The FA's decision to uphold that red card is fucking ridiculous

( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 9:42, 3 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

Agreed

( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 9:43, Reply)

It would be
If it hadn't happened to QPROFL

In all seriousness, if they've actually reviewed it and said it was the correct decision, everyone outside of Sussex might as well give up hope of their team winning the league ever.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 9:45, Reply)

www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/10/qpr-shaun-derry-manchester-united
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 9:48, Reply)

I love how this makes more news than the fact that Balotelli's assault on Song
isn't worthy of an FA charge.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 9:51, Reply)

Isn't that because it was noticed at the match, or something?
www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/10/mario-balotelli-song-challenge
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 9:53, Reply)

so, in case people hadn't noticed, was Derry's "challenge"
yet people still think it should be overturned. One of them was a dubious decision that almost certainly had no bearing on the result of a game that Man U were totally in control of. One was a piece of physical assualt that could have ended a player's season if not career. Way for people to maintain a sense of perspective about the FA appeals process, don't you think?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:00, Reply)

I disagree with both decisions, as I think the contact from Derry was so utterly mininal that it shouldn't even count
However, as you say, there was contact, so there can't really be any argument against that. The Balotelli thing not being fully addressed it absolutely disgraceful, but I'm glad that Ivanovic is getting charged.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:03, Reply)

I'm with you on both decisions being poor
for certain. But the only reason that Derrys could be recinded is if there was clear evidence there was no contact, and he definitely touches him. Incidentally, it was about the same amount of contact as Brad Jones on Yakubu for the second Blackburn pen last night and no-one is whining about that, either, despite it being a gold-plated example of going down like you've been fucking shot.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:10, Reply)

I certainly agree with you on that one, twas a very odd incident indeed.

( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:16, Reply)

it's particularly amusing
when you consider the size of Yakubu's arse, and the fact that it would take a fucking landmine to bring the boy down in reality.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:19, Reply)

Same with Drogba though, yet he still manages it
Never understood that, in the middle of the pitch, he's one of the strongest in the league, yet get him within sight of the goal, and a fucking fly could take him off his feet.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:23, Reply)

see also: Gareth "fucking" Bale
and his instant inner-ear infection when he gets into the opposition box.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:28, Reply)

Yep

( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:30, Reply)

although, just for balance and fairness
Ashley Young is a terrible fucking diver, I'm not denying that.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:32, Reply)

Haha, fair enough!

( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:35, Reply)

Don't be a dick.
It's exactly the same as DRS. There has to be grounds to say it's an incorrect decision. Tell me what they are? (they aren't reviewing the offside, because they can't. So that doesn't matter)
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 9:49, Reply)

OK, why are they not reviewing the offside?
Surely thathas to be a part of it? If the correct call had been made in the first place it wouldn't have been a red card unless Derry had "done a Keane" and scythed him in two.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 9:52, Reply)

of course it's not part of it.
it's two separate decisions. if you could review offside, then Wigan could demand a review of the two goals Chelsea scored.

They are reviewing whether there is CLEAR evidence that there was no foul. There isn't. You can argue all you like for "going down too easily" but Derry touched him, therefore the red stands as long as the ref stands by his interpretation that Derry is the last man and it's a clear goalscoring opportunity.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 9:57, Reply)

How can it not be a part of it?
No-one has suggested reviewing offside goals because the FA will have no truck with it, and rightly so. Results have to stand regardless of errors made, once they start being retrospectively fucked with we might as well all give up. But this is QPR asking if an erroneous red card can be overturned because it was wrong on two counts. Why should only one of those counts be reviewed?
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:01, Reply)

Because you are reviewing the referee's decision
not the linesmans. Being offside doesn't make it any less of a foul, so incidentally it's a penalty whether he's offside or not, but it's not a red card if he's offside because there's no goalscoring opportunity to deny.

