This is depressing. I'd much rather the ref had got it spot on and Hamer made the mistake. If the ref really did make some bizarre sending off decision and we win the appeal, then all it's doing is showing how flawed football is. We're not getting that game back. We had to play 85+ minutes with 10 men, and it's a killer to morale to go a man down so early, particularly when it's your keeper who goes. And what will we get out of it? At most an acknowledgement that we've been done. Fantastic, cheers ref.
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.
I might be wrong, but it doesn't have to be deliberate. If it hits your hand/arm when your hand/arm is not by your side the ref can give a free kick. IE you can jump with your hands in the air & a free kick can be given, even if you didn't deliberately handle. Same with tackles, you can foul someone without it being deliberate, just mistimed. It happens every match.
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.
What a load of rubbish. If it was the other way round and you'd paid £23 and the Orient keeper was allowed to stay on to give everyone an opportunity to see a 11 v 11 game you'd be screaming mad saying it's a disgrace, you pay your money & the ref should apply the laws not pander to those paying money.
Anyway, surely 11 men of Orient v 10 men of Charlton made it a fairer game anyway considering your respective positions & squads?
I have not seen it back on any replays but when at the ground it was as blatant a sending off as there could be. Keeper comes charging out of his area with his hands in the air, ball hits him in the arm - whilst I am not convinced Mooney would have scored because he is shit the ref can't take into account the quality of the player just the quality of the opportunity to score.
If that was the other end and Wright Phillips bearing down on their keeper we would all be going nuts about the decision if onlya yellow card had been given.
Hamer's fault - don't blame the ref for ruining a game so early, blame Hamer for his mistake...then move on.
I can't stand this argument that sending someone off "ruins the game".
No it doesn't. It made the game on Saturday harder and less enjoyable for Charlton fans, but I'm sure the Orient fans found it quite entertaining.
The only time a sending off ruins the game as a spectacle is when the team being penalised is already a considerably weaker side and so the chance of a giantkilling is effectively snuffed out. Quite a rare occurrence.
I've seen so many games where the ten men rally and perform above themselves in the face of adversity - certainly not a ruined game. I've also seen many games where the eleven men take advantage of their fortune and give a masterclass - also not a ruined game. Then there are all those other games where the eleven men win out, but unconvincingly, or where they fail to take full advantage - maybe not a great spectacle, but you surely can't blame that on the sending off?
The constantly spouted "truth" that "everybody agrees, we want to see 11 v 11" is just bollocks. We want to see good football, yes, but that includes people being correctly ejected for actions that aren't allowed. By all means, argue about whether it's a sending off offence or not, but the time elapsed should never be a consideration for the ref in making this decision.
I tend to agree with your view however it would seem from comments above that the ref did not send him off for deliberate handball which I think is debatable although understandable but for preventing a goal scoring opportunity which I think where the real doubt comes in.
Like I say, havn't seen the replays but to me at the time it was a goal scoring opportunity and whether handball was deliberate or not, if you come out of your area with your hands waving in the air then it really is your fault.
We have a lot of bad refs at this level, don't think we should have a pop at one who made the right decision just because it went against us.
No doubt I will now see a replay and completely disagree with myself though :-)
Sorry Covered end. In this case you are wrong. It must be deliberate under law 12
Maybe that is the law but it isn't the way we see games refereed each week. If ever a player has his arms anywhere but by his side and the ball strikes one of them then he is penalised whether it is deliberate or not. The only difference being if it's deliberate it will almost certainly be followed by a card, if not it will just be a freekick.
Have just seen the incident for the first time & going through it frame by frame it's impossible to say whether Hamer was even out of his area at the time of the infringment. When the ball was lofted forward he ran out to the edge of his area & I think he was aware of where the line was. He jumped as mooney played the ball & to me his momentum took him a step outside. Unless he's 100% sure he shouldn't send him off just because mooney appeals. I think that this was a very harsh decision
Sorry Covered end. In this case you are wrong. It must be deliberate under law 12
Maybe that is the law but it isn't the way we see games refereed each week. If ever a player has his arms anywhere but by his side and the ball strikes one of them then he is penalised whether it is deliberate or not. The only difference being if it's deliberate it will almost certainly be followed by a card, if not it will just be a freekick.
