I though the booking for Taylor was a worse decision. Crosses the ball in front of the keeper but get booked for timewasting when a AFCW player has kicked the ball into the stand unpunished earlier on.
Had a look on a better screen. Deffo a bad (cardable) foul. But whether it is red comes down to judgments we ask refs to make, and there are several cans of worms stacking up
- timing. Very first foul of the game, 45 seconds. Henry is right that a foul is a foul whenever it happens. BUT if you red card so early, you have changed the nature of the spectacle people paid to come and watch. So you gotta be damn sure. I give Kettle credit for speaking with the lino, but I'd much prefer the 4th official running VAR with slo-mo. Especially because it's Kettle, see below
- the conditions. Should Kettle have taken them into account more? I think so, especially as it was the first challenge of the whole game
- the size of Naby, aka, if it had been Chris Solly, would Kettle have only gone for yellow? And if so is that reasonable? Where does that take us?
- consistency. This is what gets us all wound up, and why I strongly support VAR, to improve it. People have remembered that it was Kettle who only gave a yellow for that appalling tackle on Grant Basey at Bristol Rovers. I wonder if somewhere there is video of it, it was on Sky, otherwise I would not have seen it. The question for Kettle is, are you happy that refs throughout the game will take that as a precedent for red cards for similar tackles in the first 10 minutes of a game? And have you, Mr Kettle, changed your mind about what is a red card tackle since the Basey incident?
Not really valid points.
We don't have VAR but he spoke to another official with a better view. That was all he could do.
The conditions yes but first challenge shouldn't be a factor. Do we give all teams a "free one" in the first couple of minutes?
The size of Naby? What has that got to do with it? Big assumption that two officials both judged it differently due to his bulk on no evidence. You then ask it that was reasonable and where does that take us? Nowhere because it was your baseless assumption of his motives.
Consistency, yes he was inconsistent in not sending of Blizzard for the foul on Basey but that doesn't make the Sarr decision wrong, it makes the Blizzard decision wrong. Making a mistake 7 years ago???. How does that alter the validity of his decision yesterday.
I missed it at the game, replay is inconclusive from that angle. Inconclusive from that, so I'd go orange maybe... but there's no consistency anyway hence why we were shouting "off!" every time Wimbledon fouled.
I'd be surprised if we appeal it unless there's a very good view on the replay.
Further to this, I know it may cause some disagreements but to me there really isn’t much difference between Sarr’s and Thompson’s on Taylor in midweek. In fact I would argue that Thompson’s was more out of control and had excessive force.
Thompson played yesterday for Portsmouth as it was rescinded. On that basis, I see no reason as to why Sarr’s also cannot be rescinded and he be available for next Saturday.
Further to this, I know it may cause some disagreements but to me there really isn’t much difference between Sarr’s and Thompson’s on Taylor in midweek. In fact I would argue that Thompson’s was more out of control and had excessive force.
Thompson played yesterday for Portsmouth as it was rescinded. On that basis, I see no reason as to why Sarr’s also cannot be rescinded and he be available for next Saturday.
I didn't know that. FFS.
I didn't think it was worth an appal but this changes everything. The AFCW guy stayed on the pitch, right? Charlton need to appeal and send in photos of Lyle's foot.
Not a red. I was in line with the foul in the East Stand and thought it was one-footed, studs not really showing, fast from a big guy, and definitely really late. It was worthy of a yellow, and when considering it was the first minute of a game (because as has been alluded to, you're setting a standard for the next 89 minutes), I thought red was the wrong decision.
After viewing a replay:
Literally just watched it. Opinion doesn't change. You can tell he's trying to minimise force/speed actually with the bend in his trailing leg.
Holistically it was always going to be a red. An incident after one minute is the same as after 89 minutes.
I agree with this, and I am perpetually shocked at some of the things players get away with in the first 10-15 minutes.
I don't know, I just don't think it's that bad of a challenge. I don't think his studs are up, or up over the ball, but the replay angle makes it difficult. I don't think he's out of control. It is a lunge, but I don't know that it's massively dangerous.
I will say this, I understand why the referee gives it. He does the right thing and consults the linesman. And they will have had a better angle than I did. But again, going from the replay it just doesn't look that awful.
Happened right in front of where I was sitting,you just cannot dive in like that anymore regardless of conditions and time of event.Sarr has been a red card waiting to happen having several times this season lunged after balls he has lost control of.
Happened right in front of where I was sitting,you just cannot dive in like that anymore regardless of conditions and time of event.Sarr has been a red card waiting to happen having several times this season lunged after balls he has lost control of.
That's true.
Didn't Bow tell Naby before season starts that he "needs to get more nasty" ? That order may have had unintended consequences.
The reaction of the opposition swayed the refs decision,calling for a stretcher as if its a broken leg, which i thought at the time by their reactions, but no, number 2 gets up and completes the game, with no limping.
Double standards against us everyone would want a red
Except I called the red in the last game as not a red.
In this one it wasn't either. At that time in a game, given the conditions it should have been a yellow at worst.
Exactly the point I made in my rant earlier in this thread.
So if the incident happens in the 2nd half it's okay to send Sarr off but because it's within the 1st minute he shouldn't be sent off?
I remember last season at home to Shrewsbury in the 0-2 league game a Shrews player hacked down someone I can't remember who on the edge of the box on the left side and didn't even get booked for it. Guaranteed 2nd half it would have been a yellow but because it was about 5 mins into the game he got away with it. Justice was served though as the offending player then had to go off injured following that foul.
