Interestingly, Mr Whitehouse, who sent off our Ben, also sent off Plymouth 'keeper Larrieu in his last visit to Brisbane Road. He doesn't support Crystal Palace and Exeter City, does he?
Don't know why we are appealing against it.? It was definetly a red card.
Simples....
Well it was at best a 50-50 call on the part of the ref. Most sensible refs given those odds would elect not to ruin the game after 6 mins and would probably give the keeper the benefit. But TV replays appear to show he was right and so there is no chance of it being overturned.
Presumably it is just a convenient delaying tactic which will mean he misses the FA cup rather than Brentford?
Don't know why we are appealing against it.? It was definetly a red card.
Simples....
Well it was at best a 50-50 call on the part of the ref. Most sensible refs given those odds would elect not to ruin the game after 6 mins and would probably give the keeper the benefit. But TV replays appear to show he was right and so there is no chance of it being overturned.
Presumably it is just a convenient delaying tactic which will mean he misses the FA cup rather than Brentford?
That's my gripe. Shouldn't referees and the football authorities think about the fans and endevour to ensure that they get value for money, as in seeing a fair game of 11 v 11, unless it is completely unavoidable. Ruining the game after five minutes with a borderline decision is showing a complete lack of respect to the very people who fund the sport. Paying 23 pounds in these times is hard enough for many fans, but when you've travelled halfway around the world to see your team as I have, and the game is then killed after 5 minutes, it's hard to take.
If the referee sent of Ben for deliberate handball, then yes it was a straight red. But the ref sent him off for denying a goal scoring opportunity. Morrison was covering. That is why we have appealed I think.
However I still reckon the red card will remain in place.
Not sure I agree with that. Are refs supposed to apply one rule after 6 minutes and another after, say 60? Everyone is always bleating on about consistency and that's what the ref did here. It was Hamer's fault to run out like an idiot for a ball he had no chance of getting and when Mooney was going nowhere. The appeal is on the basis that it was handball but there was no clear goalscoring opportunity. Maybe that is the case but I will be very surprised if the red is rescinded. I just hope he doesn't get a second game ban for a frivolous appeal.
Don't know why we are appealing against it.? It was definetly a red card.
Simples....
Well it was at best a 50-50 call on the part of the ref. Most sensible refs given those odds would elect not to ruin the game after 6 mins and would probably give the keeper the benefit. But TV replays appear to show he was right and so there is no chance of it being overturned.
Presumably it is just a convenient delaying tactic which will mean he misses the FA cup rather than Brentford?
That's my gripe. Shouldn't referees and the football authorities think about the fans and endevour to ensure that they get value for money, as in seeing a fair game of 11 v 11, unless it is completely unavoidable. Ruining the game after five minutes with a borderline decision is showing a complete lack of respect to the very people who fund the sport. Paying 23 pounds in these times is hard enough for many fans, but when you've travelled halfway around the world to see your team as I have, and the game is then killed after 5 minutes, it's hard to take.
Unfortunately, the referee has to treat every incident on its own merit be it in the 4th minute or the 84th minute. What if a player smacks another player in the face in the 2nd minute? Does the referee turn a blind eye because it might spoil the game as a spectactle for the paying crowd? The referee's duty is to apply the laws of the game from the 1st minute to the 90th and yes it was a kick in the teeth but I doubt the crowd having to pay £23 in tough economic times and how far they have had to travel to Orient crossed his mind when showing Hamer the red card.
Oh and the appeal is totally futile. I can tell you now it was not be overturned.
I don't think it was "definitely a red". The ball hit Hamer on the chest, and then bounced onto his left arm. So it definitely wasn't deliberate (which I think the ref has admitted), and I don't see as how it can be construed as preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity when the ball was bouncing off his chest. He didn't help his cause by having his arms up though.
Hamer was also so close to the edge of the area when the ball hit him that I had to watch the replays from a couple of angles before I thought that he was probably just over the line, so I don't see how the ref could have been so sure from his angle. I don't think that the linesman flagged at all.
Don't know why we are appealing against it.? It was definetly a red card.
Simples....
Well it was at best a 50-50 call on the part of the ref. Most sensible refs given those odds would elect not to ruin the game after 6 mins and would probably give the keeper the benefit. But TV replays appear to show he was right and so there is no chance of it being overturned.