That may well be the case but if so then the law of the game is being applied incorrectly. The law says it must be deliberate and there is no room for interpretation other than the ref deciding if it was deliberate or not. Read the link I posted up the page. It's very educating.
I think that what the referee is saying (if indeed he actually said anything at all) is that he wouldn't have sent Hamer off just for the handball outside the penalty area. He would have simply awarded a free kick or at worst given him a yellow card. But he gave him the red card for denying Moooney a goalscoring opportunity. It's quite simple really. There is NO chance that this will be overturned.
Sorry if this has been brought up already, but if we're in agreement that it WASN'T a clear goalscoring opportunity then can someone tell me how what Hamer did was any different to what Jaaskelainen did when we played Bolton at the Valley in 2003(?)?
If I were the FA I would back the ref in this instance, which is what I reckon will happen. The rights and wrongs are open to debate of course, but the principle of supporting the ref is strong with the FA, and the circumstances are such that it is easy to construct a case that the ref was right.
Sorry Covered end. In this case you are wrong. It must be deliberate under law 12
Maybe that is the law but it isn't the way we see games refereed each week. If ever a player has his arms anywhere but by his side and the ball strikes one of them then he is penalised whether it is deliberate or not. The only difference being if it's deliberate it will almost certainly be followed by a card, if not it will just be a freekick.
That may well be the case but if so then the law of the game is being applied incorrectly. The law says it must be deliberate and there is no room for interpretation other than the ref deciding if it was deliberate or not. Read the link I posted up the page. It's very educating.
I have read parts of it. The rules are not being adhered to then, although I think this unwritten rule of ball striking arms when being away from your side = foul is good and hope they stick to it.
Sorry Covered end. In this case you are wrong. It must be deliberate under law 12
But with his arms in the position they where, it could hardly be an accident.
Try running fast towards someone who is running equally as fast towards you, without putting your arms up before impact. I doubt you'd be able to do so.
Sorry Covered end. In this case you are wrong. It must be deliberate under law 12
But with his arms in the position they where, it could hardly be an accident.
Try running fast towards someone who is running equally as fast towards you, without putting your arms up before impact. I doubt you'd be able to do so.
Agreed and under those circumstances the referee could easily interpret that as arms being in a natural position ie instinctive rather than deliberate which is of course the key word. In such an interpretation it could be deemed as no infringement occurred.
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.
What a load of rubbish. If it was the other way round and you'd paid £23 and the Orient keeper was allowed to stay on to give everyone an opportunity to see a 11 v 11 game you'd be screaming mad saying it's a disgrace, you pay your money & the ref should apply the laws not pander to those paying money.
Anyway, surely 11 men of Orient v 10 men of Charlton made it a fairer game anyway considering your respective positions & squads?
Sorry Mr Millwall fan, but you're the one talking rubbish. Read what I said again. I don't want to see any opposing players sent off, we always struggle to break down teams with ten men. 11 v 10 might be survivable with twenty minutes gone, but we had to play 90 odd minutes inclusive of injury time. If both teams had walked onto the pitch 10 v 11 at the start, would that produce a fair match?
Having watched it frame by frame, it is inconclusive as to whether Hamer was outside the box or not. So, was it the lino that gave it? In which case, was he trying to make up for it when he flagged Smith offside?
You get good luck and bad luck over the course of a season, let's hope it's our turn to get some luck today!
This is depressing. I'd much rather the ref had got it spot on and Hamer made the mistake. If the ref really did make some bizarre sending off decision and we win the appeal, then all it's doing is showing how flawed football is. We're not getting that game back. We had to play 85+ minutes with 10 men, and it's a killer to morale to go a man down so early, particularly when it's your keeper who goes. And what will we get out of it? At most an acknowledgement that we've been done. Fantastic, cheers ref.
