he might have been getting assessed - if so he had no choice - I know it makes no sense whatsoever but when you are being assessed ( it very likely he was) you have to ref by the book.
Too right Ledge, after all it was a friendly for him as well and if he's begin assessed he would have to do what he'd normally do in a competitive match. I'm sure he would have told the players this before the game.
The Gillingham fans are obviously moaning, but I feel this "it's a friendly" lark is rubbish. If a player commits a professional foul, shouldn't matter if it's a friendly or not... he should be sent off. Why should the rules be different for friendly games?
It does sound harsh and you'd like to think the ref might show some leniency for a friendly but you make a very good point Ledge. No need to blame anyone, I guess it was the right thing to do. Perhaps in a friendly you could have the option of replacing a sent off player if the managers agree - since 11 vs 10 doesn't do us or them any favours.
The ref should have told Gillingham to substitute him - that's what usually happens. It worked for us when Poll told Pards to remove Alex Song last season!
The ref should have told Jill's manager to substitute the player immediately - as he was effectively being sent off.
That way the punishment fits the crime:
Charlton get the goal scoring chance of a penalty kick, the player is removed from the game but without receiving a suspension later, and the 'friendly' game can continue without playing out the last 20 minutes uncompetitively.
Comments
Blame the men above I say
Perhaps in a friendly you could have the option of replacing a sent off player if the managers agree - since 11 vs 10 doesn't do us or them any favours.
That way the punishment fits the crime:
Charlton get the goal scoring chance of a penalty kick, the player is removed from the game but without receiving a suspension later, and the 'friendly' game can continue without playing out the last 20 minutes uncompetitively.