COMMENT: The FA's own rules and explanation mean they must rescind Gabriele Angella's red card

This Is Local London: Picture: Skysports.com Picture: Skysports.com

Below is a comment piece written by deputy sports editor Frank Smith on Watford's bizarre red card on Saturday and the events which should unfold this week.

Gabriele Angella's red card at the weekend must be rescinded - The FA's own rules and subsequent explanation for the dismissal mean they have no choice.

Those in the press box at the Goldsands Stadium on Saturday knew something was wrong immediately after Angella was sent off in the contest between Bournemouth and Watford.

When referee Carl Boyeson awarded a penalty an hour into the match, he had two potential reasons. It could have been for Fitz Hall's tug on Lewis Grabban's shirt or for Joel Ekstrand's tackle on the Bournemouth striker.

The referee did not award the spot kick initially, it was his assistant who persuaded Boyeson to blow his whistle and the assistant immediately indicated it was for a pull on Grabban's shirt.

So based on the above events, it appears Hall should have been the one sent off if a red card was going to be handed out.

Therefore the only possible explanation for Angella being dismissed would be if the Italian had used foul or abusive language as the officials discussed their decision or if there had been an off-the-ball incident. However, that possibility was quashed this morning when the FA's website stated Angella had received a one-match ban under Law 12 section five, which is for "denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick".

It appears to be a clear case of mistaken identity so what happens now?

Well Watford had until 1pm today to inform the FA if they were going to lodge an appeal due to mistaken identity and all evidence has to be submitted by 1pm tomorrow. The FA are very strict on the time frames and claims launched after those deadlines will not be considered.

The FA refused to confirm whether Watford had appealed, stating it was the club's job to do so and, at present, the Hornets have remained tight-lipped, however, we understand Watford have launched a claim for mistaken identity.

In such instances, The FA guidelines say the club's evidence must include a DVD of all available angles and a signed statement from the player sent off, in this case Angella, stating he was not the one involved and identifying who was. In such cases The FA also welcome written statements from the player who did commit the offence where possible.

The DVD and written statements are the only evidence used by the regulatory committee when making the decision, according to The FA.

Claims are dealt with before the club's next match so the club will know if Angella is eligible for Saturday within a couple days.

When a club does not lodge a claim, The FA can request a commission to do so within seven days and if the governing body decides the club attempted to gain an advantage by not notifying the FA about the case of mistaken identity, they could be charged with misconduct.

It is worth noting that the result of a mistaken identity claim cannot be appealed, although in this instance it would be remarkable if The FA do not find in Watford and Angella's favour.

Red cards can be transferred to the correct player though so the only one who is unlikely to be happy at The FA's decision is Fitz Hall.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:40pm Mon 20 Jan 14

HornetJJ says...

Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man!
Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man! HornetJJ
  • Score: 17

4:46pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Watfordpete says...

HornetJJ wrote:
Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man!
Yep. Would they have to wait for the first decision before appealing the red card?
[quote][p][bold]HornetJJ[/bold] wrote: Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man![/p][/quote]Yep. Would they have to wait for the first decision before appealing the red card? Watfordpete
  • Score: 5

4:47pm Mon 20 Jan 14

andyhooked says...

Silly me. I thought that the referee could admit a case of mistaken identity and WFC not having to appeal. Have the rules been changed? Yet another example of inept officials. I await developments with interest. If the appeal is denied then the FA and their procedures really are a load of doodhas.
Silly me. I thought that the referee could admit a case of mistaken identity and WFC not having to appeal. Have the rules been changed? Yet another example of inept officials. I await developments with interest. If the appeal is denied then the FA and their procedures really are a load of doodhas. andyhooked
  • Score: 25

4:47pm Mon 20 Jan 14

demerit says...

I have never heard of a red card being transferred.

I don't see how they could because if Angella was judged to have been the culprit at the time (presumably having been seen as being involved by the linesman in the melee of players and from a particular angle) yet it was Hall who was subsequently found to have actually committed the offence, the offence itself might not have been judged in the same way. They cannot make a JUDGEMENT after the match.

If it is JUST mistaken identity, then may be it is possible to transfer a red card but that is unlikely. More likely is that the linesman had his attentions on Hall who, in the confusion, he saw in his mind's eye commit the offence.

