Delph's dismissal

[Ads]

Players conning referees doesn't help. They're pathetic the way they feign injury, but they do it to gain an advantage because they're reaction works. See Ashley Young, see that Sunderland gimp.

[Dave]

I haven't seen a single genuinely neutral report that doesn't suggest it was very harsh but on here you'd think it was at best a 50/50 one that probably deserved a red, I really don't understand it

The majority of responses as I've read it is that a yellow card probably would have been fair and more in line with other similar challenges but his stupidity in making THAT tackle in THAT place at THAT time means that he can't complain about it being red.
 
The average neutral report isn't going to bother with the last bit, because it's a partisan sentiment because they obviously don't care who wins so they don't really care about whether a player's action has a detrimental affect on their team.

More a case of punishment for a lack of forethought rather than punishment for the tackle itself.

but a ref shouldn't be thinking like that, it was a poor challenge in a 'safe' situation but it was still only a yellow

Sorry if I'm being clear but that's not what I mean. I was addressing your point as to why fans are more likely to judge him more harshly than neutrals would.

We, as fans think that he deserve it for his lack of sense shown and how it impacts the team where a neutral isn't going care about how it might affect our chances of winning the match.

[paul_e]

Oh I got that, as I pointed out, it's the overreaction in some of the comments where they're trying to make out it was a lot worse than it actually was.  Call it a stupid challenge and him an idiot for making it, but don't make stuff up to make the challenge sound worse than it was to justify to yourself that it was entirely the players fault and the ref had no choice but to give the red.  Any time you feel the need to exaggerate how bad a tackle was to square it up as a red then it suggests that deep down you know it was only a yellow but you're angry that we had 10 men and want to blame the player for it.

All this comes back to Lambert again though I'm afraid.  We've had a lot of bookings since he took over because of players lunging in (we've also conceded a lot of free kicks that have punished us) and a run of red cards was always likely to come as a result of that at some point.  He's had enough time to work with the players to make them a  bit more 'savvy' and it just hasn't happened, this is just another symptom of the lack of training ground improvements in the squad.

[Gareth]

Appeal failed, personally I think we are lucky not to be hit with an extended ban for a frivolous appeal as it was the refs opinion not an outright mistake like Agbonlahor's.

[Toronto Villa]

As a gauge if opinion on here is split suggesting that it could have been seen differently than the initial outcome then how was the appeal frivolous?

[Richard E]

Let's face it, whatever the merits of it we were never going to have two successive red card appeals upheld.

[Gareth]

As a gauge if opinion on here is split suggesting that it could have been seen differently than the initial outcome then how was the appeal frivolous?

Because appeals are for incorrect decisions, the colour of card might have been harsh in some eyes but to reverse a refs call their has to be conclusive evidence he was wrong/missed something. 

[PeterWithesShin]

Reads to me like we tried to get the 3 game ban reduced rather than get the red card rescinded.

[Gareth]

We have had a rough trot with decisions no doubt, Swarbricks ineptness in not sending off Vertonghen / Mason / Soldado but giving Benteke a red - Gabby's red were awful calls.

No doubt Sterling won't get charged with his face slap last night, which was exactly the same as Benteke's and missed by the ref - that will really annoy

[Toronto Villa]

As a gauge if opinion on here is split suggesting that it could have been seen differently than the initial outcome then how was the appeal frivolous?

Because appeals are for incorrect decisions, the colour of card might have been harsh in some eyes but to reverse a refs call their has to be conclusive evidence he was wrong/missed something. 

Frivolous would mean that we were wasting the FA's time in making an appeal because the decision was so definite that it should not have been appealed at all. There mere fact that even you acknowledge that the card might have been harsh suggests the panel might have had the same thoughts making the decision to appeal worthwhile if ultimately unsuccessful.

[lovejoy]

Just watched MOTD, so first time to see it back, and can see why it was a red although the one by Clint Hill for QPR just before was equally as bad and only got a yellow. That inconsistency is why these things will always be disputed.

The fact that other refs got certain other decisions right or wrong doesn't make it any less of a red card.

Well it does if you don't agree that it was a red in the first place and the argument others are flagging is that 'it's a red these days', clearly not.

[Gerrin]

Does Blackpool count as one of the games?

[Legion]

Yes.

[brian green]

This has become a very interesting thread.   A troll buster if you will.
The argument is layered.   The first or upper layer is "Did that which Delph did merit a red card?" taken as an act in isolation.   The second layer is "Do the circumstances of the act increase or reduce the justification of a red card?" (for example does a rash challenge to try to stop a goal merit a red card any more or any less than a rash challenge in an unthreatening situation?) And the third, and most ethical layer is "When a player gets a red card who exactly is being punished for his misdemeanor?"   Certainly not the player.   The punishment is meted out to the rest of his team (much more hard effort) the club (potential for points lost) and the fans (increased probability of yet another horrible game).   Thus I think there is a case as PWS put it for the card being merited for sheer fuckwittery.

[dave shelley]

To try and help with clarification (if needed):

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred
(see Law 13 – Position of free kick).

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the
following seven offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)
• 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
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

The crux of all this lies in the part of the first sentence that has been emboldened.