Derby red card

Agree with this, it wasn’t dangerous play either so need for a red.

 

I know it's Derby and because of that we shouldn't give a flying one, but that incident sums up what I hate about modern football. Yes, the referee called it awfully as per usual, but where is the vitriol for the Wednesday player? There is no way to sugar coat it - he cheated. Pure and simple. He felt a brief hand on his arm and threw himself to the ground. It's fcking cheating and it's ruining the game.

I know, it's Derby. But there's a wider picture. The powers that be need to do something to focus on this. Whether we like them or not, Derby's whole season has just turned there on the actions of a blatant cheat. That's not right.

I don't know what the answer is. Retrospective bans? Reciprocal punishments, i.e. you tried to cheat a penalty so one will be awarded against you? You tried to get a player sent off so you are getting sent off? Dunno. But do something!

 

****** ****!

 

As it was judged a foul and he made no effort to play the ball then yes, it is a red card according to the rules.

 

Exactly this. I'm sick of cheating.

 

What gets me is, you look at some other decisions given (at Wednesday today) and just want to scream about how crap the officials are.

 

No it isn't. Players tug shirts all the time and stay on the pitch. Kitching rode on the back of a player a while back and didn't get sent off

 

Sums up Wednesday for me. Tinpot as ever.
I mean I thought they were massive and Champions League elect? So why they resort to cheating - every. Single. Match. - I do not know.

*edit - it's because they're small, tinpot lower league fodder and they can't accept reality.

 

Because cheating gets more results than not cheating. It’s why we had been on the wrong end of so much of it this season. Wrongly we don’t do enough of it.

 

Just shows how good we are tbh

 

I agree it was a harsh penalty. The point I'm making is that given he was judged to have fouled the player, a red card was inevitable because he made no attempt to play the ball.

 

That isn't a rule. Liam Kitching got a piggy back on the opposition players back. He made no attempt to play the ball. Got a yellow card.
Players make deliberate fouls every week and get yellow cards.

 

Retrospective red card for me, they took action against McGheehan after looking at video evidence, do the same here.

 

But deliberate fouls will still incur a red card.

Those include holding, pulling or pushing, not playing the ball, serious foul play, violent conduct or deliberate handball in order to deny a goalscoring opportunity.

 

Bit like the Peterborough keeper today? Doubt he will get done retrospectively.

 

It seems to be part of the game now sadly, 'winning' free kicks and pens by blatant cheating/diving.
The game has become win at all costs now, and cheat if you have to!.

 

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

 

There were covering players. It wasn't an obvious goalscoring opportunity so doesn't apply.

 

Since that incident (approx 4 years ago), I bet you can count on one hand all retrospective red cards across all the divisions, despite conclusive video evidence.

 

Depends on your interpretation of "obvious" I suppose. I'd say that an attacking player having the ball in the opponent's penalty area is a goal scoring opportunity and that anyone with experience of the game knows it's a goal scoring opportunity so therefore it's "obvious" - it's self-evident that such a situation is a goal scoring opportunity.

However, 'obvious' in such situations tends to get interpreted as 'easy' and people speak about the number of defenders between the offence and the goal. If that's what the law means, fair enough, but it doesn't say easy it says obvious and there is no mention of how many covering defenders are present.

I don't think it's a red card as I don't think it should be a penalty. The defender touches the attacking player but not enough to bring him down. The attacking player dives. It's very similar to the Cotter incident. The defender touches Cotter but not enough to bring him down. Cotter doesn't dive and wins the header. I don't think that's a penalty either but everyone else seems to.

If the Wednesday/Derby incident is a foul then is it a sending off? Yes following the laws of the game as they're written, no following the usual interpretation. But I have a feeling the usual interpretation is just something made up by pundits on MOTD and then often repeated.