That concludes the case for the defence m'lord.
I have never heard of a red card being transferred. I don't see how they could because if Angella was judged to have been the culprit at the time (presumably having been seen as being involved by the linesman in the melee of players and from a particular angle) yet it was Hall who was subsequently found to have actually committed the offence, the offence itself might not have been judged in the same way. They cannot make a JUDGEMENT after the match. If it is JUST mistaken identity, then may be it is possible to transfer a red card but that is unlikely. More likely is that the linesman had his attentions on Hall who, in the confusion, he saw in his mind's eye commit the offence. That concludes the case for the defence m'lord. demerit
  • Score: 6

4:54pm Mon 20 Jan 14

jasonwatford says...

Complete hash of the situation. Ref should be told red card taken away and yellow for Hall
Complete hash of the situation. Ref should be told red card taken away and yellow for Hall jasonwatford
  • Score: 9

5:04pm Mon 20 Jan 14

tiger bay says...

HornetJJ wrote:
Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man!
Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.
[quote][p][bold]HornetJJ[/bold] wrote: Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man![/p][/quote]Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man. tiger bay
  • Score: -3

5:07pm Mon 20 Jan 14

andyhooked says...

Nay Jason, Hall got awaty with it. I have never heard of a yellow or a red card being given after the ref screwed things up. Unless of course their has been evidence of racial abuse or unseen violent conduct not seen at the time. This does not appear to be the case in this case. Just my thoughts and not intended as otherwise.
Nay Jason, Hall got awaty with it. I have never heard of a yellow or a red card being given after the ref screwed things up. Unless of course their has been evidence of racial abuse or unseen violent conduct not seen at the time. This does not appear to be the case in this case. Just my thoughts and not intended as otherwise. andyhooked
  • Score: 1

5:11pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Abbotshorn says...

Come on , they obviously look so similar , everyone makes mistakes LOL
Come on , they obviously look so similar , everyone makes mistakes LOL Abbotshorn
  • Score: 8

5:23pm Mon 20 Jan 14

andyhooked says...

Perhaps the lino is colour blind!! Blinded by the clour of our strip.
Perhaps the lino is colour blind!! Blinded by the clour of our strip. andyhooked
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Wrighty_Hornet says...

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING!
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING! Wrighty_Hornet
  • Score: 2

5:33pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Watfordpete says...

tiger bay wrote:
HornetJJ wrote:
Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man!
Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.
The laws say: 'Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:

- the distance between the offence and the goal
- the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- the direction of the play
- the location and number of defenders'

So the fact that Ekstrand was there too means, for me, this was not a red card offence (by virtue of the last point above).
[quote][p][bold]tiger bay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HornetJJ[/bold] wrote: Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man![/p][/quote]Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.[/p][/quote]The laws say: 'Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity: - the distance between the offence and the goal - the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - the direction of the play - the location and number of defenders' So the fact that Ekstrand was there too means, for me, this was not a red card offence (by virtue of the last point above). Watfordpete
  • Score: 12

5:47pm Mon 20 Jan 14

rousman 2 says...

The whole situation was keystone cops, in the first place the referee saw nothing wrong & he was a lot closer than the linesman (who must be color blind) Angella was no where near the Bournemouth player, farce. Can not understand why the club did not appeal straight away.
The whole situation was keystone cops, in the first place the referee saw nothing wrong & he was a lot closer than the linesman (who must be color blind) Angella was no where near the Bournemouth player, farce. Can not understand why the club did not appeal straight away. rousman 2
  • Score: 1

6:03pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Mickey Quinn, not so thin says...

demerit wrote:
I have never heard of a red card being transferred.

I don't see how they could because if Angella was judged to have been the culprit at the time (presumably having been seen as being involved by the linesman in the melee of players and from a particular angle) yet it was Hall who was subsequently found to have actually committed the offence, the offence itself might not have been judged in the same way. They cannot make a JUDGEMENT after the match.

If it is JUST mistaken identity, then may be it is possible to transfer a red card but that is unlikely. More likely is that the linesman had his attentions on Hall who, in the confusion, he saw in his mind's eye commit the offence.

