Derry verdict

[Stanley]

A few words from a qualified ref here...

First off, let's get it right, the laws of football do not make any mention of the referee having to consult with the assistant ref (or anyone else).

The law in question here is Law 12, Fouls and Misconduct.

Specifically:

"A player can be sent off and shown a red card if he....

denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to a opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick"

So there is a basis for appeal here - was Young moving towards the goal ?

If No - then this is basis for appeal.
If Yes - then the question can be asked if he was coming from an "active" off-side position, should the play have been stopped for the off-side?

Alex Ferguson's comments about "the lad being a yard off-side" might be useful to QPR here.

I don't think there's much mileage in trying to argue that he was not tripped, or held; these matters used to be termed "in the opinion of the referee" and you cannot present an argument against an opinion.

BTW, a sanction for a dismissal for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity is a one-match ban, not a three match ban.

MaidstoneR, thanks for the clarification.

So it would appear that in fact we do have very strong grounds for the card to be rescinded on the basis that Young was initially in an offside position, irrespective of whether Derry fouled him or not.

So that's good news it seems.

[MaidstoneR]

QPRDave, a ref can consult if he was unsighted, or if the assistant raises his flag to let him know he has spotted a foul. But he is not under any obligation to do so under the laws of the game.

MYU - yes, the offside aspect is IMHO the only basis we can ask the FA the overturn the on-field decision. The video evidence about the foul being a dive is not 100% conclusive, so the FA will always go with the referee's call at the time on that.

[MYU]

A few words from a qualified ref here...

First off, let's get it right, the laws of football do not make any mention of the referee having to consult with the assistant ref (or anyone else).

The law in question here is Law 12, Fouls and Misconduct.

Specifically:

"A player can be sent off and shown a red card if he....

denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to a opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick"

So there is a basis for appeal here - was Young moving towards the goal ?

If No - then this is basis for appeal.
If Yes - then the question can be asked if he was coming from an "active" off-side position, should the play have been stopped for the off-side?

Alex Ferguson's comments about "the lad being a yard off-side" might be useful to QPR here.

I don't think there's much mileage in trying to argue that he was not tripped, or held; these matters used to be termed "in the opinion of the referee" and you cannot present an argument against an opinion.

BTW, a sanction for a dismissal for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity is a one-match ban, not a three match ban.

Is that all we have in our favour then?

[QPRDave]

A few words from a qualified ref here...

First off, let's get it right, the laws of football do not make any mention of the referee having to consult with the assistant ref (or anyone else).

The law in question here is Law 12, Fouls and Misconduct.

Specifically:

"A player can be sent off and shown a red card if he....

denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to a opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick"

So there is a basis for appeal here - was Young moving towards the goal ?

If No - then this is basis for appeal.
If Yes - then the question can be asked if he was coming from an "active" off-side position, should the play have been stopped for the off-side?

Alex Ferguson's comments about "the lad being a yard off-side" might be useful to QPR here.

I don't think there's much mileage in trying to argue that he was not tripped, or held; these matters used to be termed "in the opinion of the referee" and you cannot present an argument against an opinion.

BTW, a sanction for a dismissal for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity is a one-match ban, not a three match ban.

Maidstone can a ref give a handball,push,punch whatever if he pysically can't see the incident?
I do agree and think your point about the ref's opinion is correct, and one of the biggest probs in the game

[Shania]

There is no agenda against us,just been unlucky with crap refs and linesmen but other teams have been affected as well

It obviously does excist an agenda against us.
I have seen enough of our matches to more than believe so.:sorry:

[Stanley]

As much chance of getting it recinded as Barton's. Millions saw there was nothing in that, but he still got done.

At least everyone will see that the FA have an agenda against us.

Will be so gutting for them when we stay up.

A little different IMO:

1) It wasn't an actual head-butt but Barton's head moved into Johnson so by the letter of the law it was a sending off, ridiculous as it seemed.

2) Unfortunately JB's reputation precedes him.

