I believe both yellow and red cards can be challenged, obviously depending on circumstances, but reds can be challenged if evidence suggests the ref got it wrong, which he did imo.. It's only a 1 match ban, and hopefully we should be able to beat Rotherham convincingly, but that false red goes on Pontus's record for the rest of season...
Apologies JA, I think you're right regarding appealing yellow cards. The FA / FL can apparently rescind a yellow card, but this would mean an appeal of some kind. Also read where a red recieved after 2 yellows cannot be appealed, not sure that is correct at this moment in time. I know the FA/FL are changing rules every season, but I think a wrongfull red can be appealed still, even if it's after 2 yellows.......
I've seen many posts from numerous people on here over this, and whilst I agree that the ref was very poor, and his decisions seemed to favour Stoke over ourselves, not all his actions in regards to the incident with Pontus were incorrect. Firstly I'm with those of you who said they didn't really see an infringement, however I've also heard from many other Leeds fans who have said they saw Pontus touch the ball with his hand, some say he punched it away etc, thus if fans of the club have interpreted this incident 3 different ways, then I would say its easy to see how the ref could interpret it as an infringement ( even if in my mind at least his interpretation was incorrect). I also think given how the game played out, the ref was waiting for Pontus to commit a further offence in his view at least to enable him to book him once more, and thus this is why this particular booking can look soft when looked in isolation by another referee. So having got the incident out of the way ( doesnt matter whether we agree with the ref or not about the infringement, that's covered above), the ref waves play on as he believes that the Stoke player is in control of the ball, and thus he wants to let them have the advantage .The laws of the game state the official can halt play even after allowing an advantage, if within a short time of that decision the ref deems that no actual advantage was gained. "Within a short time" is suggested as being approximately 5 seconds, although as with the majority of the rules of the game there is no definitive figure, and thus is open to the interpretation of the match officials. From the time of Pontus falling to the ground, and the ref signalling that he was allowing the advantage, to the ball ending with BPF, was between 3 and 4 seconds, thus the ref was entitled to interpret that no advantage was gained and thus blow for the free kick. ( again just to clarify, I don't agree with the decision, but the rules of the game allow that interpretation). As for the booking of Pontus, once the ref has decided there was an infringement, it makes no difference whether he gave Stoke the free kick, or allowed them to play the advantage, they could have even gone and scored, the Ref would still be entitled to book Pontus ( and thus send him off) Just to clarify, I thought the match officials were very poor and inconsistent, and as a Leeds fan, I felt his decisions were mainly in favour of Stoke. I failed to see a foul by Pontus that led to his sending off, but as much as I hate to say this, the refs subsequent decisions regarding this specific incident were in accordance with the rules of the game. Rule 5 of the laws of the game concerns referees, and has a small section within there about allowing the advantage https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_5_the_referee_en_47411.pdf
I can see your point Morbid, and the rules are for the ref to interpret them as he sees the game, he can also use his discretion. In the highlights, I see Pontus already falling down due to being off balance. I didn't see where Pontus handballed the ball, but the camera angle can be deceiving. Also, the commentator said Pontus tried to impede the player by trying to drag the other player down, I couldn't see any evidence of that at all. The incident starts around 5-45 mins, so people can analyse it if thy wish to do so.
No one seems to have mentioned that the first yellow card was totally down to Pontus not keeping his mouth shut. Had he done so the second yellow he picked up wouldn’t have mattered.
Perhaps he is sick of the one sided refs we are getting this season. The ones who let the cloggers off and then book ours for being annoyed with it. Look back at forest game ref was terrible.
I was right in line with it (with the Stoke fans ) and he definitely hand balled it, only for a split second. It was as if Jansson thought to himself "oh **** I've already been booked and the player's getting through anyway"
Looked like the stoke player touch was shyte so the biased ref gave him another go. Makes you understand the anti leeds and feck the F. L. views and chants.
Yeh, bookings for dissent whilst understandable are unforgivable. Means one mistake and you’re off. If he handled it as forza said then there are no complaints... not sure what he was doing in the first place, the ball to him was an easy cut out he misjudged. But hey Pontus wears his heart on his sleeve so is above reproach! I like him and rate him, but both him and cooper have been culpable for several goals recently.
Others have come out and said it was for handling. Very good analysis! I have refereed here in the US for 19 years and attend training and classes every month, mostly 2 per month. Two quick points: 1) from the camera angle, we could not see a foul. I have heard the analyses, seen the referee explain to Ayling with a forward motion of the forearm (which could handling or a push) and the conclusion it was handling. So given we could not see it, could it have been trifling, I.e., so slight it really made no difference, and thus should not have been called? 2) regarding the advantage - yes, the referee has the ability to allow it and if there is no advantage, to then award the free kick. However, it is also not intended to be a get out of jail free card, for the player who messes up the advantage. We talk about not giving a second bite of the apple.
So in your interpretation Jonny. Given afobe had a clear advantage but then had a poor touch enabling bpf to smother and make the save... the ref shouldn’t have gone back. I think this is where fans get confused. Could he have let play go on and then not gone back for the free kick... but still booked Jansson? Recall refs playing advantage and then booking people at the next break in play... however I also recall an incident in the Brentford (I think) game (where Ayling was sent off) one of their guys made a bad foul when on a yellow and the ref played advantage and didn’t go back.
It was a very, very slight split second touch Jonny, and didn't hinder the striker's forward momentum.
Milky, if the ref wanted to book Pontus for that incident, then it doesnt matter whether an advantage is played or not. As I said earlier the Stoke player could have rounded BPF, scored to make it 2-0, and the ref could still have booked Pontus. The ref signaled to the players on the pitch that there was an infringement but was allowing play to continue, which means that the ref should deal with the player who caused the offence at the first opportunity when the ball is no longer in play, which is this case, was when the ref blew to give the free kick after deciding that Stoke didnt have an advantage. Now of course the ref could've just spoken to Pontus, and said next time he will be booked, or just allowed play to continue with no further caution. The situation is exactly the same as if he blew the whistle for a foul straight away, the advantage situation is a red herring, with regards to the booking. Which then brings us to the Brentford issue that you mentioned. To be honest, I didn't think the ref played an advantage, I thought he signaled that play should continue as he didnt interpret the challenge as a foul ( yet another decision I disagreed with), but even if he did play the advantage, he doesnt have to go back and book the player who caused the offence ( and yes we all know the guy should have been sent off, and the Ref decision was just made worse when he later sent Ayling off). Again, as I said in my previous comment, in the game against Stoke I felt that the ref was looking for an opportunity to send Pontus off, and it was at best a very soft booking, and the decision to book him was probably due to an amalgamation of incidents/issues rather than for that specific offence.
I'm not disagreeing with you LL, other than to say in that game, it was unlikely that the ref would use any discretion in favour of one of our players, and most certainly not if Pontus was involved. I saw the incident as just a tussle with Pontus losing his footing and nothing more, and hence I didnt consider it a foul, however other Leeds fans have seen more, and if the ref has then interpreted Pontus' actions in the same way, then everything that followed, from initially allowing the advantage, to calling the play back to give the free kick and then dealing with the offending player as the ref sees fit, was done correctly
Agree with everything you have written here and above, other than bringing the ball back for the FK. Forward had control of the ball and had a bad a touch. I do think the FK was for a trifling offense and thus shouldn't have been called to begin with, but that's the way it goes sometimes.
