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.
Exactly. There needs to be the introduction of another form of punishment that doesn't have such a huge impact on the remainder of the game. Something between penalties and sendings offs. Football is now an entertainments business and referees should be mindfull of not ruining games for the paying customer by making highly debatable decisions so early on in a match. If the ref was 95% sure, then fine, but he could not possibly have been that sure given his position. The fact that his assistant didn't flag should also have been an indication to him. What he did was make a rushed guess and that's simply not good enough. We as a club have suffered enough over the years through dreadful decisions, I'm amazed that so many "fans" on here choose to back the ref rather than Hamer. I wonder if they would feel the same if we miss out on promotion by 1 point come the end of the season!
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.
Running towards a brick wall at 20mph, I'd challenge anyone stupid enough not to put their arms up, also as you say leverage for jumping, making yourself look bigger, there are many perfectly legitimate reasons for raising arms.
Suggesting Morrison was covering does not mean it wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity, is nonsense. Running thought on goal with just a defender to beat has to be a clear opportunity. All the "last man" stuff that clueless commentators spout isn't part of the rules of the game. If you run out of the box waving your arms spread above your head you're not doing that for balance. It was a deliberate act. If an opposition keeper had done the same thing nobody on here would be suggesting that a red wasn't correct.
It wasn't a classical straightforward handball though, Hamer tried to chest it which he did, but it also made contact with his arm. Don't see how that could be deemed intentional and the goal scoring opportunity is important as how many outfield players would be red carded for the same? With defensive cover, I think it is clear that it wasn't a straightforward goalscoring opportunity. We won't win appeal though, the authorities want to discourage appeals so it has to be 100% wrong to win it and you could make an argument either way. I would say it was more a wrong decision than a right one but I epected teh ref to show the red at the time.
Suggesting Morrison was covering does not mean it wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity, is nonsense. Running thought on goal with just a defender to beat has to be a clear opportunity. All the "last man" stuff that clueless commentators spout isn't part of the rules of the game. If you run out of the box waving your arms spread above your head you're not doing that for balance. It was a deliberate act. If an opposition keeper had done the same thing nobody on here would be suggesting that a red wasn't correct.
I would. Hate seeing players sent off, it ruins the game and we rarely take advantage of it anyway!
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.
Thanks for the clarification on the sin bin, there was me thinking we'd had one for years
Anyway, they have had a sin bin in Rugby League for years and it works very well, the only send offs in League are for serious violent conduct and extreme verbal dissent and as a result very few games get spoilt with sending offs.
I think a sin bin in football would be superb as would ejecting a player from a game for persistent fouls - but allowing a replacement - as they do in Basketball and Ice Hockey.
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.
There is a lot of semantics here in the Ref's statement.
I haven't heard first hand or read what he said but he may be saying :
1. "I didn't consider the offence as unsporting behaviour as a result of a deliberate hand ball which merited a yellow card, I saw it as a deliberate handball which prevented an obvious goal scoring opportunity and therefore I gave him a red card"
In that case our appeal would be directly on the grounds that it wasn't preventing an obvious goal scoring opportunity. That being the case, it is debatable. My gut feeling is the FA won't rescind it because the Ref made a reasonable judgement in the heat of the game.
2. Alternatively we may appeal on the grounds of the hand ball not being deliberate - namely that the ball stuck his chest first - which is not an offence and then rebounded onto his arm which happened to be up - there was no hand to ball and thus the second phase was also not deliberate. This may be re-enforced by the Ref's statement if he was saying that he didn't think the handball was deliberate either.
My gut feeling is that we won't be successful unless the Ref's position is clarified to be as in 2. above.
My view was that it was a sending off all day long and we'd be going spare if the boot was on the other foot. No way this is being overturned and if I'm honest neither should it be. You cant go careering outside the box waving your arms around like a drowning man and expect to get away with it. Sorry thats just the way it is.
Hopefully we'll escape any extension and it wont impact on our league form.
As the ref says there was no deliberation in the handball, I am very surprised he sent him off.