It matters to Hamer who will have a suspension over-turned and to Charlton who might not have to sign a keeper on a short-term loan. Also what if Hamer is legitimately sent off later in the season? If that happens then the second suspension becomes longer as it'll be his second of the year.
Personally I thought it wasn't a red card offence - the ball appeared to hit Hamer's chest and then deflected onto his upper arm. The referee might not have seen it that way so I can understand why he made the decision.
Anyway, this is directed at SHG. I have now had time to read through the link you posted on page 1 relating to handball. Whilst it is far from straightforward, I still think I'm right & Hamer had to go.
Yes, your link talks about it having to be deliberate, but it also says if you have your arms/hands in an unnatural position, that is the same as being deliberate. The only time it's not handball is if the ball hits your arm/hand & it wasn't deliberate & they are in a natural position. Also, which surprised me you can instictively handball without it being an offence, if you are protecting yourself, such as face or your bits, as long as you are not guiding the ball to your advantage.
Therefore, Hamer handballing outside the area, is treated the same as any other player. If any player handles the ball with his arms up like he did, then it must be handball, if it hit his arm/hand.
It was foul play/handball & the ref also judged that it prevented a goalscoring opportunity & therefore it is a red card.
Having watched the replay, it is possible that Mooney's shot could have gone in & therefore Hamer may have well prevented a goal scoring opportunity.
Watching the replay on live TV I thought that the referee got it badly wrong.
The ball hit Hamer on the chest first and then on the underside of his left arm, there was no attempt from Hamer to play or block the ball with his arm as such, the ball simply hit him there.
My view is that this sort of offence should earn a sin bin for 10 mins rather than a red card which totally ruins the game.
Watching the replay on live TV I thought that the referee got it badly wrong.
The ball hit Hamer on the chest first and then on the underside of his left arm, there was no attempt from Hamer to play or block the ball with his arm as such, the ball simply hit him there.
My view is that this sort of offence should earn a sin bin for 10 mins rather than a red card which totally ruins the game.
There is no sin bin. You can't just make it up. His hands were raised in an unnatural position. If it hit his arm in that position it's handball. If it prevented a goalscoring opportunity, it's a red card.
Watching the replay on live TV I thought that the referee got it badly wrong.
The ball hit Hamer on the chest first and then on the underside of his left arm, there was no attempt from Hamer to play or block the ball with his arm as such, the ball simply hit him there.
My view is that this sort of offence should earn a sin bin for 10 mins rather than a red card which totally ruins the game.
There is no sin bin. You can't just make it up. His hands were raised in an unnatural position. If it hit his arm in that position it's handball. If it prevented a goalscoring opportunity, it's a red card.
Sorry Covered End, I disagree. His hands may have been raised but the ball didn't hit either of his hands.There is no law that says you can't raise your hands when jumping. To do so gives you more elevation. I saw it as Ormiston did. The shot didnt go in because it was a poor weak shot. I expect the FA won't agree because they always give refs the benefit of the doubt. But we are absolutely right to appeal.
Comments
I might be wrong, but it doesn't have to be deliberate. If it hits your hand/arm when your hand/arm is not by your side the ref can give a free kick. IE you can jump with your hands in the air & a free kick can be given, even if you didn't deliberately handle. Same with tackles, you can foul someone without it being deliberate, just mistimed. It happens every match.
Off to The Valley now.
Anyway, surely 11 men of Orient v 10 men of Charlton made it a fairer game anyway considering your respective positions & squads?
Ok
I have not seen it back on any replays but when at the ground it was as blatant a sending off as there could be. Keeper comes charging out of his area with his hands in the air, ball hits him in the arm - whilst I am not convinced Mooney would have scored because he is shit the ref can't take into account the quality of the player just the quality of the opportunity to score.
If that was the other end and Wright Phillips bearing down on their keeper we would all be going nuts about the decision if onlya yellow card had been given.
Hamer's fault - don't blame the ref for ruining a game so early, blame Hamer for his mistake...then move on.
No it doesn't. It made the game on Saturday harder and less enjoyable for Charlton fans, but I'm sure the Orient fans found it quite entertaining.