That concludes the case for the defence m'lord.
Should never have been a red but I expect the red will just be transferred to Hall from Angella. The same thing happened to Joe Garner playing for Preston this season. Ref sent off the wrong man, Garner stayed on and scored, but the subsequent ban was then transferred over to him from the guy who'd been wrongly sent off.
[quote][p][bold]demerit[/bold] wrote: I have never heard of a red card being transferred. I don't see how they could because if Angella was judged to have been the culprit at the time (presumably having been seen as being involved by the linesman in the melee of players and from a particular angle) yet it was Hall who was subsequently found to have actually committed the offence, the offence itself might not have been judged in the same way. They cannot make a JUDGEMENT after the match. If it is JUST mistaken identity, then may be it is possible to transfer a red card but that is unlikely. More likely is that the linesman had his attentions on Hall who, in the confusion, he saw in his mind's eye commit the offence. That concludes the case for the defence m'lord.[/p][/quote]Should never have been a red but I expect the red will just be transferred to Hall from Angella. The same thing happened to Joe Garner playing for Preston this season. Ref sent off the wrong man, Garner stayed on and scored, but the subsequent ban was then transferred over to him from the guy who'd been wrongly sent off. Mickey Quinn, not so thin
  • Score: 1

6:04pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Sy says...

Watfordpete wrote:
tiger bay wrote:
HornetJJ wrote:
Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man!
Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.
The laws say: 'Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:

- the distance between the offence and the goal
- the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- the direction of the play
- the location and number of defenders'

So the fact that Ekstrand was there too means, for me, this was not a red card offence (by virtue of the last point above).
To my mind, that section of the rule doesn't necessarily prevent it from being a clear goal scoring chance that was denied.

In this case it seems debatable to a point as Ekstrand was making a challenge which may have won the ball without the pull (although I'm not convinced that wasn't a foul too) but I doubt it's enough to see the decision to issue a red card (putting to one side who the culprit was). It's at least arguable that Ekstrand wouldn't have got a challenge in at all without the tug to slow the forward down so I'd imagine someone will get a one match ban out of this.

For the second pen, it does seem strange that the ref didn't send another one off (yes it was a dive but that's not the decision the ref's given). In practice he probably decided he couldn't send someone else off after what had gone before but I'd imagine he's hiding behind an argument that the forward had lost control of the ball which was heading for a goal kick (or a very tight angle for a forward going at pace) by the time he was 'brought down'.
[quote][p][bold]Watfordpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tiger bay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HornetJJ[/bold] wrote: Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man![/p][/quote]Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.[/p][/quote]The laws say: 'Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity: - the distance between the offence and the goal - the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - the direction of the play - the location and number of defenders' So the fact that Ekstrand was there too means, for me, this was not a red card offence (by virtue of the last point above).[/p][/quote]To my mind, that section of the rule doesn't necessarily prevent it from being a clear goal scoring chance that was denied. In this case it seems debatable to a point as Ekstrand was making a challenge which may have won the ball without the pull (although I'm not convinced that wasn't a foul too) but I doubt it's enough to see the decision to issue a red card (putting to one side who the culprit was). It's at least arguable that Ekstrand wouldn't have got a challenge in at all without the tug to slow the forward down so I'd imagine someone will get a one match ban out of this. For the second pen, it does seem strange that the ref didn't send another one off (yes it was a dive but that's not the decision the ref's given). In practice he probably decided he couldn't send someone else off after what had gone before but I'd imagine he's hiding behind an argument that the forward had lost control of the ball which was heading for a goal kick (or a very tight angle for a forward going at pace) by the time he was 'brought down'. Sy
  • Score: 3

6:19pm Mon 20 Jan 14

ashdownforestieri says...

If you look at Hornets Player the linesman, who looks as though he is a schoolboy on work experience, once Angella is singled out by the referee he makes an involuntary movement like a twitch with his right hand which seems to suggest he knows there is something very wrong with what the referee is doing.He then sidles up to the referee.How could he not spot the difference between Angella and Fitz Hall?Why is it always Watford? The ghost goal of a few years ago-the goal at Brighton - now this.Man City away next Saturday and a key central defender maybe unavailable for no good reason.
If you look at Hornets Player the linesman, who looks as though he is a schoolboy on work experience, once Angella is singled out by the referee he makes an involuntary movement like a twitch with his right hand which seems to suggest he knows there is something very wrong with what the referee is doing.He then sidles up to the referee.How could he not spot the difference between Angella and Fitz Hall?Why is it always Watford? The ghost goal of a few years ago-the goal at Brighton - now this.Man City away next Saturday and a key central defender maybe unavailable for no good reason. ashdownforestieri
  • Score: 5

6:29pm Mon 20 Jan 14

tiger bay says...