Presumably it is just a convenient delaying tactic which will mean he misses the FA cup rather than Brentford?
That's my gripe. Shouldn't referees and the football authorities think about the fans and endevour to ensure that they get value for money, as in seeing a fair game of 11 v 11, unless it is completely unavoidable. Ruining the game after five minutes with a borderline decision is showing a complete lack of respect to the very people who fund the sport. Paying 23 pounds in these times is hard enough for many fans, but when you've travelled halfway around the world to see your team as I have, and the game is then killed after 5 minutes, it's hard to take.
Unfortunately, the referee has to treat every incident on its own merit be it in the 4th minute or the 84th minute. What if a player smacks another player in the face in the 2nd minute? Does the referee turn a blind eye because it might spoil the game as a spectactle for the paying crowd? The referee's duty is to apply the laws of the game from the 1st minute to the 90th and yes it was a kick in the teeth but I doubt the crowd having to pay £23 in tough economic times and how far they have had to travel to Orient crossed his mind when showing Hamer the red card.
Oh and the appeal is totally futile. I can tell you now it was not be overturned.
Well the ref when Van Den Hauw smacked Sean Newton appeared to do exactly that...
There's a chance the assistant spoke to ref through their mike system and confirmed it was outside. After all the assistant would be completely the other side of the field of play and maybe not a credible distance to flag. What I'm saying is a flag from the assistant from that distance (3/4 of the width of the pitch) may not be welcomed by the ref whereas a discreet confirmation via the mike that it was outside would probably be better. Once the keeper comes flying out with his arms up and it hits him there's a chance that'll be interpreted as deliberate as the arms are in an unnatural position. It was definitely a rush of blood by Hamer and I do not blame the ref for sending him off seeing as the goal was gaping. Would Morrison have got there? That's a point to debate.
Don't know why we are appealing against it.? It was definetly a red card.
Simples....
Well it was at best a 50-50 call on the part of the ref. Most sensible refs given those odds would elect not to ruin the game after 6 mins and would probably give the keeper the benefit. But TV replays appear to show he was right and so there is no chance of it being overturned.
Presumably it is just a convenient delaying tactic which will mean he misses the FA cup rather than Brentford?
That's my gripe. Shouldn't referees and the football authorities think about the fans and endevour to ensure that they get value for money, as in seeing a fair game of 11 v 11, unless it is completely unavoidable. Ruining the game after five minutes with a borderline decision is showing a complete lack of respect to the very people who fund the sport. Paying 23 pounds in these times is hard enough for many fans, but when you've travelled halfway around the world to see your team as I have, and the game is then killed after 5 minutes, it's hard to take.
Unfortunately, the referee has to treat every incident on its own merit be it in the 4th minute or the 84th minute. What if a player smacks another player in the face in the 2nd minute? Does the referee turn a blind eye because it might spoil the game as a spectactle for the paying crowd? The referee's duty is to apply the laws of the game from the 1st minute to the 90th and yes it was a kick in the teeth but I doubt the crowd having to pay £23 in tough economic times and how far they have had to travel to Orient crossed his mind when showing Hamer the red card.
Oh and the appeal is totally futile. I can tell you now it was not be overturned.
Well the ref when Van Den Hauw smacked Sean Newton appeared to do exactly that...
I can only assume somehow he didn't see it. Awful decision and I was at that game. That you simply cannot defend and a shame it was before the time of post match punishing as PVDH would have banned for ever and a day.
Many are saying it was a very close call. What I am saying is that given that it was so early in the game, and the consequences of sending off the keeper would likely ruin the game, as it did, then the ref should consider the fans and give Hamer the benefit of the doubt, rather than ruin the game. Of course if someone deliberately goes "over the top" or smacks someone in the face, they should be sent off whether it be in the first or 90th minute. I have no problem with that at all. Hamer was wrong to rush out, but you can't say he deserved to be sent off simply because he made a misjudgement. If the ball had hit him squarly in the chest, people would be saying he made a brave and good judgement. Too many bookings and far too many sendings off these days, I'm sure most fans would much rather see a game of 11 v 11. I don't even like seeing opposing players sent off, because they pack their defence and sit back. It inveriably ruins the game.