As a sunday league ref, last season a keeper came and collected the ball from the edge (inside) of the area. When he had the balls in his hands he lost his footing and fell outside of the area, still holding on to the ball.
My decision? Free kick for handball and nothing more.
As the ref says there was no deliberation in the handball, I am very surprised he sent him off.
As a sunday league ref, last season a keeper came and collected the ball from the edge (inside) of the area. When he had the balls in his hands he lost his footing and fell outside of the area, still holding on to the ball.
My decision? Free kick for handball and nothing more.
As I understand it, the issue about deliberate handball and red card only applies if it was preventing an obvious goal scoring opportunity. In all other circumstances at worst, deliberate hand ball is a yellow card because the Referee can deem the offence to be one of "unsporting behaviour".
So as I said above, we can appeal on the grounds that there was not an obvious goalscoring offence being prevented (as Morrison could have got back to cover/clear). Personally I can't see the FA overturning it on those grounds. More chance is if the Ref got the law wrong by giving the Red Card even though he didn't think there was a deliberate hand ball as in that case (as some are claiming he has admitted), there has been no offence.
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.
If you read the link SHG provided it is reasonably clear. There is no way Hamer lifted his hands/arms in order to aid his elevation. They were therefore in an unatural position.The ref judged the ball hit his arm & his arm was deliberately put up into an unnatural position. In this instance the rule says that is a handball offence. If the ref thought it hit his arm & in doing so prevented a goalscoring opportunity, then it is 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.
If you read the link SHG provided it is reasonably clear. There is no way Hamer lifted his hands/arms in order to aid his elevation. They were therefore in an unatural position.The ref judged the ball hit his arm & his arm was deliberately put up into an unnatural position. In this instance the rule says that is a handball offence. If the ref thought it hit his arm & in doing so prevented a goalscoring opportunity, then it is a red card.
The ref is correct :-)
But the ball appears to have struck his chest first - surely that is relevant?
If a defender (and in this scenario as the goalie is outside his area he is deemed as the same) had his hand above his head in the penalty area for no good reason & he miskicked the ball deflecting it onto his arm, which was raised in an unatural position, surely that is handball ?
The ball clearly struck Hamer's arm. The first decision the referee has to make is whether it was deliberate and therefore handball. I think that's open to debate but given how Hamer approached Mooney I don't think we can blame the referee for awarding the free kick.
Having given it, the ref then has to decide if it is cautionable or a sending off is warranted. The ONLY criterion available to the ref for the latter is that the handball had denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity. The guidance given to refs for this is that it's an obvious goalscoring opportunity if it is probable that without the handball a goal would have been scored.
I have changed my mind on this and now feel an appeal is warranted. The fact it hit Hamer's chest first suggests it was ball to hand, but I think the position of his arms weakens this argument. The key for me is whether a goal was probable but for the handball. Clearly not, because it would have deflected off Hamer's chest away from the goal, but even if it had cleared Hamer it was highly improbable that either the ball would have crossed the line without a player getting back or that Mooney would have got to the lobbed shot first.
Incidentally, as for the timing I do think a referee has a greater responsibility earlier in the game because the potential impact is much greater should he make a mistake. Yiu can rescind a red card after the game, you can't give back lost points.
Not had a chance to catch up with this completely but from several of the posts above I take it that the ref has said that he didn't think it was a deliberate handball ? If that's right then what offence did Hamer actually commit to warrant being penalised ? If it wasn't deliberate it wasn't handball.
Not had a chance to catch up with this completely but from several of the posts above I take it that the ref has said that he didn't think it was a deliberate handball ? If that's right then what offence did Hamer actually commit to warrant being penalised ? If it wasn't deliberate it wasn't handball.
Re read your link. It can be handball if it is intentional (in as much that his hands were raised in an unnatural position), which Hamer did intentionally.
Did he though. Having a forward charging at you might make raising of arms instinctive ? Complicated innit.
If he was only trying to avoid the forward he would have moved out of the way or turned sideways on.
He stood there front on & raised his arms to stop the ball as a back up if he didn't chest it, just in case he was outside the area.. The fact that he tried to chest it at all suggests he was confident he was outside the area. Therefore it was "intentional" , which has the same punishment as deliberate, unless he was protecting his face or "bits".