Watfordpete wrote:
tiger bay wrote:
HornetJJ wrote:
Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man!
Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.
The laws say: 'Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:

- the distance between the offence and the goal
- the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- the direction of the play
- the location and number of defenders'

So the fact that Ekstrand was there too means, for me, this was not a red card offence (by virtue of the last point above).
3 out of 4 of your bullet points back the red card decision. .
[quote][p][bold]Watfordpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tiger bay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HornetJJ[/bold] wrote: Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man![/p][/quote]Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.[/p][/quote]The laws say: 'Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity: - the distance between the offence and the goal - the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - the direction of the play - the location and number of defenders' So the fact that Ekstrand was there too means, for me, this was not a red card offence (by virtue of the last point above).[/p][/quote]3 out of 4 of your bullet points back the red card decision. . tiger bay
  • Score: -1

6:38pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

Seems since Lloyd was sent off instead of Mariappa that you cannot just appeal the ban is unduly harsh. Viz. minding your own business yards away.

What is daftest of all is this has got as far as the FA website. About what 2 million people know there was a balls up and still it goes on the website.

FA - now you are bringing the game into disrepute.

Rearrange these words into a well known phrase.

tossers you are a bunch of useless
Seems since Lloyd was sent off instead of Mariappa that you cannot just appeal the ban is unduly harsh. Viz. minding your own business yards away. What is daftest of all is this has got as far as the FA website. About what 2 million people know there was a balls up and still it goes on the website. FA - now you are bringing the game into disrepute. Rearrange these words into a well known phrase. tossers you are a bunch of useless gloryhornet4
  • Score: 1

6:48pm Mon 20 Jan 14

buckshornet says...

the same thing happened with doyley and mariappa vs Leicester and neither was suspended so has the law changed?
the same thing happened with doyley and mariappa vs Leicester and neither was suspended so has the law changed? buckshornet
  • Score: 2

6:57pm Mon 20 Jan 14

watford1881 says...

Why does Angella have to tell the sweet FA who was involved in the incident.. That's not his job.. The sweet FA in this country are the pits.. They sit in their ivory Towers.. I won't go on.. I'm just soooo angry.....
Why does Angella have to tell the sweet FA who was involved in the incident.. That's not his job.. The sweet FA in this country are the pits.. They sit in their ivory Towers.. I won't go on.. I'm just soooo angry..... watford1881
  • Score: 6

7:53pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

watford1881 wrote:
Why does Angella have to tell the sweet FA who was involved in the incident.. That's not his job.. The sweet FA in this country are the pits.. They sit in their ivory Towers.. I won't go on.. I'm just soooo angry.....
Hello my friend.

Thanks for your contributions today.

I agree - Angella could say - it wasn't me - see where I am etc. Seems they are putting the onus on clubs now, who have to sort the mess out for the FA.

Would be nice if the club just said - we have got no idea why a pen was given and what it has to do with GA. Over to you to explain how GA is involved as he is on the edge of the area scratching his kyber.

They are nobs - sorry that should be knobs!
[quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: Why does Angella have to tell the sweet FA who was involved in the incident.. That's not his job.. The sweet FA in this country are the pits.. They sit in their ivory Towers.. I won't go on.. I'm just soooo angry.....[/p][/quote]Hello my friend. Thanks for your contributions today. I agree - Angella could say - it wasn't me - see where I am etc. Seems they are putting the onus on clubs now, who have to sort the mess out for the FA. Would be nice if the club just said - we have got no idea why a pen was given and what it has to do with GA. Over to you to explain how GA is involved as he is on the edge of the area scratching his kyber. They are nobs - sorry that should be knobs! gloryhornet4
  • Score: 2

8:45pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Watfordpete says...

tiger bay wrote:
Watfordpete wrote:
tiger bay wrote:
HornetJJ wrote:
Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man!
Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.
The laws say: 'Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:

- the distance between the offence and the goal
- the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- the direction of the play
- the location and number of defenders'

So the fact that Ekstrand was there too means, for me, this was not a red card offence (by virtue of the last point above).
3 out of 4 of your bullet points back the red card decision. .
"3 out of 4 of your bullet points back the red card decision. "

They all have to apply...
[quote][p][bold]tiger bay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Watfordpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tiger bay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HornetJJ[/bold] wrote: Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man![/p][/quote]Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.[/p][/quote]The laws say: 'Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity: - the distance between the offence and the goal - the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - the direction of the play - the location and number of defenders' So the fact that Ekstrand was there too means, for me, this was not a red card offence (by virtue of the last point above).[/p][/quote]3 out of 4 of your bullet points back the red card decision. .[/p][/quote]"3 out of 4 of your bullet points back the red card decision. " They all have to apply... Watfordpete
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Mon 20 Jan 14

tiger bay says...