[northampton rs]

For a premier league referee to blow his whistle for a penalty and subsequent red card is a game-changing decision. We can all agree on that, right?

Lee Mason blew his whistle for that without a second's hesitation, not allowing himself time to even consider it or at least consult his assistant. We can all agree on that too because millions witnessed it.

We can only assume that he took that decision because from his angle he concluded that Derry had tripped Young, when clearly he had not.

The laws of the game state that to make such a major decision he needs to have 100% no doubt that he is correct in making that call.

If there is just 1% doubt in his mind he must consult his assistant for a 2nd opinion.

Those are rules of the game. The facts demonstrate that he failed to implement them so the card should therefore rescinded.

Spot on!

[QPRDave]

Won't be overturned - they will argue that he was the last man and he denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. They are not debating the severity of the foul.

How did he deny a clear goalscoring chance if AY dived? So not making it a foul.

[MaidstoneR]

A few words from a qualified ref here...

First off, let's get it right, the laws of football do not make any mention of the referee having to consult with the assistant ref (or anyone else).

The law in question here is Law 12, Fouls and Misconduct.

Specifically:

"A player can be sent off and shown a red card if he....

denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to a opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick"

So there is a basis for appeal here - was Young moving towards the goal ?

If No - then this is basis for appeal.
If Yes - then the question can be asked if he was coming from an "active" off-side position, should the play have been stopped for the off-side?

Alex Ferguson's comments about "the lad being a yard off-side" might be useful to QPR here.

I don't think there's much mileage in trying to argue that he was not tripped, or held; these matters used to be termed "in the opinion of the referee" and you cannot present an argument against an opinion.

BTW, a sanction for a dismissal for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity is a one-match ban, not a three match ban.

[kingy10]

Won't be overturned - they will argue that he was the last man and he denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. They are not debating the severity of the foul.

[maverick69]

I hope that's the case. Easy decision if so.

That's why I'm positive. The FA can appease the vast majority opinion with a black and white decision.

[DeepcutHoop]

I was under the impression that it is a blanket "unfair dismissal" appeal - which would start at the point that the ball left the boot of Roonie.

I hope that's the case. Easy decision if so.

[maverick69]

The thing is it's not the offside that's been appealed. I think they'll treat that as a separate phase of play, incorrect or not

I fear there was enough contact on Young's shirt/side for them to let the ref's decision stand.

Hope I'm wrong though, and the profile of the case may force their hand a bit in our favour.

I was under the impression that it is a blanket "unfair dismissal" appeal - which would start at the point that the ball left the boot of Roonie.

[Pal]

As much chance of getting it recinded as Barton's. Millions saw there was nothing in that, but he still got done.

At least everyone will see that the FA have an agenda against us.

Will be so gutting for them when we stay up.

[QPRDave]

For a premier league referee to blow his whistle for a penalty and subsequent red card is a game-changing decision. We can all agree on that, right?

Lee Mason blew his whistle for that without a second's hesitation, not allowing himself time to even consider it or at least consult his assistant. We can all agree on that too because millions witnessed it.

We can only assume that he took that decision because from his angle he concluded that Derry had tripped Young, when clearly he had not.

The laws of the game state that to make such a major decision he needs to have 100% no doubt that he is correct in making that call.

If there is just 1% doubt in his mind he must consult his assistant for a 2nd opinion.

Those are rules of the game. The facts demonstrate that he failed to implement them so the card should therefore rescinded.

100% agree

The thing is it's not the offside that's been appealed. I think they'll treat that as a separate phase of play, incorrect or not

I fear there was enough contact on Young's shirt/side for them to let the ref's decision stand.

Hope I'm wrong though, and the profile of the case may force their hand a bit in our favour.

Thing is with that Deepcut is, he (mason) can't possibly have seen the hand on Young as it was on the opposite side from him, so unless the lino told him this, which we know he didn't then this decision is bordering on corruption imo.
Didn't Danny Graham score v us after handballing the ball, but we were told the ref couldn't give it because he couldn't physically see it.