Ref Watch ......... Dagenham H part 2

[Rayleigh boy]

clearly he had lost control - and his nerve

when he finally booked a Daggers player for time wasting it was to appease the East stand crowd - his hand was shaking like a leaf - and the player had not even taken too long -

Roots Hall can be intimidating and this guy was poo-ing himself and getting it more and more wrong ..... free kicks given the wrong way - no advantage played - penalties not given - ridiculous holding at corners etc etc

he just lost it - and I think the players knew it

 

[OldBlueLady]

What about when their player clearly dived in the box and nothing was given - for once? Why was he not booked for diving? The Dagenham forwards were showing top credentials for consideration in the next World Diving Championships!

 

[bazzashrimper]

White deserved his yellow, it was a cynical breakdown of play when Daggers were in a good attacking position. Personally, I thought the shove in the first 2 minutes was well overboard, it was dangerous and should have been yellow carded for that. He shoved Hines into the advertising hoardings - remember a Yeovil defender did that to Bennett early in the season on his debut, we lost the guy for the rest of his loan period? We were seething about that and demanding a red if you recall.

White's shove was shoulder to shoulder, which is legal. It's just that hines has no strength that took him off the pitch - that's not Whites fault, it's his advantage. Hines then had his advantage being much quicker than white... but the ref didn't give fouls for muggings.

As for Whites yellow card, yes - I agree. However, the foul on Coker as he ran into the box (the free kick outside the box) was directly comparable and the ref gave no yellow. Yep, everyone is entitled to a mistake or two, but there were just too many inconsistencies for me.

 

[Lord Football]

What about when their player clearly dived in the box and nothing was given - for once? Why was he not booked for diving? The Dagenham forwards were showing top credentials for consideration in the next World Diving Championships!

Did he appeal for a penalty?
No.

Case closed.

 

[Mick]

Did he appeal for a penalty?
No.

Case closed.

Unusually, that's twice I've disagreed with you this week.

A simulation can still be a simulation without the offending player appealing for a penalty and referees can still award penalties without an appeal (although such is the nature of modern footballers this doesn't happen that often!).

But I do agree with you regarding that particular incident. Whilst he didn't make a great (any?) effort to stay on his feet, neither was it a cynical dive. No foul, no card for me.

 

[Fish]

As for Whites yellow card, yes - I agree. However, the foul on Coker as he ran into the box (the free kick outside the box) was directly comparable and the ref gave no yellow. Yep, everyone is entitled to a mistake or two, but there were just too many inconsistencies for me.

I totally agree with you - the foul on Coker (in the North-West corner?) is the one I was talking about that should have been a yellow.

I don't agree that White's shove was legal. He's allowed to use his strength to protect the ball, but he used his strength to propel Hines into the stand. That's not legal, it's dangerous. Yellow card all day.

 

[Fish]

THe lino didn't flag until AFTER the ref had blown his whistle; so what did he see as a red card foul if he wasn't going to flag for the offence in the first place?

The linesman is not duty bound to flag for every foul. His flag is to bring the referees attention to something he thinks he's missed. That's why you'll often see the linesman and referee communicate before the lino puts his flag up for a throw - it's not because the lino "doesn't know", it's a practical way of making sure they don't make prats of themselves by pointing in different directions, given the different angles of view they have. If the ref isn't sure of which way a throw goes, then up goes the linos flag and we go with that.

It's pretty well documented on here that the ref got his yellow card out first. I therefore think it's likely that the lino was confident the ref had seen the foul(!!) and therefore didn't feel the need to flag it himself. Then, when he saw the yellow card come out (or heard the tone of the whistle for the foul) he realised that the ref may not have thought it as serious as what he had seen himself, so then tried to get his colleague's attention.

With players encircling the referee as they were (why refs don't just book the buggers for doing that I don't know), going to talk to the linesman is also a handy way of defusing the situation by extricating yourself from it. The linesman could also therefore have been flagging to give the ref a 'getaway' from the heat of the immediate aftermath of what was an obviously over the top tackle.

 

[Lord Football]

Unusually, that's twice I've disagreed with you this week.

A simulation can still be a simulation without the offending player appealing for a penalty and referees can still award penalties without an appeal (although such is the nature of modern footballers this doesn't happen that often!).

But I do agree with you regarding that particular incident. Whilst he didn't make a great (any?) effort to stay on his feet, neither was it a cynical dive. No foul, no card for me.

I don't think you are disagreeing with me, I think we are saying the same thing. You're just being more eloquent than me.

Where did you disagree with me earlier, I must have missed that one.

 

[south247]

Is there not some rule that goalkeepers should not have same coloured jerseys as match officials? If so the very loud and annoying Mr Lewington should have been asked to change, no? Clearly grounds for a rematch and points deduction for the loathsome bunch who are the Daggers

 

[Somerset Ex-TTB]

I don't agree that White's shove was legal. He's allowed to use his strength to protect the ball, but he used his strength to propel Hines into the stand. That's not legal, it's dangerous. Yellow card all day.