Watfordpete wrote:
tiger bay wrote:
Watfordpete wrote:
tiger bay wrote:
HornetJJ wrote:
Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man!
Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.
The laws say: 'Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:

- the distance between the offence and the goal
- the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- the direction of the play
- the location and number of defenders'

So the fact that Ekstrand was there too means, for me, this was not a red card offence (by virtue of the last point above).
3 out of 4 of your bullet points back the red card decision. .
"3 out of 4 of your bullet points back the red card decision. "

They all have to apply...
Where does it say that??
[quote][p][bold]Watfordpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tiger bay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Watfordpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tiger bay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HornetJJ[/bold] wrote: Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man![/p][/quote]Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.[/p][/quote]The laws say: 'Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity: - the distance between the offence and the goal - the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - the direction of the play - the location and number of defenders' So the fact that Ekstrand was there too means, for me, this was not a red card offence (by virtue of the last point above).[/p][/quote]3 out of 4 of your bullet points back the red card decision. .[/p][/quote]"3 out of 4 of your bullet points back the red card decision. " They all have to apply...[/p][/quote]Where does it say that?? tiger bay
  • Score: 0

10:58pm Mon 20 Jan 14

matey_from_brighton says...

I know its not a court case but surely if the linesman has mistaken Fitz Hall for Angella when they clearly look very different, it throws doubt on what the linesman saw at all. The referee's actions back this up as he was running back to the half way line until the linesman caught his attention. What happened in the end with the yellow card that Eustace took by mistake for the other Derby player, did they give him a respective red? Certainly Saturdays ref was pretty inept, missed the 1st penalty completely, gave a penalty for a foul that didn't happen, failed to punish the "offender" for 2nd penalty with any consistency in comparison with the first. Some of these refs, just are not good enough at this level and speed of the game.
I know its not a court case but surely if the linesman has mistaken Fitz Hall for Angella when they clearly look very different, it throws doubt on what the linesman saw at all. The referee's actions back this up as he was running back to the half way line until the linesman caught his attention. What happened in the end with the yellow card that Eustace took by mistake for the other Derby player, did they give him a respective red? Certainly Saturdays ref was pretty inept, missed the 1st penalty completely, gave a penalty for a foul that didn't happen, failed to punish the "offender" for 2nd penalty with any consistency in comparison with the first. Some of these refs, just are not good enough at this level and speed of the game. matey_from_brighton
  • Score: 1

8:10am Tue 21 Jan 14

corbindallas says...

matey_from_brighton wrote:
I know its not a court case but surely if the linesman has mistaken Fitz Hall for Angella when they clearly look very different, it throws doubt on what the linesman saw at all. The referee's actions back this up as he was running back to the half way line until the linesman caught his attention. What happened in the end with the yellow card that Eustace took by mistake for the other Derby player, did they give him a respective red? Certainly Saturdays ref was pretty inept, missed the 1st penalty completely, gave a penalty for a foul that didn't happen, failed to punish the "offender" for 2nd penalty with any consistency in comparison with the first. Some of these refs, just are not good enough at this level and speed of the game.
Agree, further the FA will transfer the red regardless to try and save face, which clearly they have lost but then as we all know 2 wrongs do not make a right! By passing the onus onto clubs to sort this it is like saying we cocked up now do our job for us, mad.
[quote][p][bold]matey_from_brighton[/bold] wrote: I know its not a court case but surely if the linesman has mistaken Fitz Hall for Angella when they clearly look very different, it throws doubt on what the linesman saw at all. The referee's actions back this up as he was running back to the half way line until the linesman caught his attention. What happened in the end with the yellow card that Eustace took by mistake for the other Derby player, did they give him a respective red? Certainly Saturdays ref was pretty inept, missed the 1st penalty completely, gave a penalty for a foul that didn't happen, failed to punish the "offender" for 2nd penalty with any consistency in comparison with the first. Some of these refs, just are not good enough at this level and speed of the game.[/p][/quote]Agree, further the FA will transfer the red regardless to try and save face, which clearly they have lost but then as we all know 2 wrongs do not make a right! By passing the onus onto clubs to sort this it is like saying we cocked up now do our job for us, mad. corbindallas
  • Score: 0

8:22am Tue 21 Jan 14

Kismet110 says...

