Never a red card!

[Drover]

I have not seen the incident that led to the sending off last night,but it's swings and roundabouts,it's nice to have it fall in our favour for a change.I don't know if anyone else thinks the same,but there was an horrendous tackle against Cotts in the Crawley game,I think the offender got a yellow card.To me it was red.Swings and roundabout.

[RedJ]

Aye it was Bristol City away for that block.

However he was sent off for something that was even less of a red thanks to a certain ginger so and so against Pompey at home too.

[Dagenham Rover]

Having watched it also reminded me of the Beye incident. As an ex-player  who used to block in that way I'm incensed that refs see it as a red card offence. Again if more refs were ex-players themselves they'd know the difference.

Joey Barton becoming a ref might make for an entertaining game   

[1879Rovers]

I am a qualified referee and I would never have sent him off. I bet he wins his appeal. A lot will depend on where the referee was placed for his decision. If he is looking straight at it, then I can see where is mistake was made, if he was side on then, it is just a bad decision.

[IDM]

Looking at the Ref's viewpoint, he can't see the gap between Hume and the defender, so I can see why he gave a red card.

What I don't know is, will the appeal fail if they take the Ref's line of sight into account?  Looking at this the ref was correct from his point of view, so is there ground for appeal?  But from the side it wasn't even a foul. 

Should win the appeal though, IMHO

[Dagenham Rover]

They'll have him for intent, and I bet he doesn't win very few do (rightly or wrongly     )

[donnievic]

It's a two footed lunge red card end of!!!!!

[mrfrostsdad]

IMO not even a free kick. Good tackle and we would be going ballistic had one of ours got sent off for it

[wing commander]

It's one of those......For me it was a straight Red based on the laws of the game.However it's the laws that are wrong not the tackle...Football is heading the way of Netball a no contact sport...

  If it was down to me those tacklels wouldn't be worthy of a red...however the cynical trips players do which they class as "taking one for the team would be red" As there is never the slightest intent to play the ball on those...

[hoolahoop]

I've looked at it several times and still can't see a red card offence there. As someone said earlier the rules need to be changed ; imo the referee committed himself to the sending off too rashly.
Surely we don't want to wreck the game completely by making it a no contact sport.......Jeez with some refs now you can't go shoulder to shoulder with an oppo player without freekicks being awarded yet shirt pulling by a player in the box rarely gets punished. 

Just because it wasn't one of our players doesn't make the decision correct!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Arguably, the ref was technically correct to send him off in that the lad has gone in with both feet and DID appear to make contact with Hume's foot after contacting with the ball. According to Graham Turner, the ref said that the Shrewsbury player had tackled in a way that mean the had a lack of control. I guess you could argue that Hume MIGHT have been badly injured if the contact with his foot had been very slightly different.

But come on. There was no intent there whatsoever - He's just made an honest attempt to reach the ball and that required him toe stretch with both feet off the ground. That should never be a sending off and I hope they get the decision rescinded on appeal.

[RobTheRover]

Made me think of The Decorator v Sheff U.  An honest attempt to get the ball rewarded with a red.  Thats the 2 points we were robbed that night handed back in my eyes.

[BobG]

Curious thought: when was the last time you saw a good old fashioned shoulder charge happen? And when was the last time you saw one that the ref allowed play to carry on?

I once saw Kim Book shoulder charged into the net at Sincil Bank. The ref? He gave the bloody Imps a goal.

BobG

[normal rules]

The red card has been recinded today apparently.

[The Red Baron]

Arguably, the ref was technically correct to send him off in that the lad has gone in with both feet and DID appear to make contact with Hume's foot after contacting with the ball. According to Graham Turner, the ref said that the Shrewsbury player had tackled in a way that mean the had a lack of control. I guess you could argue that Hume MIGHT have been badly injured if the contact with his foot had been very slightly different.

But come on. There was no intent there whatsoever - He's just made an honest attempt to reach the ball and that required him toe stretch with both feet off the ground. That should never be a sending off and I hope they get the decision rescinded on appeal.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think it was a red either. However, referees are not supposed to judge intent or (perhaps crucially in this case) outcome. So it makes no difference to the decision if an opponent walks away unscathed or has his leg broken by the tackle- in theory, anyway!