Derry verdict

[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?

[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.

[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.

[MYU]

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.

Cheers, let's hope the comments by Alex Ferguson help our case.

[QPRDave]

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.

Thanks Maidstone, but surely he can't just give a foul because he thinks there was a push,...can he? Sorry to keep banging on about this

[Stanley]

Cheers, let's hope the comments by Alex Ferguson help our case.

It could help, but Ferguson was only acknowledging what all the video evidence proves anyway.

[MaidstoneR]

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.

Only in cases where a comedy dive showing clear space between defender and diver would be over-turned.

This isn't about severity of the foul - it wasn't a dangerous tackle, or anything like that. It was a red card solely due to perception of denying the goal-scoring opportunity. So there is no point is saying it was "minimal contact" or something, as even an attempted trip is a foul, and the FA will support the on-field decision.

The appeal has to be based on the fact the Young was off-side and active before the incident.

[Michael229]

Would it be a 3 match ban ?

[gator]

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.

That sums it up nicely, I see little chance of this being over turned! I wonder how much video of the incident the FA actually look at in making their decision? Can the offside even be considered when reviewing the subsequent red card?

[Stanley]

The appeal has to be based on the fact the Young was off-side and active before the incident.

In which case we're fine. Case closed.

[MYU]

[essex]

In which case we're fine. Case closed.

I dont think we are, the linesman hadn't flagged, in which case it could be deemed as a "clear goal scoring chance" as young could have gone on to score. If the lino had of flagged then i think he would have been fine, but the ref wouldnt have had the benefit of the video evidence to see the offside so the goal would have stood

[DeepcutHoop]

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

There does appear to be a slight bias towards the bigger clubs, although this may be down to the greater amount of attacking they do in comparison (so more pens/professional fouls against), or greater visibilty (more live games on TV), or just more pressure exerted by the clubs and their very high profile players/managers.

There is certainly no 'agenda' against QPR by the FA and referees. There are however crap refereeing decisions, and we notice these more when they happen against us, for obvious reasons.

[DeepcutHoop]

Would it be a 3 match ban ?

No they'd just uphold the decision, which I believe is a one match ban.

Not a chance they'll consider it a frivolous appeal, so no added ban.

[Stanley]

I dont think we are, the linesman hadn't flagged, in which case it could be deemed as a "clear goal scoring chance" as young could have gone on to score. If the lino had of flagged then i think he would have been fine, but the ref wouldnt have had the benefit of the video evidence to see the offside so the goal would have stood

That's the whole point:

A) Our defence is that Mason did not allow his linesman the opportunity to flag because he blew his whistle instantly.

B) As Hughes said, how many linesman would have the courage to raise their flag in front of a 75,000 partisan crowd AFTER the ref has already blown for a penalty?

IMO these factors provide very powerful mitigating circumstances.