News:

Use a VPN to stream games Safely and Securely 🔒
A Virtual Private Network can also allow you to
watch games Not being broadcast in the UK For
more Information and how to Sign Up go to
https://go.nordvpn.net/SH4FE

Main Menu


Never a Red Card

Started by Ordar, August 12, 2017, 05:22:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Flume

Kalas a little unlucky here, I've seen worse 'tackles' given yellow (De Jong 2010 World Cup)
Should have been at most a yellow and the ref should've used common sense and realised that the game wasn't even a minute old
In Slav we trust

Arthur

Quote from: The Rock on August 13, 2017, 02:28:39 AM
Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2017, 01:52:11 AM
Quote from: Statto on August 12, 2017, 11:52:01 PM


An interesting picture.

To me, it confirms that the Reading player could have taken the ball at least a further 7-or-8 yards directly towards the goal without Ream being able to get across to challenge him. In which case, I fail to see how Kalas's foul has not denied a goalscoring opportunity. (Playing an advantage would not have given the other Reading player the same chance: he was moving in the direction of the penalty spot and not towards the ball.)

So you are saying that another player could have intervened? Sounds like any other free kick outside the box then, not a clear one on one with the goalie. Last time I checked just about every foul right outside of the box was to prevent a clear goal scoring opportunity.

The definition that applies in this instance is as follows:

'...denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick'

The law does not state that the goal-scoring opportunity has to be a one-on-one with the goalkeeper.

I am saying that I think the Reading player could have advanced to within 10-12-yards of the goal and got his shot away before any challenge could have been made and that, from this distance, even allowing for that he would have been shooting from an angle, it was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity that was denied.



Quote from: One Martin Thomas on August 13, 2017, 08:02:15 AM
Need a wider shot of this foto. Another Fulham player is closer to the goal than the one you see here.

I can't be 100% sure that there wasn't, but it's not how I recall seeing it from the stands. My unreliable memory notwithstanding, I find it unlikely, in the opening few seconds of the game, that any outfield player would be positioned be closer to our goal than Kalas and Ream.

Lighthouse

There was a defender in the middle that the picture doesn't show. So the Reading player would still have had a player to beat. You can also see that the Reading forward flings himself to the ground with arms up as if he has been shot. This looks very unnatural and a deliberate attempt to win a kick. Very harsh dismissal. But one that will stand.
The above IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. It is an opinion.

We may yet hear the horse talk.

I can stand my own despair but not others hope


Tabby

Quote from: Lighthouse on August 13, 2017, 10:37:44 AM
There was a defender in the middle that the picture doesn't show. So the Reading player would still have had a player to beat. You can also see that the Reading forward flings himself to the ground with arms up as if he has been shot. This looks very unnatural and a deliberate attempt to win a kick. Very harsh dismissal. But one that will stand.

Kalas grabs his legs. Lets not get ridiculous and start insinuating that this was a dive.

Lighthouse

Quote from: Tabby on August 13, 2017, 10:54:20 AM
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 13, 2017, 10:37:44 AM
There was a defender in the middle that the picture doesn't show. So the Reading player would still have had a player to beat. You can also see that the Reading forward flings himself to the ground with arms up as if he has been shot. This looks very unnatural and a deliberate attempt to win a kick. Very harsh dismissal. But one that will stand.

Kalas grabs his legs. Lets not get ridiculous and start insinuating that this was a dive.

Your wonderful eyesight must pick up the flinging of the arms? Your wonderful eyesight must pick up that Kalas was slipping over. So let's not get ridiculous insinuating that this was any more than it actually was.
The above IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. It is an opinion.

We may yet hear the horse talk.

I can stand my own despair but not others hope

Nero

looking at it again you could say that the first Reading player their no 9 takes down Kalas causing him to fall into the path of  Burrow and bring him down


nose

wherever the last defender was.... in the first 33 seconds (or at any other time for that matter)  that looked a ridiculous red card. if that was red then a few of their players should have gone or at least been given yellow and one of their team definitely was a second yellow not given of course.

the issue here is of course consictency, the referee having given the red then decided no more cards in the first half despite numerous fouls and targeting of our players. we have noticed quite often in the=is division no cards in the first half and then a glut in the second for rather lesser offences, it's crazy!

The last three games against reading, al ref affected in their favour, just saying.

