Decision upheld by the FA.
Someone please explain why? Is this more FA anti Rangers bias post FFP?
Someone please explain why? Is this more FA anti Rangers bias post FFP?
Neds red card
- Thread starter stick
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Firstly, FFP is nothing to do with the FA. That is in the hands of The Football League (or whatever they call themselves now).
Secondly, there was never a chance of winning the appeal. All the referee had to state was that in his oppinion it ws a foul & prevented a goal scoring opportunity & the sending off would stand.
I'm a little surprised that an extra game wassn't added to the suspension as a frivolous appeasl!
I don't think it should have been a sending off, but all that mattered was whether the referee would admit to making a mistake.
Secondly, there was never a chance of winning the appeal. All the referee had to state was that in his oppinion it ws a foul & prevented a goal scoring opportunity & the sending off would stand.
I'm a little surprised that an extra game wassn't added to the suspension as a frivolous appeasl!
I don't think it should have been a sending off, but all that mattered was whether the referee would admit to making a mistake.
Surely its the referees opinion that you are bringing in to question when you make the appeal. Otherwise how would so many other red cards get rescinded?
It wasnt a foul and surely any idiots watching a video replay can see that the ref got it wrong!?!?
No, it basically has to be CLEARLY a refereeing error (only one view required. Any other viewing or change of angle would disqualify it being clearly), wrong identity ot the referee admitting to a mistake.
You may feel that it was clearly an error & I agree with you. However, the chances that an appeals panel would take that view was always very doubtful.
It all comes under the heading of supporting the match officials. This normally applies even if they have been completely wrong.
You may feel that it was clearly an error & I agree with you. However, the chances that an appeals panel would take that view was always very doubtful.
It all comes under the heading of supporting the match officials. This normally applies even if they have been completely wrong.
I think on these type of appeals the ref is asked to view the incident and asked whether he would change his decision. Clearly he did not and the panel seem to have endorsed that. Looking after their own...
Sadly, yes, the referee didn't make a "mistake". With the view he had (from behind) he couldn't see that Baldock crashed into Ned and came off second best. Don't know where the linesman was - surely one of them would have been up with play to assess offside. The benefit of a TV replay from the other side of the collision showed quite clearly that the referees view wasn't the important one. However, agreeing with me would add weight to the suggestion we use TV replays (like Rugby Union) to review important decisions when the ball is dead. I don't think it is something the authorities want.
Still, at least Ned will get a rest tomorrow...
I suspect that Sandro will be named as centre half, with Perch & Bidwell as full backs.
It's a wrong decision that I have a feeeling will have a positive effect - my opinion on Onouha as a proffesional footballer and captain of a football team has always been a very negative one. This might inspire someone to rise to the challenge and provide some "cojones" to this team, let's remember, this Wolves side are absolute dog shyte - if we do not win tomorrow we really are heading South.
I think we win
I think we win
If that's the case then the ref has guessed what's happened. If he couldn't see it he shouldn't give it. It's a shocking refereeing performance, he should be struck off.
Seven players now not available for tomorrow
http://footballleagueworld.co.uk/queens-park-rangers-give-injury-update-ahead-of-vital-wolves-clash/
http://footballleagueworld.co.uk/queens-park-rangers-give-injury-update-ahead-of-vital-wolves-clash/
The problem with TV replays (which I am broadly in favour of) in a case such as this, is that there has to have been a cleat-cut error by the on-pitch official for a decision to be overturned. Could a TMO have said conclusively that there was not a foul by Onuoha? Or that, given that there was a foul, it wasn't denying a goal-scoring opportunity? Don't get me wrong, I think It was a ludicrous decision, but incidents like these are largely down to interpretation.
It's hard to get it right at the best of times. In this case, maybe a TMO would have said "It's not conclusive who fouled who, so give the foul (because you have blown up and stopped play now) but don't card the player" or (if it was me) "the forward barged into the defender first, so give the free kick the other way". It was a big call, either way, and the ref didn't have the best view to make the best decision, nor the linesman.
It helps if the TMO and the ref on the field can both see the TV footage. Then the ref (as in big RU matches) has the chance to change his mind before the TMO tells him he might have made the wrong decision.
Wouldn't it also be nice if the TMO could bring the refs attention to off-the-ball violence, etc.?
I have been thinking the same if Lynch isn't ready. Have an idea Sandro has played there before. But then maybe Henry could fill in there. Or perhaps one of Development squad.