The referee and linesman make a complete hash of the whole thing yet the onus is on the obviously wronged party?

And to add insult to injury they expect the wronged player to snitch on a team mate who then may miss the chance to play against one of the top teams in Europe?

The FA are a joke and a shambles. To cap it all, if the club didn't appeal against someone else's gross incompetence then the club can get into trouble whilst the officials remain untouched?

The linesman saw the incident so you can't even just blame the referee. And if he saw it clearly he must have KNOWN which player was involved so why did he collude with the referee's buffoonery when the wrong player was sent off?

Sick of awful officials. Hopefully Angella will rightfully say I didn't see anything (just like the referee didn't) and red card rescinded with just a retro yellow for Hall.
The referee and linesman make a complete hash of the whole thing yet the onus is on the obviously wronged party? And to add insult to injury they expect the wronged player to snitch on a team mate who then may miss the chance to play against one of the top teams in Europe? The FA are a joke and a shambles. To cap it all, if the club didn't appeal against someone else's gross incompetence then the club can get into trouble whilst the officials remain untouched? The linesman saw the incident so you can't even just blame the referee. And if he saw it clearly he must have KNOWN which player was involved so why did he collude with the referee's buffoonery when the wrong player was sent off? Sick of awful officials. Hopefully Angella will rightfully say I didn't see anything (just like the referee didn't) and red card rescinded with just a retro yellow for Hall. Kismet110
  • Score: 2

8:43am Tue 21 Jan 14

matey_from_brighton says...

It should be that the referee made a mistake and sent of the wrong player. We appeal and the red card is rescinded, end of matter. If the FA are to transfer a red card to another player then while they are at it, why not look at the 2nd penalty, rescind the yellow for Almunia and "transfer" it to the only person in all this that has actually cheated i.e. Pugh. (providing FA see the indcident in this way of course).

It is completely ridiculous of course because now Watford can choose between who they most would like to have suspended/free to play, which opens up another can of worms. Imagine if one of the 2 players was on his last match of a loan spell, would we appeal if he was the one wronged? I think not. The FA are not fit for purpose of running football, instead of using simple logic they always cloud their decisions with seemingly a fear of media comment, financial considerations etc.
It should be that the referee made a mistake and sent of the wrong player. We appeal and the red card is rescinded, end of matter. If the FA are to transfer a red card to another player then while they are at it, why not look at the 2nd penalty, rescind the yellow for Almunia and "transfer" it to the only person in all this that has actually cheated i.e. Pugh. (providing FA see the indcident in this way of course). It is completely ridiculous of course because now Watford can choose between who they most would like to have suspended/free to play, which opens up another can of worms. Imagine if one of the 2 players was on his last match of a loan spell, would we appeal if he was the one wronged? I think not. The FA are not fit for purpose of running football, instead of using simple logic they always cloud their decisions with seemingly a fear of media comment, financial considerations etc. matey_from_brighton
  • Score: 3

9:30am Tue 21 Jan 14

yellowarmy23 says...

tiger bay wrote:
HornetJJ wrote:
Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man!
Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.
What complete hash. A shirt tug is not a sending off offence, a caution at most, except if it is the last man when the red car is awarded for it being that. A last man situation is what the ref has awarded it for HOWEVER he was not the last man as there were two players challenging and it was the tackle, not the tug on the shirt that stopped the player. You could argue that yes it was a penalty however seeing as according to the rules a shirt pull is still a foul. However harsh and silly it may seem.
[quote][p][bold]tiger bay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HornetJJ[/bold] wrote: Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man![/p][/quote]Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.[/p][/quote]What complete hash. A shirt tug is not a sending off offence, a caution at most, except if it is the last man when the red car is awarded for it being that. A last man situation is what the ref has awarded it for HOWEVER he was not the last man as there were two players challenging and it was the tackle, not the tug on the shirt that stopped the player. You could argue that yes it was a penalty however seeing as according to the rules a shirt pull is still a foul. However harsh and silly it may seem. yellowarmy23
  • Score: 1

10:05am Tue 21 Jan 14

bushey tales says...