I thought the decision a bit harsh but we have to deal with it.
Having seen Weaver sent off in the 3rd minute at Plymouth in 2008, (thereby giving Rob Elliot his debut), what was more disappointing against Orient was our performance. At Plymouth, we went 1-0 down but went on to win 2-1. That same season we went down to 10 men in the first half at Southampton (Semedo sent off) but won 1-0. It may have been part of the plan to only go for it in the last 15 mins against Orient but we didn't really do enough throughout the match (and they scored another good goal which was given offside). So let's move on.
Hope the appeal goes well, as we do have a case, but I can't see it.
1) TV footage showing the ball striking Hamer's chest first, should rule out the red card for "....denying of a clear goalscoring opportunity". Nothing to break any law of the game there.
2) The second movement of the ball subsequently deflected on to part of his upper arm ("ball to hand" according to the laws), is for the referee to make his interpretation - but apparently the ref has already said Hamer was not sent off for intentional handball.
We will have to wait for the referee's report definition to be sure of any offence.
My worry is that the FA will view this appeal as an attempt to only have Hamer banned for a cup game which he was unlikely to play in anyway. I reckon this will now be extended to a 2 game ban thereby excluding him from the Sheff Weds game.
My worry is that the FA will view this appeal as an attempt to only have Hamer banned for a cup game which he was unlikely to play in anyway. I reckon this will now be extended to a 2 game ban thereby excluding him from the Sheff Weds game.
One conspiracy theory too far.
They will look at again and make a decision based on what they saw - at best the video evidence is inconclusive, but hopefully if a freeze frame can be found it will show that the ball hit his chest first and that should over-rule the decision.
I would. Hate seeing players sent off, it ruins the game...
This is a lazy generalisation that fans tend to spout when their team is on the wrong end of a controversial sending off. See my earlier post.
No it's not, it's my personal opinion. Anyone who knows me (including my brother who is a qualified Ref ) will know that sendings off are my pet hate in the modern game. I've had numerous discussions on the subject with people I know. I started going in the sixties when sendings off happened perhaps once in a blue moon. It was a joy to watch players like Chopper Harris and Norman (bites your legs) Hunter. Even our own Phil Warman liked a meaty tackle. None of them would last five minutes in todays game. The amount of sendings off now is just ridiculous. It might not spoil the game for you, but I don't like seeing a team like Orient make us chase shadows for 85 minutes whilst trying to imitate a Leeds team from the seventies. The two qualified refs that I know have both said it should have been a maximum of a yellow card. It saddens me that so called supporters can be so adamant that the ref was correct when at the very least it was a 50/50 call. If you can't support one of our own over such a contentious decision then you might as well not bother supporting the team at all.
Queensland, I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, I'm saying that the statement "I hate seeing players sent off, it ruins the game" is a commonly held and, in my opinion, lazy and incorrect generalisation. Your opinion is your own and, for all I know, is well considered and held with real depth of thought. If so, I apologise for tarring you with that brush - but the words you use are those that get my goat.
I also don't think, in the cold light of day, that whether the player involved is a Charlton player or not is relevant. In the heat of the moment, yes, but not two days later. This is, of course, only my opinion, but I'm entitled to it just as you are to yours, thank you very much.
Queensland, I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, I'm saying that the statement "I hate seeing players sent off, it ruins the game" is a commonly held and, in my opinion, lazy and incorrect generalisation. Your opinion is your own and, for all I know, is well considered and held with real depth of thought. If so, I apologise for tarring you with that brush - but the words you use are those that get my goat.
I also don't think, in the cold light of day, that whether the player involved is a Charlton player or not is relevant. In the heat of the moment, yes, but not two days later. This is, of course, only my opinion, but I'm entitled to it just as you are to yours, thank you very much.
Comments
Thanks for the clarification on the sin bin, there was me thinking we'd had one for years
Anyway, they have had a sin bin in Rugby League for years and it works very well, the only send offs in League are for serious violent conduct and extreme verbal dissent and as a result very few games get spoilt with sending offs.