White used his strength to get himself in between Hines and the ball, totally legal. It was only then Hines trying to tackle White (which incidentally was at knee height), that propelled him off the pitch. If anything is should of been a free kick to us for Hines swinging his legs wildly in the air at knee height.

 

[londonblue]

The linesman is not duty bound to flag for every foul. His flag is to bring the referees attention to something he thinks he's missed. That's why you'll often see the linesman and referee communicate before the lino puts his flag up for a throw - it's not because the lino "doesn't know", it's a practical way of making sure they don't make prats of themselves by pointing in different directions, given the different angles of view they have. If the ref isn't sure of which way a throw goes, then up goes the linos flag and we go with that.

It's pretty well documented on here that the ref got his yellow card out first. I therefore think it's likely that the lino was confident the ref had seen the foul(!!) and therefore didn't feel the need to flag it himself. Then, when he saw the yellow card come out (or heard the tone of the whistle for the foul) he realised that the ref may not have thought it as serious as what he had seen himself, so then tried to get his colleague's attention.

With players encircling the referee as they were (why refs don't just book the buggers for doing that I don't know), going to talk to the linesman is also a handy way of defusing the situation by extricating yourself from it. The linesman could also therefore have been flagging to give the ref a 'getaway' from the heat of the immediate aftermath of what was an obviously over the top tackle.

Well, we've appealed. Let's wait until 5.00pm today to find out. Personally I think it'll be upheld, mainly because I don't think the highlights will prove definitively that it shouldn't have been a red.

 

[Blues 'n twos]

Well, we've appealed. Let's wait until 5.00pm today to find out. Personally I think it'll be upheld, mainly because I don't think the highlights will prove definitively that it shouldn't have been a red.

I agree, on looking at the replay yellow max, 50/50 ball he won and made to look worse than it was.

 

[SU BLUE]

Seems to me that most of the officials these days want to take centre stage
UTB

 

[united we stand]

Well, we've appealed. Let's wait until 5.00pm today to find out. Personally I think it'll be upheld, mainly because I don't think the highlights will prove definitively that it shouldn't have been a red.

Just out of interest, where does the 5.00pm cut off come from . Are appeals held on a certain day of the week , and announced at the same time etc?

 

[Fish]

Well, we've appealed. Let's wait until 5.00pm today to find out. Personally I think it'll be upheld, mainly because I don't think the highlights will prove definitively that it shouldn't have been a red.

I hope we don't get an extension to his suspension. The video will need to be crystal clear and conclusive that a red was the wrong decision, and I strongly doubt that'll be the case. Even if Phillips "got the ball first", there was still easily excessive force used, evidenced not least by Phillips himself saying he lost his footing as he went in for the tackle, more or less admitting he was out of control.

 

[londonblue]

Just out of interest, where does the 5.00pm cut off come from . Are appeals held on a certain day of the week , and announced at the same time etc?

No. Chris Philips said that they expect to find out by 5.00pm today...

 

[londonblue]

I hope we don't get an extension to his suspension. The video will need to be crystal clear and conclusive that a red was the wrong decision, and I strongly doubt that'll be the case. Even if Phillips "got the ball first", there was still easily excessive force used, evidenced not least by Phillips himself saying he lost his footing as he went in for the tackle, more or less admitting he was out of control.

Losing the appeal doesn't automatically add an extra game. That is reserved for appeals that are considered frivolous. I've looked at the Sky highlights and personally think that it was a yellow card at worst, but I also think that the red card will be upheld because I don't think that the video is conclusive enough for the decision to be overturned. (I have to admit I'm also not 100% sure what the criteria are for overturning a red card.)

 

[Lord Football]

Is there not some rule that goalkeepers should not have same coloured jerseys as match officials? If so the very loud and annoying Mr Lewington should have been asked to change, no? Clearly grounds for a rematch and points deduction for the loathsome bunch who are the Daggers

Yes, there is and you are quite correct. And referees should never wear black when we are in our away kit (again, the man at Wycombe springs to mind)

 

[Fish]

I didn't say that losing automatically adds an extra game. Having looked at the highlights myself, I can't understand why the referee had any doubt in his mind to begin with. The tackle was over the top and there was no way on earth that Phillips wasn't going to go straight through the player with both legs, irrespective of whether he got the ball too. In my book, that's excessive force, because a tackle is supposed to have as its aim the winning of the ball. Phillips' body language suggests his aim is to take out the player.

Appeal looks frivolous to me, but I'll be the first to come on here and apologise if the appeal is successful.

 

[united we stand]

Personally I think we have a reasonable chance. I 'assume' that we are allowed to make representation and will be stating that the state of the pitch caused Philips to loose his footing and the tackle was therefore 'reckless' and not 'using excessive force'

From FIFA

Careless, reckless, using excessive force


“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or
consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
• No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless


“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the
danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned


“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary
use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off