Refereeing question

[Deutsch Wolf]

David Batty once shat himself playing for Leeds at Molineux, when we beat them 1-0 (Andy Mutch). Trufax.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Millwall Football Club can confirm that its appeal against the red card shown to Jed Wallace during the fixture with Burton Albion has been rejected.

The club is extremely disappointed by the decision and believes the result of this appeal calls into question The FA’s entire processes in this regard. Consequently, the club is now calling on The FA, with assistance from The PGMOL, to review the appeals process to ensure greater consistency and clarity in their decisions.


In the days since Wallace’s dismissal senior figures at the club have had private discussions with The PGMOL and the Head of Judicial Services at The FA and both, after reviewing the clip, insisted that it was not a red card offence. On the day of the game the match assessor privately informed the club that it was not a sending off offence. The fourth official, speaking to the referee following the foul, advised him it should be a yellow card. The referee made this admission after the game.


Since the rejection of this appeal The PGMOL have gone on record to say they are “flabbergasted” with the decision and confirmed that at no point did anyone from The FA seek their opinion. The club accepts that the current process does not allow for this which is why it is calling for a review into the way The FA judges appeals in order to modernise and, importantly, to ensure proper discussion with the relevant professional bodies takes place.


It would appear in this instance that The FA have assumed that because the referee has stuck to his position on the dismissal that this too must be the view held by The PGMOL. That is clearly not the case.


The club’s view is that The PGMOL should be involved in The FA’s appeal process which, as it stands, appears archaic. This incident highlights how a lack of appropriate communication has led to a decision which goes completely against the views of several other professionals, including the referees’ own governing body.


Earlier this season an Aston Villa player in another Championship match was dismissed for a foul similar to Wallace’s yet had that red card overturned following an appeal. Clearly such inconsistencies are not good for the integrity of the game or this country’s leading governing body.


Steve Kavanagh, the club’s chief executive officer, has requested a joint meeting with The FA, the Head of Judicial Services at The FA, the Head of The PGMOL and The EFL.

There appears to be no logic behind the appeals process, it's just however the people in charge feel on the day.

https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/927930208497397761

First one doesn't get overturned, second one does. What's the difference?

 

[Kenny]

If anything the Lansbury one is the worst of the 2. No attempt to get the ball at all in his challenge, at least Wallace was making an attempt, a bad one, but still an attempt

 

[VanWolfie]

I watched the twitter video without first checking which one was which. I thought the first incident was a yellow and the second a clear red. The latter was a clear red because the tackle came from behind and the player had no chance of getting the ball. Because I had assumed (erroneously) that Wallace was the first one, I initially thought the FA Panel had it correct. But then I read the rubric and discovered that Wallace was the second incident. Hence, my conclusion that the FA Appeals process is terribly inconsistent. It seems like a kangaroo court at the minute when they should have consistency of panel membership across cases and develop a set of cases (similar to case law in jurisprudence) to guide panelists in making their decisions. Since the Lansbury case had come first, that should have been seen as a case precedent for adjudging the Wallace incident. Without this careful and consistent approach, the whole process will become a mockery of football justice.

 

[AndyWolves]

Why has the ref not changed his position? Surely he should have done

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Same ref who turned down our pen at QPR when Robinson grabbed Cav by the face.

 

[slink]

Only just seen this and i think both are still probably red cards. The Lansbury one definitely is for me and no idea how it got rescinded, the Wallace one could be a yellow or a red but i think a sending off is fair enough.

 

[VanWolfie]

I've just watched the Northern Ireland v Switzerland game and have been appalled at the referee's decision to award a penalty when Shakiri's volley hit Corry Evans on the top corner (close to the shoulder) of the back (he was not facing the ball when it hit him) of his upper arm. How the referee can claim that this was a handball completely defies all football refereeing sense. It's a disgraceful error that suggests to me that the referee does not understand the handball law, i.e., the clause which talks about "deliberate" handball, hand to ball and not the other way round. Clearly, whoever allocates at UEFA needs to look again at the selection of this referee for such an important game. It's been a long time since I have seen such a disastrous call influence the result of a most important play-off game.

I'd like to hear the views of others on this, particularly Frank's and any other qualified referees.

 

[YoungWolf]

Only just seen this and i think both are still probably red cards. The Lansbury one definitely is for me and no idea how it got rescinded, the Wallace one could be a yellow or a red but i think a sending off is fair enough.