Finnegans Wake

Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2017, 01:52:11 AM
Quote from: Statto on August 12, 2017, 11:52:01 PM


An interesting picture.

To me, it confirms that the Reading player could have taken the ball at least a further 7-or-8 yards directly towards the goal without Ream being able to get across to challenge him. In which case, I fail to see how Kalas's foul has not denied a goalscoring opportunity. (Playing an advantage would not have given the other Reading player the same chance: he was moving in the direction of the penalty spot and not towards the ball.)

Watch the replay. The other player imediatly runs onto the loose ball. How is it not the same chance?

grandad

The ref made his first mistake 12 seconds in. Aluko was fouled by Illori. A Reading player pushed the ball to Johansen who took the free kick while the ball was moving. Ref should have got it retaken. Kalas would then not have been sent off .
Where there's a will there's a wife


Deeping_white

I'm sorry but can someone who has access to the full 90 go to 1:28:50 and tell me the difference between the Liam Moore foul and the Kalas red, and how one gets a red and the other not even a yellow bearing in mind Moore deserved a second yellow for that. The referee was spineless and I hope he gets sent to the conference for a month where he'll get 90 minutes of abuse which he deserves.

Tabby

Quote from: Deeping_white on August 13, 2017, 01:39:57 PM
I'm sorry but can someone who has access to the full 90 go to 1:28:50 and tell me the difference between the Liam Moore foul and the Kalas red, and how one gets a red and the other not even a yellow bearing in mind Moore deserved a second yellow for that. The referee was spineless and I hope he gets sent to the conference for a month where he'll get 90 minutes of abuse which he deserves.

Moore should have definitely have gotten a second yellow for a tactical foul. Would have been even more harsh to give a red there than in the Kalas situation though. The Kalas situation was 30 yards closer to goal.

That and not giving Illori a yellow after he got a telling off (40:40 roughly) and then scything down Aluko a minute later were even worse decisions than the Kalas red.

Deeping_white

Quote from: Tabby on August 13, 2017, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Deeping_white on August 13, 2017, 01:39:57 PM
I'm sorry but can someone who has access to the full 90 go to 1:28:50 and tell me the difference between the Liam Moore foul and the Kalas red, and how one gets a red and the other not even a yellow bearing in mind Moore deserved a second yellow for that. The referee was spineless and I hope he gets sent to the conference for a month where he'll get 90 minutes of abuse which he deserves.

Moore should have definitely have gotten a second yellow for a tactical foul. Would have been even more harsh to give a red there than in the Kalas situation though. The Kalas situation was 30 yards closer to goal.

That and not giving Illori a yellow after he got a telling off (40:40 roughly) and then scything down Aluko a minute later were even worse decisions than the Kalas red.

Both were worth a yellow and that's the point I was trying to make, maybe didn't come across clearly enough! Both cynical fouls, neither of which denied a goal-scoring opportunity but the fact that one gets away with no card and the other gets sent off is hideous.


Fulham 442

Looks like we are not going to appeal either.  Kalas will be a huge miss for the next three games.

Tabby

Quote from: Fulham 442 on August 13, 2017, 05:19:56 PM
Looks like we are not going to appeal either.  Kalas will be a huge miss for the next three games.

Ilori got a one game suspension for a professional foul against QPR. I don't see why Kalas would be any different.

Southcoastffc

IMO never a sending off and I think he was fouled before he got in trouble but here's the deal:

Red cards

The suspension relating to players shown a red card is dependent upon the offence:

Shown 2 yellow cards - suspended for 1 first team game
Denying a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by physical means or by handling the ball - suspended for 1 first team game
Using offensive or insulting or abusive language or gestures - suspended for 2 first team games
Serious foul play or violent conduct - suspended for 3 games in approved competitions
Spitting at an opponent or any other person - suspended for 6 games in approved competitions
Except for being shown 2 yellow cards, red card offences can be subject to appeal due to mistaken identity or for claims of wrongful dismissal.

The world is made up of electrons, protons, neurons, possibly muons and, definitely, morons.


Arthur

Quote from: Finnegans Wake on August 13, 2017, 12:34:17 PM
Watch the replay. The other player imediatly runs onto the loose ball. How is it not the same chance?

I have taken your advice and watched the replay. I don't think that the other Reading player gets the same opportunity.