The only time a sending off ruins the game as a spectacle is when the team being penalised is already a considerably weaker side and so the chance of a giantkilling is effectively snuffed out. Quite a rare occurrence.
I've seen so many games where the ten men rally and perform above themselves in the face of adversity - certainly not a ruined game.
I've also seen many games where the eleven men take advantage of their fortune and give a masterclass - also not a ruined game.
Then there are all those other games where the eleven men win out, but unconvincingly, or where they fail to take full advantage - maybe not a great spectacle, but you surely can't blame that on the sending off?
The constantly spouted "truth" that "everybody agrees, we want to see 11 v 11" is just bollocks. We want to see good football, yes, but that includes people being correctly ejected for actions that aren't allowed.
By all means, argue about whether it's a sending off offence or not, but the time elapsed should never be a consideration for the ref in making this decision.
I tend to agree with your view however it would seem from comments above that the ref did not send him off for deliberate handball which I think is debatable although understandable but for preventing a goal scoring opportunity which I think where the real doubt comes in.
@ShootersHillGuru
Like I say, havn't seen the replays but to me at the time it was a goal scoring opportunity and whether handball was deliberate or not, if you come out of your area with your hands waving in the air then it really is your fault.
We have a lot of bad refs at this level, don't think we should have a pop at one who made the right decision just because it went against us.
No doubt I will now see a replay and completely disagree with myself though :-)
That may well be the case but if so then the law of the game is being applied incorrectly. The law says it must be deliberate and there is no room for interpretation other than the ref deciding if it was deliberate or not. Read the link I posted up the page. It's very educating.
Yellow at best, Morrison was in to cover.
If I were the FA I would back the ref in this instance, which is what I reckon will happen. The rights and wrongs are open to debate of course, but the principle of supporting the ref is strong with the FA, and the circumstances are such that it is easy to construct a case that the ref was right.
We deal with it and move on.
Agreed and under those circumstances the referee could easily interpret that as arms being in a natural position ie instinctive rather than deliberate which is of course the key word. In such an interpretation it could be deemed as no infringement occurred.
You get good luck and bad luck over the course of a season, let's hope it's our turn to get some luck today!
It matters to Hamer who will have a suspension over-turned and to Charlton who might not have to sign a keeper on a short-term loan. Also what if Hamer is legitimately sent off later in the season? If that happens then the second suspension becomes longer as it'll be his second of the year.
Personally I thought it wasn't a red card offence - the ball appeared to hit Hamer's chest and then deflected onto his upper arm. The referee might not have seen it that way so I can understand why he made the decision.
There's nothing like a good debate.
Anyway, this is directed at SHG. I have now had time to read through the link you posted on page 1 relating to handball. Whilst it is far from straightforward, I still think I'm right & Hamer had to go.
Yes, your link talks about it having to be deliberate, but it also says if you have your arms/hands in an unnatural position, that is the same as being deliberate. The only time it's not handball is if the ball hits your arm/hand & it wasn't deliberate & they are in a natural position. Also, which surprised me you can instictively handball without it being an offence, if you are protecting yourself, such as face or your bits, as long as you are not guiding the ball to your advantage.
Therefore, Hamer handballing outside the area, is treated the same as any other player. If any player handles the ball with his arms up like he did, then it must be handball, if it hit his arm/hand.
It was foul play/handball & the ref also judged that it prevented a goalscoring opportunity & therefore it is a red card.
Having watched the replay, it is possible that Mooney's shot could have gone in & therefore Hamer may have well prevented a goal scoring opportunity.
I say the ref called it right.
The ball hit Hamer on the chest first and then on the underside of his left arm, there was no attempt from Hamer to play or block the ball with his arm as such, the ball simply hit him there.
My view is that this sort of offence should earn a sin bin for 10 mins rather than a red card which totally ruins the game.
There is no sin bin. You can't just make it up. His hands were raised in an unnatural position. If it hit his arm in that position it's handball. If it prevented a goalscoring opportunity, it's a red card.