Very good points actually. If you look at football 20 years ago there are far less red cards than there are now. I remember being a kid at games and a red card was a once in a blue moon occurrence. Now they're a common sight. The laws have been tightened to kick out violent and foul play and professional fouls. Namely those fouls and handballs that deny obvious goalscoring opportunities to promote goals and attacking play. I do agree it ruins games as spectacles but players know the risks and Hamer must have known he was walking a tightrope by rushing out like that. A red card was always a possibility.
I think the FA will just look at whether the shot was goalbound which it was. Then ask how would a covering defender reach the speed of the ball after the shot has been taken. This crappy connection on the strike will be ignored me tinks.
This is getting quite bizarre. Charlton have now appealed, the ref apparently having admitted that he wasn't sent off for deliberate handball (the ball having hit his chest first, then onto his arm). He was instead sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity! WTF, since when was a goalkeeper not allowed to deny a goal scoring opportunity? So he didn't handball it, his crime was to stop a forward from scoring. Sorry, all this Hamer shouldn't have been there is totally irrrelevent, you can't send someone off just because they made a misjudgent, rightly or wrongly he made the judgement to come out early and try to reach the ball before the forward. Once there it's what he does that matters, he didn't chop the forward down and now according to the ref he didn't deliberately handball it. SO WHY THE HELL DID HE SEND HIM OFF?
I know the refs on here will say otherwise but from my angle, the ref made a 'bad' decision. I am sure refs will tell you that the linesman that gives offside when the player is offside by 1cm has made the correct decision. To me its wrong because your eye/brain combination are just not good enough to make the call accurately. In those cases 'no decision' is the correct decision. In the Hamer case the linesman did not flag therefore he did not see it as handball outside the area. Forget the mike link - that's a red herring. Therefore the decision was left to the ref. If he saw it as ball hitting outstretched arm then its potentially a red card. He was certainly in no position to say 100% whether it occured outside the area. The ball actually struck Hamer half on his chest and half shoulder/top of arm. You cannot get that part of your body out of the way - its like your head or your navel it aint gonna move! So the ref guessed that it was outside the area and that it hit an outstretched arm. Therefore the ref got it wrong! We paid for it in the match - we shouldn't pay for the wrong decision after the match. The appeal is correct.
However, the appeal decision is not about right and wrong or justice, its about protecting referees so it will fail. Also, isn't the rule that red cards take effect 7 days after the event to allow for an appeal if it occurs, thus preventing clubs from choosing the affected match ?
This is getting quite bizarre. Charlton have now appealed, the ref apparently having admitted that he wasn't sent off for deliberate handball (the ball having hit his chest first, then onto his arm). He was instead sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity! WTF, since when was a goalkeeper not allowed to deny a goal scoring opportunity? So he didn't handball it, his crime was to stop a forward from scoring. Sorry, all this Hamer shouldn't have been there is totally irrrelevent, you can't send someone off just because they made a misjudgent, rightly or wrongly he made the judgement to come out early and try to reach the ball before the forward. Once there it's what he does that matters, he didn't chop the forward down and now according to the ref he didn't deliberately handball it. SO WHY THE HELL DID HE SEND HIM OFF?
I think he's saying that Hamer DID handball it, but not deliberately - thus the sending off was for an accidental handball which denied a gaolscoring opportunity. And yes, you can send someone off for making a misjudgement - if they misjudge their tackle, for example.
Well the ref when Van Den Hauw smacked Sean Newton appeared to do exactly that...
Ok hands up all the old people here who know what Algarve is on about. Sadly I do.
After the game Mick McCarthy saw the incident on video, said "ouch" , and then went into speak to the press and said "I haven't seen the collision between the two players".....
When we played Bristol Rovers on Sky the other year, their player took out our left back 38 secs, any other time in the game he would have got a straight red for the tackle, however all he got was a yellow.
Also I don't think the ref could see Hamer when the ball hit him as I think there where players in the way. As Mooney appealed for hand ball and the ref went with the appeal and therefore sent him off.
