the comfort of their own home? Hmmm no chance at all then for these refs to be good friends with anyone at any of the top clubs...

What is obvious is that at least one of them is blind... or bent...

[BigColSutherland]

Graham Poll explains the process:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2556256/GRAHAM-POLL-Deciding-charge-Craig-Bellamy-let-Yaya-Toure-secret-vote-gang-three.html

So 3 former refs are asked their opinion by way of watch a video in the comfort of their own home? Hmmm no chance at all then for these refs to be good friends with anyone at any of the top clubs...

What is obvious is that at least one of them is blind... or bent...

You need to get out more.

[RJHeader]

Graham Poll explains the process:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2556256/GRAHAM-POLL-Deciding-charge-Craig-Bellamy-let-Yaya-Toure-secret-vote-gang-three.html

So 3 former refs are asked their opinion by way of watch a video in the comfort of their own home? Hmmm no chance at all then for these refs to be good friends with anyone at any of the top clubs...

What is obvious is that at least one of them is blind... or bent...

You need to get out more.

Couldn't agree more! Pretty bold statement to say they are bent.

Maybe they thought it wasnt a sending off? Or is that just too unbelievable?

Im happy Toure hasnt been punished for it. It was a nothing incident, and even the lad who got 'kicked', has said Yaya shouldnt of been punished.

[BigColSutherland]

I'm more than happy to say refs make mistakes. But to start saying they're in the pockets of the "big" clubs is just childish.

What annoys me - and did last week with Andy Carroll and Flores - is that the processes aren't in place at the FA to hand out the appropriate punishments retrospectively.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BCS

Not sure what you mean there. Carroll committed a red card offence. His red card was upheld. Flores, at worst, committed a yellow card offence. Clearly the processes for retrospectively assessing yellow card offences do not exist. Would you prefer that they did? Because I suggest that there would be 100 cases a week to look at if so.

Injustices happen. Mostly they are not very big ones. Prior to the tyranny of the slo-mo from every angle, we used to just get on with the game and not lose too much sleep over these things. But nowadays of course, it suits the papers and the broadcasters to keep a 24/7 discussion of every minor incident on the boil.

[Dare to dream!]

Alex Pearce for Reading has had his red card upheld

[BigColSutherland]

BCS

Not sure what you mean there. Carroll committed a red card offence. His red card was upheld. Flores, at worst, committed a yellow card offence. Clearly the processes for retrospectively assessing yellow card offences do not exist. Would you prefer that they did? Because I suggest that there would be 100 cases a week to look at if so.

Injustices happen. Mostly they are not very big ones. Prior to the tyranny of the slo-mo from every angle, we used to just get on with the game and not lose too much sleep over these things. But nowadays of course, it suits the papers and the broadcasters to keep a 24/7 discussion of every minor incident on the boil.

William. It was the view of Howard Webb that it was a red card offence. It was the view of the FA that this was not an obvious mistake. The onus was on West Ham to prove this. The FA procedure did not allow them to look at the card objectively and say "was it deserved?". To me, this is a flawed system.

Simulation, diving, feigning injury is a scourge on the game. The FA should be able to act on blatant instances such as the Flores one. The Scottish FA can and do. The English FA cannot.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I agree that simulation is a scourge. That said, so is pulling shirts on the blind side when a corner comes over. It's at least (probably more) as far up the cheating scale as simulation. The point is, where do you stop once you start retrospectively looking at yellow card offences? What about deliberate obstruction? Deliberate handball? Deliberately tripping someone? Those are all cheating. Trouble is, as I said, if you start retrospectively looking at every one of those cases, the system grinds to a halt. And if you only look at SOME of those cases, you don't have the rigour that you seem to crave.

As for the Carroll case, as someone (maybe you) pointed out earlier, Poll claims that he and three ex-refs all thought it was a clear red card and a correct decision. Looks like the tired and trusted English way of muddling through on pragmatic terms and not worrying about the hypothetical has worked again.

Reminds me of the French diplomat who complained about the British approach at Versailles. He said (reputedly) "You're approach is all well and good in practice, but I don't think it will work in theory." But you'll probably think that is a, what was it? Tired old cliche?

[BigColSutherland]

I agree that simulation is a scourge. That said, so is pulling shirts on the blind side when a corner comes over. It's at least (probably more) as far up the cheating scale as simulation. The point is, where do you stop once you start retrospectively looking at yellow card offences? What about deliberate obstruction? Deliberate handball? Deliberately tripping someone? Those are all cheating. Trouble is, as I said, if you start retrospectively looking at every one of those cases, the system grinds to a halt. And if you only look at SOME of those cases, you don't have the rigour that you seem to crave.

As for the Carroll case, as someone (maybe you) pointed out earlier, Poll claims that he and three ex-refs all thought it was a clear red card and a correct decision. Looks like the tired and trusted English way of muddling through on pragmatic terms and not worrying about the hypothetical has worked again.

Reminds me of the French diplomat who complained about the British approach at Versailles. He said (reputedly) "You're approach is all well and good in practice, but I don't think it will work in theory." But you'll probably think that is a, what was it? Tired old cliche?

Most of your tired old trite cliches are trotted out in a faux Barnsley accent. No sign of it here yet, although the day is still young.

Graham Poll makes a lot of claims. I wouldn't give him or his opinions the time of day, My criticism of the system for overturning things - like the Carroll incident - is that the appealing club have to prove that an obvious mistake has been made. Which is something of a paradox, as if it's obvious you wouldn't have to prove it. What should happen is the Panel would look at the red card and say "well, what do we think about this then?".

On the retrospective bookings, I'd do exactly what they do in Scotland. If a dive had been reported, the FA serves notice, and  the player can argue his case, or accept a ban. The Scottish game doesn't seem to have ground to a halt just yet.

[BillyStubbsTears]

 BCS

But why stop at dives? What about the other blatant cheating that I listed? Is that all acceptable?

[BigColSutherland]

I would stop at simulation for the very same reason they do in Scotland - it's a deliberate attempt to deceive the referee. A concerted effort to trick the ref into making the incorrect decision. In my book, the sort of stuff of the morally bankrupt.

To me, all the other stuff is foul play, and part and parcel of the normal disciplinary process.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BCS

I agree that it is morally bankrupt. I detest simulation (although I think on balance that swinging an elbow is a graver sin).

But I also happen to think that grabbing a handful of shirt round the blind side of the ref as a corner comes in is equally reprehensible cheating. It is a deliberate intent to cheat and deceive the ref. It's the flip side of diving. Both perpetrators are soiling the game's spirit.

[The Red Baron]

Alex Pearce for Reading has had his red card upheld

I thought he'd had it rescinded? It looked a poor decision to me and if it was overturned then I'm not surprised.

However, DOGSO is always easier to overturn than Violent Conduct because of the "covering defenders" issue.

[BillyStubbsTears]

There wasn't a covering defender in that case TRB. Or at least not one who could have covered before the Weds player got a shot off. Assuming that Pearce made contact (difficult to see on my mobile) it was a stuck on red card.

[The Red Baron]

I would stop at simulation for the very same reason they do in Scotland - it's a deliberate attempt to deceive the referee. A concerted effort to trick the ref into making the incorrect decision. In my book, the sort of stuff of the morally bankrupt.

To me, all the other stuff is foul play, and part and parcel of the normal disciplinary process.

The other reason why they have brought in retrospective punishment for simulation in Scotland is that it is a very difficult thing for referees to spot at the time. Though I have to say that it seems odd to have an offence which if spotted by the referee at the time carries a yellow card and if identified subsequently carries a one or two match ban.