I think with the Lansbury one you can see it's quite a reckless tackle (and quite thuggish actually) so I can understand that. Wallace's is never a red card IMO.

 

[lemonjelly]

Lansbury's is cynical. No real attempt to play the ball, the intent is to take the man out, thus red.
Agree with slink on the wallace challenge. Could go either way. It could be argued the odds are always against him winning the ball, hence the red. However that view re-enforces that Lansbury was a red imo.

 

[Tyrannosaurus Dan]

I saw the N. Ireland 'handball' incident this morning. An appalling decision by the referee. It was never a penalty.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Think the big thing that goes against Wallace is the amount of time he spends pursuing the ball before making the tackle, could easily be seen as frustration boiling over before lashing out.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

I've just watched the Northern Ireland v Switzerland game and have been appalled at the referee's decision to award a penalty when Shakiri's volley hit Corry Evans on the top corner (close to the shoulder) of the back (he was not facing the ball when it hit him) of his upper arm. How the referee can claim that this was a handball completely defies all football refereeing sense. It's a disgraceful error that suggests to me that the referee does not understand the handball law, i.e., the clause which talks about "deliberate" handball, hand to ball and not the other way round. Clearly, whoever allocates at UEFA needs to look again at the selection of this referee for such an important game. It's been a long time since I have seen such a disastrous call influence the result of a most important play-off game.

I'd like to hear the views of others on this, particularly Frank's and any other qualified referees.

Northern Ireland will be feeling very annoyed, and I cannot really blame. Even of first showing, it did not look like a penalty. The player had turned his back, and in that situation, even if the ball had struck his arm, the referee should not be awarding a penalty kick. Given that the ball did not hit his arm, and that the referee was in a good position to make his judgement, I was quite astounded at his decision to award a penalty kick. I agree with Van Wolfie that it was a disgraceful decision, and the referee should be removed from the UEFA list. Referees get enough criticism without bringing trouble upon themselves. I presume that Northern Ireland have made an official complaint.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Neither Walllace or Lansbury we’re making any effort to win the ball, they were purely trying to trip the guy up. They weren’t dangerous, just trying to trip and stop the break, therefore yellow.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Mark Clattenberg will not have endeared himself to Tottenham fans following his comments that he "allowed Tottenham to self-destruct" when he refereed the 2-2 draw with Chelsea in May 2016 as Spurs conceded the title to Leicester.

Spurs needed to beat Chelsea to retain any hope of winning the league.

Clattenburg says he "went in with a gameplan" so he could not be blamed by Tottenham for losing the title.

He booked nine Spurs players in the bad-tempered match, but now says he could have sent off three players.

They are quite remarkable comments, I have been involved in refereeing for 35 years and have always gone into a match with an open mind. A referee should not have a game plan as that will be bound to affect his decision making, which clearly happened on this occasion.

 

[Trips]

Just been reading about this. Very odd comments to make. He also said he could have sent three players off, but headline would then read 'Clattenburg costs Tottenham the title'

 

[MARKakaJIM]

I can sort of get behind his thinking, not wanting to be seen as responsible for a ruining someone's chances in a high stakes game by sending players off, but he seems to take it further than that, he's almost reveling in their failure and even sounds like he's expecting some kudos for having a hand in them fucking it up.

Seems a really strange story, especially so long after the event, I doubt he'd be talking so proudly if one of those players he could've supposedly sent off had ended up scoring the winner and gaining them the title or ruined someone's career as the game got out of hand.

 

[BillyDee]

Is he going to get any comeback for this? Referees should absolutely have a game plan going into a match, but it should be to uphold the laws of the game as best he can. How can he say he 'could' have sent players off? If he could have, he should have.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Is he going to get any comeback for this? Referees should absolutely have a game plan going into a match, but it should be to uphold the laws of the game as best he can. How can he say he 'could' have sent players off? If he could have, he should have.

Upholding the laws of the game is a mandatory requirement. Clearly Clattenberg had a game plan that meant he failed to correctly apply the laws of the game in order to protect himself. I am not sure if there will be any comeback as he is no longer a referee in England. I suppose the F.A. Could ask for his observations, but I doubt if they could take it any further.

 

[Tredman]

He was also clearly wearing the correct kit so will be fine.