I think a sin bin in football would be superb as would ejecting a player from a game for persistent fouls - but allowing a replacement - as they do in Basketball and Ice Hockey.
Hopefully we'll escape any extension and it wont impact on our league form.
As a sunday league ref, last season a keeper came and collected the ball from the edge (inside) of the area. When he had the balls in his hands he lost his footing and fell outside of the area, still holding on to the ball.
My decision? Free kick for handball and nothing more.
If you read the link SHG provided it is reasonably clear. There is no way Hamer lifted his hands/arms in order to aid his elevation. They were therefore in an unatural position.The ref judged the ball hit his arm & his arm was deliberately put up into an unnatural position. In this instance the rule says that is a handball offence. If the ref thought it hit his arm & in doing so prevented a goalscoring opportunity, then it is a red card.
The ref is correct :-)
If a defender (and in this scenario as the goalie is outside his area he is deemed as the same) had his hand above his head in the penalty area for no good reason & he miskicked the ball deflecting it onto his arm, which was raised in an unatural position, surely that is handball ?
Having given it, the ref then has to decide if it is cautionable or a sending off is warranted. The ONLY criterion available to the ref for the latter is that the handball had denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity. The guidance given to refs for this is that it's an obvious goalscoring opportunity if it is probable that without the handball a goal would have been scored.
I have changed my mind on this and now feel an appeal is warranted. The fact it hit Hamer's chest first suggests it was ball to hand, but I think the position of his arms weakens this argument. The key for me is whether a goal was probable but for the handball. Clearly not, because it would have deflected off Hamer's chest away from the goal, but even if it had cleared Hamer it was highly improbable that either the ball would have crossed the line without a player getting back or that Mooney would have got to the lobbed shot first.
Incidentally, as for the timing I do think a referee has a greater responsibility earlier in the game because the potential impact is much greater should he make a mistake. Yiu can rescind a red card after the game, you can't give back lost points.
Re read your link. It can be handball if it is intentional (in as much that his hands were raised in an unnatural position), which Hamer did intentionally.
If he was only trying to avoid the forward he would have moved out of the way or turned sideways on.
He stood there front on & raised his arms to stop the ball as a back up if he didn't chest it, just in case he was outside the area.. The fact that he tried to chest it at all suggests he was confident he was outside the area. Therefore it was "intentional" , which has the same punishment as deliberate, unless he was protecting his face or "bits".
:-)
I thought the decision a bit harsh but we have to deal with it.
Having seen Weaver sent off in the 3rd minute at Plymouth in 2008, (thereby giving Rob Elliot his debut), what was more disappointing against Orient was our performance. At Plymouth, we went 1-0 down but went on to win 2-1. That same season we went down to 10 men in the first half at Southampton (Semedo sent off) but won 1-0. It may have been part of the plan to only go for it in the last 15 mins against Orient but we didn't really do enough throughout the match (and they scored another good goal which was given offside). So let's move on.
Hope the appeal goes well, as we do have a case, but I can't see it.
Nothing to break any law of the game there.
2) The second movement of the ball subsequently deflected on to part of his upper arm ("ball to hand" according to the laws), is for the referee to make his interpretation - but apparently the ref has already said Hamer was not sent off for intentional handball.
We will have to wait for the referee's report definition to be sure of any offence.
My worry is that the FA will view this appeal as an attempt to only have Hamer banned for a cup game which he was unlikely to play in anyway. I reckon this will now be extended to a 2 game ban thereby excluding him from the Sheff Weds game.
One conspiracy theory too far.
They will look at again and make a decision based on what they saw - at best the video evidence is inconclusive, but hopefully if a freeze frame can be found it will show that the ball hit his chest first and that should over-rule the decision.
Your opinion is your own and, for all I know, is well considered and held with real depth of thought. If so, I apologise for tarring you with that brush - but the words you use are those that get my goat.
I also don't think, in the cold light of day, that whether the player involved is a Charlton player or not is relevant. In the heat of the moment, yes, but not two days later.
This is, of course, only my opinion, but I'm entitled to it just as you are to yours, thank you very much.