But you can't appeal the failure to give offside, because it's a separate decision. Think of it this way - ball goes out of play but linesman doesn't see it. play goes on, ball hoofed to striker who is brought down by keeper, straight red. Do you seriously think for one second the FA would consider an appeal on the grounds that there should have been a throw-in a minute before, which would have prevented the red card happening? Of course not. It's the same situation but with a much smaller time interval, so it can't be appealed in that way. I didn't say I thought it was fair, but those are the rules. It isn't the FA being pricks, those are just the rules. It's QPR that are idiots for not knowing.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:06, Reply)

Being offside doesn't make it less of a foul, but it does mean the foul wouldn't be given
The point is that the linesman made a bad call - and it's not like Young was marginally offside, he was a good two yards - and if he'd made it correctly then the seriousness of the foul wouldn't have mattered because it couldn't have been given.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:11, Reply)

no, it could be given.
if you trip a player coming back from offside it'd still be a pen. The only cast-iron reason that him being offside would prevent the foul being given is if he'd touched the ball whilst offside before Derry fouled him. Since he didn't it's down to the vagueness of interpreting the offside law.

I do think he should have been given offside, and that should have prevented the foul mattering. But it doesn't have to. He can be in an offside position, be fouled, and be awarded a penalty without technically the linesman or the ref being incorrect.

But that's all irrelevant. You can argue all you like, there was no way for that decision to be overturned on appeal, and QPR are fucking idiots for not knowing that.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:16, Reply)

I dunno
Even if they were unfamiliar with the fact that the linesman's decision can't be reviewed - and I wasn't, and see no reason why it shouldn't be - Derry really didn't do enough to send Young tumbling like that. Minimal contact or no, the correct decision was a yellow card for simulation. You can't blame them for thinking that a review and some replays might prove that
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:24, Reply)

it's only simulation if there's no contact.
I don't like it any more than you, but Derry touched him, so the decision is foul or not, you can't book a player for "going down too easily"

yet, anyway. You never know your luck.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:27, Reply)

Er, you CAN book a player for going down too easily
Obviously in an ideal world this only happens when there's no contact at all. I agree that the FA couldn't award a retrospective booking to Young based on this principle but the correct on-field decision would have been to determine that Derry hardly touched him and Young was looking for it.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:32, Reply)

can you?
since when? I thought it had to be "simulation". Which means there has to be no contanct.

Not denying that you're right about the onfield decision, although Young couldn't really have been booked, but no penalty. But that's not what I was talking about, I was just pointing out why there was no way it would be overturned.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:36, Reply)

Referee's call isn't it?
Even with contact simulation can occur. Cases liek Carroll v Newcastle, where's it's just embarrassingly obvious, are few and far between. I see what you mean as regards the FA overturning a decision on this basis, but perhaps they should assess whether the "foul" was really worthy of a penalty and therefore a red card, which it palpably wasn't. I appreciate this brings it more into the arena of opinion than is desirable.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:42, Reply)

Oh Christ, that Carroll thing was fucking hideous.
The less said about the entirety of that game the better.

Including the offside goal, the penalty, James Perch going down like he was shot, etc
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:45, Reply)

As I texted you at the time
Liverpool were utterly kippered in that game, but Carroll is a fucking idiot for going down when it was easier to score
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:49, Reply)

I think it could have been an altogether different game if he'd even tried to score, or maybe laid it off to Gerrard, who was on his way in
Instead, the spastic dives, and things went even further downhill from there.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:54, Reply)

I think you're right there
Dispirits the whole team. No excuse for all the bad decisions but from that point on the momentum was with Newcastle.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:58, Reply)

Definitely

( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:59, Reply)

it's impossible
I mean, you and I both know 95% that Young could have stayed on his feet. But we can't be absolutely sure, because there was contact, maybe he was really off-balance, who knows for sure? So the ref's decision about whether it's worth a foul only goes as far as giving the foul or not, it can't be used to retrospectively decide anything.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:48, Reply)

The question will be asked though
Why is it that when reviews are conducted that they operate on such a basis? Contact or no, that wasn't a penalty. The referee may well have been influenced by various factors such as his view of the incident, appeals from players or the crowd; surely the point of reviewing is to provide an impartial, unaffected decision. Whilst there was contact I can't believe that anyone watching that replay thought it was a penalty. Surely that's all that should matter?

Please let me stress that I'm not arguing with you, I agree that your assesment of the situation is correct.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:53, Reply)

It's like the DRS stuff
if it's down to "interpretation" they'll go with the original decision. They are looking for cast-iron proof. And, like I said, you can only be 95% certain that contact didn't make Young go down.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 11:20, Reply)

Bollocks.
There was contact. Yep, he went down way too easily, but on what grounds are you going to reverse the decision? referee's interpretation of whether it's a red offence or not? Can't overrule on that. It's almost as if QPR don't have the faintest fucking idea how appeals work. Oh, wait...
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 9:48, Reply)