This is getting quite bizarre. Charlton have now appealed, the ref apparently having admitted that he wasn't sent off for deliberate handball (the ball having hit his chest first, then onto his arm). He was instead sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity! WTF, since when was a goalkeeper not allowed to deny a goal scoring opportunity? So he didn't handball it, his crime was to stop a forward from scoring. Sorry, all this Hamer shouldn't have been there is totally irrrelevent, you can't send someone off just because they made a misjudgent, rightly or wrongly he made the judgement to come out early and try to reach the ball before the forward. Once there it's what he does that matters, he didn't chop the forward down and now according to the ref he didn't deliberately handball it. SO WHY THE HELL DID HE SEND HIM OFF?
I think he's saying that Hamer DID handball it, but not deliberately - thus the sending off was for an accidental handball which denied a gaolscoring opportunity. And yes, you can send someone off for making a misjudgement - if they misjudge their tackle, for example.
That's why I said "Once there it's what he does that matters". Simply making a misjudgement in coming out when he shouldn't have is not in it's self a punishable offence.
Is accidental handball an offence? It isn't if a defender accidently handles in the area thus denying a goal bound shot. Any refs out there???
If you have your arms & hands not in their normal position, then yes it is. Hamer had his arms up.
Yes, he could have got a yellow, it was probably a 50/50 decision.
However, it was foul play & the ref judged that the foul play stopped a goal scoring opportunity.
I'm afraid, he shouldn't only show a yellow, because 5 mins had gone instead of 25 mins & there may be someone in the crowd in attendance who has travelled from Australia.
On that basis we'd never lose an Ashes series in Australia,as long as the Barmy Army are in attendance :-)
Foul play for what ? If it wasn't DELIBERATE handball then it wasn't even an infringement. If it wasn't an infringement then what was the whistle blown for ? You can't give a free kick for a non infringement.
Comments
Simples....
Presumably it is just a convenient delaying tactic which will mean he misses the FA cup rather than Brentford?
Lets hope the FA don't see it as a 'delaying tactic' and add another game meaning Hamer misses Fulham and Wednesday.
The appeal is on the basis that it was handball but there was no clear goalscoring opportunity. Maybe that is the case but I will be very surprised if the red is rescinded. I just hope he doesn't get a second game ban for a frivolous appeal.
I don't think it was "definitely a red". The ball hit Hamer on the chest, and then bounced onto his left arm. So it definitely wasn't deliberate (which I think the ref has admitted), and I don't see as how it can be construed as preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity when the ball was bouncing off his chest. He didn't help his cause by having his arms up though.
Hamer was also so close to the edge of the area when the ball hit him that I had to watch the replays from a couple of angles before I thought that he was probably just over the line, so I don't see how the ref could have been so sure from his angle. I don't think that the linesman flagged at all.
It was a red card and Hamer should have known where the edge of the penalty area was.
Not the first time he has been caught in no mans land though is it.
Well the ref when Van Den Hauw smacked Sean Newton appeared to do exactly that...
Hamer was wrong to rush out, but you can't say he deserved to be sent off simply because he made a misjudgement. If the ball had hit him squarly in the chest, people would be saying he made a brave and good judgement. Too many bookings and far too many sendings off these days, I'm sure most fans would much rather see a game of 11 v 11. I don't even like seeing opposing players sent off, because they pack their defence and sit back. It inveriably ruins the game.
However, the appeal decision is not about right and wrong or justice, its about protecting referees so it will fail. Also, isn't the rule that red cards take effect 7 days after the event to allow for an appeal if it occurs, thus preventing clubs from choosing the affected match ?
And yes, you can send someone off for making a misjudgement - if they misjudge their tackle, for example.
Also I don't think the ref could see Hamer when the ball hit him as I think there where players in the way. As Mooney appealed for hand ball and the ref went with the appeal and therefore sent him off.
Worth a read
If you have your arms & hands not in their normal position, then yes it is. Hamer had his arms up.
Yes, he could have got a yellow, it was probably a 50/50 decision.
However, it was foul play & the ref judged that the foul play stopped a goal scoring opportunity.
I'm afraid, he shouldn't only show a yellow, because 5 mins had gone instead of 25 mins & there may be someone in the crowd in attendance who has travelled from Australia.
On that basis we'd never lose an Ashes series in Australia,as long as the Barmy Army are in attendance :-)