HUtches red

[Guest mrbluesky]

8 hours ago, darra said:

Bit harsh? He stumbled and fell into their player so yes it probaly was a penalty but not sure about the card as it could be argued it wasn't deliberate. 3 match ban as well. Wonder if we'll appeal it?

Not sure what you were watching, Hutch slipped put his arm out to pull him down he went down penalty player stopped a clear goal scoring chance end result red card, correct decision, how anybody says different is wrong.

[theowlsman]

Called the ref a wee pipe. You shouldn't be punished for being truthful and honest.

[nebneeb]

8 hours ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

 

 

This.  No attempt to play ball almost a rugby tackle.

 

Ref got that spot on. 

 

Stumbling and falling over and sliding head first into the opponent isn't a rugby tackle. It is an accidental foul. Up until the stumble it was a genuine attempt to race back and put pressure on and be in position to make a tackle if possible.

 

I don't think the rules are clear in this case.

 

The contact was due to falling over, not directly from an attempting to play the ball. Stumbling and falling over isn't a deliberate foul either. There wasn't a handball.

 

So basically it isn't covered by the new rules.

[darra]

It wasn't a penalty the player missed it . God decided.

[Big Jack]

9 hours ago, modboy said:

That's a yellow every time you can't tackle from behind.

[Ante's Bubbly]

10 hours ago, darra said:

Bit harsh? He stumbled and fell into their player so yes it probaly was a penalty but not sure about the card as it could be argued it wasn't deliberate. 3 match ban as well. Wonder if we'll appeal it?

 

Sorry I started a new thread because this one was not on the first page. It is now can the threads be blended together?

[Prendo's boots]

Is there a risk that on appeal if its turned down Hutch gets another game added on tho, or has that 'rule' gone??? Dont want to lose him for an extra game... if so is it worth the risk?!!

Edited September 14, 2016 by Prendo's boots

[Guest]

10 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

I thought the double punishment rule had been scrapped ? 

 

Thought that was only for GK?

[Bristol_Owl]

9 hours ago, Ian said:

Or alternatively the ref knows the rules, got it spot on and supporters who don't know the rules should stop getting their nickers in a twist about it

Totally agree, the way it looks to me hutch slipped, knew wasn't going to be able to stop the shot and deliberately collided with the attacker to prevent the shot. Not a genuine attempt to play the ball and in my opinion a definite goal scoring opportunity so red card is correct decision. 

[cowl]

1 minute ago, Prendo's boots said:

Is there a risk that on appeal if its turned down Hutch gets another game added on tho, or has that 'rule' gone??? Dont want to lose him for an extra game... if so is it worth the risk!!

 

It would be remarkably harsh indeed if Hutchinson got another game added on for a frivolous appeal given that the ref thought he handled it (when he didn't).

 

That alone ought to see that the red is overturned.

 

The only question then, however, would be whether the way in which Hutchinson brought their guy down is considered worthy of a red. Would almost certainly have been last season - this season, I'm not so sure.

[Bristol_Owl]

Also just a 1 match ban for DOGSO 

[steelowl]

10 hours ago, Ian said:

Christ the lack of understanding of the new rules is astounding.....the only change is that if the player has made a genuine attempt to go for the ball and commits a foul in the area then it's a yellow.....anything else which denies an obvious goals coring opportunity including handball, pushing or shirt pulling is still a straight red. Would have to see it again before I could form a judgement on today's red

1

I admit I didn't know that Ian

haven't time to read thro the thread but on my view and I haven't seen it again yet but I thought i saw he slipped and deliberately reached out on the ground and tried to stop the guy scoring   whatever the final card colour judgement  He took one for the team imo 

[Buxtongent]

Must admit that, without having the benefit of replays, and from my position in the Kop end of the South, the appearance seemed to be that Hutch had thrown himself at the last player, in a deliberate attempt to prevent a goal-scoring opportunity. In other words, he'd 'taken one for the team' and didn't seem surprised as he walked off the field. All around me, the feeling was 'Yes, red card,no arguement'. No-one grumbled at the Ref's decision.

[Guest ka58]

Maybe the ref realised his mistake and levelled it up with the harsh sending off of oneill? 

 

Only a theory - I don't fully understand the latest rules with double punishment etc 

[steelowl]

looked at the video  it doesnt actually show what i originally thought was a deliberate attempt to dive into a player but I still think he think he did suppose he'll say he fell hope he gets it removed if it was a straight red

[nebneeb]

C'mon lads, if he actually wanted to take the defender out, he still wouldn't dive in head first!

 

If he hadn't stumbled, and the defender had hesitated at all, he would have had a very high chance of being able to make a fair tackle (with one of his feet).

 

Even if that wasn't possible, he would have been able to "lean" on the striker a bit to put him off balance and make finishing more difficult...

 

Finally, even he decided to risk "taking one for the team" and giving away a penalty (which would have been very stupid given the angle and Westwood's position, but a possibility with Hutchinson nontheless) he would have gone for a sliding tackle - which is both a legitimate attempt to play the ball, has a higher chance of being successful, and even if not successful a higher chance of the ref getting it wrong and not awarding a penalty...

 

[BARAC0UDA]

14 hours ago, Ian said:

Christ the lack of understanding of the new rules is astounding.....the only change is that if the player has made a genuine attempt to go for the ball and commits a foul in the area then it's a yellow.....anything else which denies an obvious goals coring opportunity including handball, pushing or shirt pulling is still a straight red. Would have to see it again before I could form a judgement on today's red

 

This is spot on.

 

i work with an ex PL referee who's now also a football league refs assessor, showed him the clip to get his take on it, he said definite red and explained why.

[Swiss Toni]

I think you can gauge a lot by player reaction and both Hutchinson and O'Neill didn't really argue the fact, it was mainly everyone else on each side that contested both calls.

Maybe Hutchinson wasn't aware of this new ruling (I wouldn't be surprised if many don't) and therefore just thought he knew what he was doing by throwing himself in front of the player when he slipped and accepted the punishment. O'Neill did win a bit of the ball but he came in from behind and stopped a counter attack so a second card there was inevitable.

[Swiss Toni]

2 minutes ago, BARAC0UDA said:

 

This is spot on.

 

i work with an ex PL referee who's now also a football league refs assessor, showed him the clip to get his take on it, he said definite red and explained why.

 

Care to let us into the detail?

[nebneeb]

2 minutes ago, BARAC0UDA said:

 

This is spot on.

 

i work with an ex PL referee who's now also a football league refs assessor, showed him the clip to get his take on it, he said definite red and explained why.

 

The clip doesn't show where Hutch starts to lose his balance which causes him to stumble over, which means the whole foul was accidental rather than intentional.

 

An appeal would be both on the grounds the ref sent him off for handball, which the clip clearly shows is not the case.

And additional footage showing the loss of balance which causes the collision.

 

Or we could just let him have a 1 match ban. Loovens is back anyway.