Derry verdict

[essex]

Good points Stanley, i dont think B would be used however, as that would mean the FA admitting decisions being affected by the crowd, which could seem to favour the bigger clubs because of the bigger crowds

[W12_Ranger]

Bottom line for me is the FA need to go hard on Young and players alike who dive with minimal contact. Youngs dive was simulation there is no 2 ways about it. If Hughes wants to get technical he could get the sports science team to calculate the amount of contact between the 2 players and then maybe draw an equivalent with respect to contact, velocity and collision to I don't know .... Something like a leaf falling off a tree hitting you or a large fly flying into you

[brightonr]

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? Agreed

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. Agreed

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. Or just felt like it

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.

Deepcut, if I touched your shirt whilst you were walking along Camberley High Street, would you fall over ?

I think one has to take into account the fact that Young was well into his "Triple Salko" prior to contact.

The linesman also should never be allowed to hold a flag again, until or unless he goes on an offside awareness course similar to the speed awareness course you have to attend when you get nicked for speeding

The referees report, which the FA will have, will say that the ref saw the foul as either a trip, or holding an opponent (or even attempted trip or attempted holding an opponent) and TBH there isn't any clear video evidence to over-turn such a statement.

Can you honestly say you saw a trip? He was nowhere near to making contact.

Holding? Really? Looked like he just about managed to make contact with his shirt which was an achievement in itself as Young was airborne at the time.

[MaidstoneR]

Can you honestly say you saw a trip? He was nowhere near to making contact.

Holding? Really? Looked like he just about managed to make contact with his shirt which was an achievement in itself as Young was airborne at the time.

The point is it doesn't matter if you or I think it was or wasn't a trip, or holding. In the absence of really clear video evidence to the contrary (e.g. a dive over a leg that is a yard away) , it's what the referee writes in his report that is relevant to the FA in this process.

[DeepcutHoop]

Brighton, I'm not excusing Young's dive. Not a chance. I'm saying there was enough contact for the ref's original call not to be overturned. Very different thing.

Similar in cricket where the call is close enough for the on field umpire's original call to stand.

[Stanley]

it's what the referee writes in his report that is relevant to the FA in this process.

As a qualified ref, what would you say the chances are of Mason, prior to submitting his report and having reviewed the video evidence and seen that he'd made a mistake, to then accordingly state that in his report?

The whole world and his dog could see it was the wrong decision (even SAF and Man Utd fans concede that fact), so surely the FA would be more lenient on him for having the balls to at least own up to his error?

[brightonr]

http://youtu.be/LVtYWd5TRS4

Blokes a cheat, simple as that.

I agree with W12. Ban the cheating git for a whole season in my opinion. Might sound a little draconian, but would stop diving at a stroke.

[QPRDave]

http://youtu.be/LVtYWd5TRS4

Blokes a cheat, simple as that.

I agree with W12. Ban the cheating git for a whole season in my opinion. Might sound a little draconian, but would stop diving at a stroke.

Two probs with that Brighton he's a current England int, and probably more importantly he plays for Man U, and what Fergie says go's

[MaidstoneR]

The referee must write, in his report, the detail of all bookings and red cards and penalty decisions. This is obviously covered here. The report is also supposed to be contemporanous, ie written straight after the match. I suspect the report will contain detail about the perceived trip/holding offence being a foul (hence penalty kick) and it being a goal-scoring opportunity, hence a red card. There will be no mention of a possible off-side, as this was not the decision at the time.

Video-evidence clearly shows there was an off-side offence in the same passage of play, so therefore QPR should be able to appeal on that basis IMHO.

[brightonr]

Two probs with that Brighton he's a current England int, and probably more importantly he plays for Man U, and what Fergie says go's

Oh well.

Just have to refer to it as "The trip of God" from now on.

[QPRDave]

Oh well.

Just have to refer to it as "The trip of God" from now on.

We'll learn our place in the pecking order oneday:rage::rage:

[QPRDave]

Just on hawksbee & jacobs Alan Smith says he don't think we'll win the appeal because they won't bring the offside into the equation, the fact that Derry placed his hand on Young's shirt is contact?????Unf**kinbelieveable, if that is the case, because the ref hasn't seen it.
Bushranger posted the other day about referee's interpretation/ opinion needs to be removed from the game and i agree, as long as this grey area remains we are open to cheating in the game imo

[Stanley]

The referee must write, in his report, the detail of all bookings and red cards and penalty decisions. This is obviously covered here. The report is also supposed to be contemporanous, ie written straight after the match. I suspect the report will contain detail about the perceived trip/holding offence being a foul (hence penalty kick) and it being a goal-scoring opportunity, hence a red card. There will be no mention of a possible off-side, as this was not the decision at the time.

Video-evidence clearly shows there was an off-side offence in the same passage of play, so therefore QPR should be able to appeal on that basis IMHO.

Do referees ever look at video replays before writing their reports?

Do referees ever admit to mistakes they may have made (having reviewed the video) in their reports?

Appreciate your helpful contributions to this discussion, MaidstoneR

[Stanley]

Alan Smith says he don't think we'll win the appeal because they won't bring the offside into the equation

Our resident qualified ref would beg to differ with that, Dave.

[QPRDave]

Our resident qualified ref would beg to differ with that, Dave.

Well i know what you're saying mate and hope hope maidstone is right, just worries you a bit when you hear these pundits say they think the hand on shirt is enough to uphold the decision.