I was sitting in the stand behind the goal, but over towards that linesman. There was clearly enormous uncertainty between ref and lino, with both the delay and body language suggesting they were listening to the 4th official through their earpieces. Does he have access to real-time video? (If yes, then he also wants shooting)
I was sitting in the stand behind the goal, but over towards that linesman. There was clearly enormous uncertainty between ref and lino, with both the delay and body language suggesting they were listening to the 4th official through their earpieces. Does he have access to real-time video? (If yes, then he also wants shooting) bushey tales
  • Score: 1

10:31am Tue 21 Jan 14

matey_from_brighton says...

bushey tales wrote:
I was sitting in the stand behind the goal, but over towards that linesman. There was clearly enormous uncertainty between ref and lino, with both the delay and body language suggesting they were listening to the 4th official through their earpieces. Does he have access to real-time video? (If yes, then he also wants shooting)
as far as i know even if he has access to real time video he is not allowed to use it. 4th official is not involved in the award of fouls etc. as far as i know.
[quote][p][bold]bushey tales[/bold] wrote: I was sitting in the stand behind the goal, but over towards that linesman. There was clearly enormous uncertainty between ref and lino, with both the delay and body language suggesting they were listening to the 4th official through their earpieces. Does he have access to real-time video? (If yes, then he also wants shooting)[/p][/quote]as far as i know even if he has access to real time video he is not allowed to use it. 4th official is not involved in the award of fouls etc. as far as i know. matey_from_brighton
  • Score: 1

11:18am Tue 21 Jan 14

SJM...laugh at luton says...

We are cheated every week by referees and F.A...

It's a joke
We are cheated every week by referees and F.A... It's a joke SJM...laugh at luton
  • Score: 2

2:25pm Tue 21 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

yellowarmy23 wrote:
tiger bay wrote:
HornetJJ wrote:
Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man!
Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.
What complete hash. A shirt tug is not a sending off offence, a caution at most, except if it is the last man when the red car is awarded for it being that. A last man situation is what the ref has awarded it for HOWEVER he was not the last man as there were two players challenging and it was the tackle, not the tug on the shirt that stopped the player. You could argue that yes it was a penalty however seeing as according to the rules a shirt pull is still a foul. However harsh and silly it may seem.
Spot on all of you. Watch the incident again this morning. HTF can a shirt tug (I assume around 14/16 yards out) with as we all see many players closer to the goal be a s/o offence.

I think refs get berated week in week out by Prem Lg managers making excuses for not winning, but we have seen first hand how incompetent they can be.

They had 2 minutes of deliberation to decide a clear goal scoring opportunity. That says it could not be clear in itself.

Smoke bomb etc. Can those around the idiot that is doing this - pick the Anthony Blunt up and hand him over to the police.
[quote][p][bold]yellowarmy23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tiger bay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HornetJJ[/bold] wrote: Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man![/p][/quote]Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.[/p][/quote]What complete hash. A shirt tug is not a sending off offence, a caution at most, except if it is the last man when the red car is awarded for it being that. A last man situation is what the ref has awarded it for HOWEVER he was not the last man as there were two players challenging and it was the tackle, not the tug on the shirt that stopped the player. You could argue that yes it was a penalty however seeing as according to the rules a shirt pull is still a foul. However harsh and silly it may seem.[/p][/quote]Spot on all of you. Watch the incident again this morning. HTF can a shirt tug (I assume around 14/16 yards out) with as we all see many players closer to the goal be a s/o offence. I think refs get berated week in week out by Prem Lg managers making excuses for not winning, but we have seen first hand how incompetent they can be. They had 2 minutes of deliberation to decide a clear goal scoring opportunity. That says it could not be clear in itself. Smoke bomb etc. Can those around the idiot that is doing this - pick the Anthony Blunt up and hand him over to the police. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 3

5:03pm Tue 21 Jan 14

tjohn says...