Drifting away from the point I know but my point is a foul is a foul no matter if it's 10 seconds into a game or 10 seconds from the end the punishment should be consistent. I thought it should have been a yellow but if refs are going to dish out cards consistently then I expect to see 3 or 4 yellows by half time instead of the 0 or 1 we usually see. It won't happen though.
It’s not a great camera angle to be definitive but from what you can see I think a player should not be surprised at being dismissed for that sort of challenge.
You can't go in recklessly, smashing a player up in the air and risking breaking his ankle or leg and complain at getting a red card.
We'd be foolish to appeal and if we do I'm confident we will lose, which tells you all you need to know.
PS should we have another poll, asking opinions if that foul was on a Charlton player ?
Well the nearest thing to Sarr's challenge was the Pompey card in midweek, I felt a red card was harsh then too. Was Sarr's red any worse than the Pompey red in midweek?
You can't go in recklessly, smashing a player up in the air and risking breaking his ankle or leg and complain at getting a red card.
We'd be foolish to appeal and if we do I'm confident we will lose, which tells you all you need to know.
PS should we have another poll, asking opinions if that foul was on a Charlton player ?
Well the nearest thing to Sarr's challenge was the Pompey card in midweek, I felt a red card was harsh then too. Was Sarr's red any worse than the Pompey red in midweek?
Maybe not but at Pompey both players were going for the ball. Not the case yesterday.
He doesn't appear to leave the ground, good old fashioned slide tackle and account should have been taken of the conditions. I'd never have made half time back in the day, just saying like .
You can't go in recklessly, smashing a player up in the air and risking breaking his ankle or leg and complain at getting a red card.
We'd be foolish to appeal and if we do I'm confident we will lose, which tells you all you need to know.
PS should we have another poll, asking opinions if that foul was on a Charlton player ?
Well the nearest thing to Sarr's challenge was the Pompey card in midweek, I felt a red card was harsh then too. Was Sarr's red any worse than the Pompey red in midweek?
Maybe not but at Pompey both players were going for the ball. Not the case yesterday.
Come on @leuth I know you love Sarr even more than you love collecting flags but no need to flag people for that : - )
Not sure if this has been mentioned but I think the criticism of Kettle is slightly harsh as it was definitely the linesman that called it a red. Still a shite ref admittedly.
Why would you say that if you didn't want to imply Sarr was not going for the ball? Obviously the Wimbledon player went for the ball because he won it. Aaaargh
Comments
We don't have VAR but he spoke to another official with a better view. That was all he could do.
The conditions yes but first challenge shouldn't be a factor. Do we give all teams a "free one" in the first couple of minutes?
The size of Naby? What has that got to do with it? Big assumption that two officials both judged it differently due to his bulk on no evidence. You then ask it that was reasonable and where does that take us? Nowhere because it was your baseless assumption of his motives.
Consistency, yes he was inconsistent in not sending of Blizzard for the foul on Basey but that doesn't make the Sarr decision wrong, it makes the Blizzard decision wrong. Making a mistake 7 years ago???. How does that alter the validity of his decision yesterday.
I'd be surprised if we appeal it unless there's a very good view on the replay.
Thompson played yesterday for Portsmouth as it was rescinded. On that basis, I see no reason as to why Sarr’s also cannot be rescinded and he be available for next Saturday.
I didn't think it was worth an appal but this changes everything. The AFCW guy stayed on the pitch, right? Charlton need to appeal and send in photos of Lyle's foot.
Not a red. I was in line with the foul in the East Stand and thought it was one-footed, studs not really showing, fast from a big guy, and definitely really late. It was worthy of a yellow, and when considering it was the first minute of a game (because as has been alluded to, you're setting a standard for the next 89 minutes), I thought red was the wrong decision.
After viewing a replay:
Literally just watched it. Opinion doesn't change. You can tell he's trying to minimise force/speed actually with the bend in his trailing leg.
Not a red for me.
An incident after one minute is the same as after 89 minutes.
I don't know, I just don't think it's that bad of a challenge. I don't think his studs are up, or up over the ball, but the replay angle makes it difficult. I don't think he's out of control. It is a lunge, but I don't know that it's massively dangerous.
I will say this, I understand why the referee gives it. He does the right thing and consults the linesman. And they will have had a better angle than I did. But again, going from the replay it just doesn't look that awful.
Didn't Bow tell Naby before season starts that he "needs to get more nasty" ? That order may have had unintended consequences.
In this one it wasn't either. At that time in a game, given the conditions it should have been a yellow at worst.
Sorry ref I slipped
So if the incident happens in the 2nd half it's okay to send Sarr off but because it's within the 1st minute he shouldn't be sent off?
I remember last season at home to Shrewsbury in the 0-2 league game a Shrews player hacked down someone I can't remember who on the edge of the box on the left side and didn't even get booked for it. Guaranteed 2nd half it would have been a yellow but because it was about 5 mins into the game he got away with it. Justice was served though as the offending player then had to go off injured following that foul.
Drifting away from the point I know but my point is a foul is a foul no matter if it's 10 seconds into a game or 10 seconds from the end the punishment should be consistent. I thought it should have been a yellow but if refs are going to dish out cards consistently then I expect to see 3 or 4 yellows by half time instead of the 0 or 1 we usually see. It won't happen though.
You can't go in recklessly, smashing a player up in the air and risking breaking his ankle or leg and complain at getting a red card.
We'd be foolish to appeal and if we do I'm confident we will lose, which tells you all you need to know.
PS should we have another poll, asking opinions if that foul was on a Charlton player ?