While it only takes him an extra second-or-so to get onto the ball, in that time, the ball rolls a couple of yards further towards the goal-line and Ream covers a couple of yards towards the ball. In my opinion, this is critical. The player either has to shoot from a tighter angle or drag the ball towards the goal, by which time Ream would be in a position to challenge.

The margins are tight, I accept, but the difference between a goal-scoring opportunity and an opportunity-preventing tackle or block sometimes is a matter of no more than a split second or an extra yard.

EastEndWhite

Quote from: Southcoastffc on August 13, 2017, 05:41:26 PM
IMO never a sending off and I think he was fouled before he got in trouble but here's the deal:

Red cards

The suspension relating to players shown a red card is dependent upon the offence:

Shown 2 yellow cards - suspended for 1 first team game
Denying a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by physical means or by handling the ball - suspended for 1 first team game
Using offensive or insulting or abusive language or gestures - suspended for 2 first team games
Serious foul play or violent conduct - suspended for 3 games in approved competitions
Spitting at an opponent or any other person - suspended for 6 games in approved competitions
Except for being shown 2 yellow cards, red card offences can be subject to appeal due to mistaken identity or for claims of wrongful dismissal.

Think it will be only a one game suspension. 

http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/player-essentials/2017-18/english---professional-game---player-essentials-2017-18.ashx

See page 4.

When is the suspension announced?

Southcoastffc

Quote from: EastEndWhite on August 13, 2017, 07:32:40 PM
Quote from: Southcoastffc on August 13, 2017, 05:41:26 PM
IMO never a sending off and I think he was fouled before he got in trouble but here's the deal:

Red cards

The suspension relating to players shown a red card is dependent upon the offence:

Shown 2 yellow cards - suspended for 1 first team game
Denying a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by physical means or by handling the ball - suspended for 1 first team game
Using offensive or insulting or abusive language or gestures - suspended for 2 first team games
Serious foul play or violent conduct - suspended for 3 games in approved competitions
Spitting at an opponent or any other person - suspended for 6 games in approved competitions
Except for being shown 2 yellow cards, red card offences can be subject to appeal due to mistaken identity or for claims of wrongful dismissal.

Think it will be only a one game suspension. 

http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/player-essentials/2017-18/english---professional-game---player-essentials-2017-18.ashx

See page 4.

When is the suspension announced?
Yes, one game. Thats why it emboldened that text.  And, as I understand it, red cards in first team competitive matches result in immediate suspension from forthcoming first team competitive matches.
The world is made up of electrons, protons, neurons, possibly muons and, definitely, morons.


NogoodBoyo

Quote from: Nero on August 13, 2017, 11:12:14 AM
looking at it again you could say that the first Reading player their no 9 takes down Kalas causing him to fall into the path of  Burrow and bring him down

It took four pages until somebody saw what I saw.  The Reading player behind Kalas and to his right puts knee to the back of Kalas's thigh which trips him.  Not a slip.  After that, the one camera angle does not show whether there was a rugby tackle or not, but one has to go with the views of Fulham fans on here who say he did pull a Halfpenny.
I would also agree with another poster further down (sorry for not remembering his name) who stated the dreadful free kick for Johansen that started this sad saga should have been retaken.
One thing is for certain, poor old Kalas must hate Reading with a passion.
Nogood "me too, see" Boyo

ffc2004

Quote from: NogoodBoyo on August 13, 2017, 10:20:51 PM
Quote from: Nero on August 13, 2017, 11:12:14 AM
looking at it again you could say that the first Reading player their no 9 takes down Kalas causing him to fall into the path of  Burrow and bring him down

It took four pages until somebody saw what I saw.  The Reading player behind Kalas and to his right puts knee to the back of Kalas's thigh which trips him.  Not a slip.  After that, the one camera angle does not show whether there was a rugby tackle or not, but one has to go with the views of Fulham fans on here who say he did pull a Halfpenny.
I would also agree with another poster further down (sorry for not remembering his name) who stated the dreadful free kick for Johansen that started this sad saga should have been retaken.
One thing is for certain, poor old Kalas must hate Reading with a passion.
Nogood "me too, see" Boyo

Couple of things for me - free kick should have been retaken for a moving ball, possible trip on Kalas.  However, why Kalas was trying to bring it out from the back there I have no idea.

I'm of the view that it was a definite red though, despite the blunders leading to it he'd have been clean through with a supporting player, and I don't think Ream would have got across in time (this coming from seeing it back and my opinions from the game at the time.