Do you not realise that any Watford player who goes within kicking distance of an opposition player, referee, assistant or the penalty area, is liable to be charged with dissent, sent off, hanged from the nearest crossbar or exiled to Antarctica. Appeal can mean it is referred up to Sep Blatta,and the penalty will be death.
Do you not realise that any Watford player who goes within kicking distance of an opposition player, referee, assistant or the penalty area, is liable to be charged with dissent, sent off, hanged from the nearest crossbar or exiled to Antarctica. Appeal can mean it is referred up to Sep Blatta,and the penalty will be death. tjohn
  • Score: 4

5:20pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Abbotshorn says...

Angella not on suspended list anymore, so available on Saturday, The FA should also give an extra point every time they admit a mistake, we were dis advantaged by a dosey ref so its only fair
Angella not on suspended list anymore, so available on Saturday, The FA should also give an extra point every time they admit a mistake, we were dis advantaged by a dosey ref so its only fair Abbotshorn
  • Score: 1

5:21pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Abbotshorn says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
yellowarmy23 wrote:
tiger bay wrote:
HornetJJ wrote:
Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man!
Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.
What complete hash. A shirt tug is not a sending off offence, a caution at most, except if it is the last man when the red car is awarded for it being that. A last man situation is what the ref has awarded it for HOWEVER he was not the last man as there were two players challenging and it was the tackle, not the tug on the shirt that stopped the player. You could argue that yes it was a penalty however seeing as according to the rules a shirt pull is still a foul. However harsh and silly it may seem.
Spot on all of you. Watch the incident again this morning. HTF can a shirt tug (I assume around 14/16 yards out) with as we all see many players closer to the goal be a s/o offence.

I think refs get berated week in week out by Prem Lg managers making excuses for not winning, but we have seen first hand how incompetent they can be.

They had 2 minutes of deliberation to decide a clear goal scoring opportunity. That says it could not be clear in itself.

Smoke bomb etc. Can those around the idiot that is doing this - pick the Anthony Blunt up and hand him over to the police.
with you on the flare idiot, it will end up costing us
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellowarmy23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tiger bay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HornetJJ[/bold] wrote: Even if the referee had sent off Fitz Hall I would expect the club to appeal it as he wasn't the last man![/p][/quote]Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about 'the last man' ..It WAS a foul and it WAS a red card. The ref just sent off the wrong man. The second penalty was a blatant dive but once the penalty was given there should have also been another red card. The ref got it wrong on many levels but NOT anything to do with it being(or not being) the last man.[/p][/quote]What complete hash. A shirt tug is not a sending off offence, a caution at most, except if it is the last man when the red car is awarded for it being that. A last man situation is what the ref has awarded it for HOWEVER he was not the last man as there were two players challenging and it was the tackle, not the tug on the shirt that stopped the player. You could argue that yes it was a penalty however seeing as according to the rules a shirt pull is still a foul. However harsh and silly it may seem.[/p][/quote]Spot on all of you. Watch the incident again this morning. HTF can a shirt tug (I assume around 14/16 yards out) with as we all see many players closer to the goal be a s/o offence. I think refs get berated week in week out by Prem Lg managers making excuses for not winning, but we have seen first hand how incompetent they can be. They had 2 minutes of deliberation to decide a clear goal scoring opportunity. That says it could not be clear in itself. Smoke bomb etc. Can those around the idiot that is doing this - pick the Anthony Blunt up and hand him over to the police.[/p][/quote]with you on the flare idiot, it will end up costing us Abbotshorn
  • Score: 1

7:36pm Tue 21 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

tjohn wrote:
Do you not realise that any Watford player who goes within kicking distance of an opposition player, referee, assistant or the penalty area, is liable to be charged with dissent, sent off, hanged from the nearest crossbar or exiled to Antarctica. Appeal can mean it is referred up to Sep Blatta,and the penalty will be death.
John, I think you forgot to mention such leniency is only for a first offence.

Being a Watford player is like being a cabbie and your first fare is Leslie Grantham.
[quote][p][bold]tjohn[/bold] wrote: Do you not realise that any Watford player who goes within kicking distance of an opposition player, referee, assistant or the penalty area, is liable to be charged with dissent, sent off, hanged from the nearest crossbar or exiled to Antarctica. Appeal can mean it is referred up to Sep Blatta,and the penalty will be death.[/p][/quote]John, I think you forgot to mention such leniency is only for a first offence. Being a Watford player is like being a cabbie and your first fare is Leslie Grantham. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree