HUtches red

[nebneeb]

3 minutes ago, Babushka1867 said:

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.

 

Hutchinson was angry with himself for making a mess of the situation by falling over.

He repeatedly punched the pitch after it had happened. He knew he'd conceded a stupid penalty.

He looked genuinely shocked when the red card was produced though, and froze for a few seconds.

I wouldn't be surprised if after the Jones red card the other week, the players have been told to accept the ref's decision.

 

 

[BARAC0UDA]

2 minutes ago, Babushka1867 said:

 

Care to let us into the detail?

 

Hutch didn't make a genuine attempt to get the ball and denied a goal scoring opportunity, if he was trying to use his feet in a genuine attempt to win the ball it would have been yellow. 

 

This will be classed in the bracket of pulling someone back intentionally to deny a goal scoring opportunity.

[Oliver Read]

4 minutes ago, BARAC0UDA said:

 

Hutch didn't make a genuine attempt to get the ball and denied a goal scoring opportunity, if he was trying to use his feet in a genuine attempt to win the ball it would have been yellow. 

 

This will be classed in the bracket of pulling someone back intentionally to deny a goal scoring opportunity.

This was my thinking too.

 

However, since the referee has sent him off for handball and not the challenge, would we have grounds for removal of the ban?

[BARAC0UDA]

1 minute ago, Oliver Read said:

This was my thinking too.

 

However, since the referee has sent him off for handball and not the challenge, would we have grounds for removal of the ban?

 

thats dependent on what the ref writes in his report.

[Oliver Read]

2 minutes ago, BARAC0UDA said:

 

thats dependent on what the ref writes in his report.

Looks like a wait to see then!

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

Both red cards were the correct decision.

 

Hutchinson's challenge can't be seen as a genuine attempt to win the ball - he's going to get nowhere near it! Even if he did stumble, he didn't have to make sure he took their striker out too.

 

O'Neil's challenge was a lunging tackle from behind (yes, he may have won the ball, but that sort of tackle is a yellow card) and therefore a second yellow.

[nebneeb]

The most stupid thing about it all this, is that it only came about cos Lee was caught in possession when he could easily have played the ball back to Hutchinson initially.

 

Lee more than made up for it at the end this time, but it's certainly something he will want to avoid in future.

[splan80]

19 minutes ago, BARAC0UDA said:

 

Hutch didn't make a genuine attempt to get the ball and denied a goal scoring opportunity, if he was trying to use his feet in a genuine attempt to win the ball it would have been yellow. 

 

This will be classed in the bracket of pulling someone back intentionally to deny a goal scoring opportunity.

 

In my thinking this is an argument for seeing the whole clip. He's clearly slipped hence he's heading down..... how can he make a challenge with his feet to make it a yellow...?  Surely impossible with the way he falls. Seems harsh when taken in full context. Also if for handball is irrelevant - so ask your ref friend if would succeed in that instance. 

[jonnyowl]

The old rule was if a goal scoring opportunity was denied in the box then a penalty, red card and suspension followed. This was known as triple punishment.

 

Now there is only a yellow card given if it is a genuine attempt at the ball.

 

If the referee deemed it not to be a genuine attempt at the ball then a red card can still be issued.

 

Personally I thought it was a red.

[Swiss Toni]

49 minutes ago, BARAC0UDA said:

 

Hutch didn't make a genuine attempt to get the ball and denied a goal scoring opportunity, if he was trying to use his feet in a genuine attempt to win the ball it would have been yellow. 

 

This will be classed in the bracket of pulling someone back intentionally to deny a goal scoring opportunity.

 

That's how I saw it at the time too. He slipped, yes, but he then tried to throw any part of his body in the path of the player to put him off and the player made the most of it as you would expect them to do.

[Ben-owl]

15 hours ago, Greenhgate Owl said:

I was in the away end (cheaper tonight) and hutch didnt need to go for it as Westwood had it . but he didnt get the ball and was a pen .yellow at most as the fouled player wouldnt have got a shot 

 

The away end??? Wtf

 

Same price as kop. Plus it's full of wednesdsy fans. 

[BARAC0UDA]

30 minutes ago, splan80 said:

 

In my thinking this is an argument for seeing the whole clip. He's clearly slipped hence he's heading down..... how can he make a challenge with his feet to make it a yellow...?  Surely impossible with the way he falls. Seems harsh when taken in full context. Also if for handball is irrelevant - so ask your ref friend if would succeed in that instance. 

 

He couldn't make a challenge with his feet, I was just pointing out the difference in the rules - genuine attempt with feet is yellow card not red.

 

Will ask the question about an appeal when I see him tomorrow.

Edited September 14, 2016 by BARAC0UDA

[Hack-Abusi]

15 hours ago, Libertine said:

Anyone else think O'Neil won the ball?

I'm inclined to say so .. i thought it was harsh second yellow. Came in from the side, won the ball and Hooper took a tumble .. but hey that's just my opinion going on my view in the ground.

 

I also felt the Hutch red card was the correct decision. He slipped, no chance of getting the ball and took one for the team. End of. If its still a red card for denying a goalscoring opportunity then he deserved his red.

 

[Owl In Black]

Copy and paste from other thread: 

 

 was not a legitimate attempt to play the ball. Red card all day long. No appeal! And if we do it will be open and close and we'll be lucky to get away without an extra game for frivilous appeal  

 

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own
penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned unless:
• The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or
• The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no
possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball or
• The offence is one which is punishable by a red card wherever it occurs on
the field of play (e.g. serious foul play, violent conduct etc.)
In all the above circumstances the player is sent off.

 

 

[modboy]

O'Neil had a right paddy about it on twitter 

[Owl In Black]

The above is my opinion as a referee

[mark77]

57 minutes ago, Warringtonowl said:

Copy and paste from other thread: 

 

 was not a legitimate attempt to play the ball. Red card all day long. No appeal! And if we do it will be open and close and we'll be lucky to get away without an extra game for frivilous appeal  

 

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own
penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned unless:
• The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or
• The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no
possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball or
• The offence is one which is punishable by a red card wherever it occurs on
the field of play (e.g. serious foul play, violent conduct etc.)
In all the above circumstances the player is sent off.

 

 

The referees explanation post game was not attempting to play the ball, instead using his hand (via Carvalhal post game).

 

Clearly he didn't use his hand, and was attempting a tackle before slipping.

 

Should be overturned but it won't be because it's us. 

[Owl In Black]

19 minutes ago, mark77 said:

The referees explanation post game was not attempting to play the ball, instead using his hand (via Carvalhal post game).

 

Clearly he didn't use his hand, and was attempting a tackle before slipping.

 

Should be overturned but it won't be because it's us. 

My view was he tripped the player with his hand/arm as opposed to handball - which as you know you cant legitimately challenge for the ball with your arm whether you've tripped, slipped or otherwise. Some of us need to stop thinking we're so hard done to and accept the laws of the game have been correctly applied. 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Warringtonowl

[Paolo Di Catio]

If it gets rescinded, what's  to stop defenders "accidentally" tripping and bringing down the attacker in future?

[Blue n White Rampage]

im gonna say it was harsh, but i can certainly understand why the ref gives it. points of contention are;

 

-definitely "intention", hutchinson wasnt even looking at the attacker when the very little contact was made.

-striker had already lost the ball, so it should have already been difficult for the ref to consider giving the pen.

- it wasnt enough contact to bring the striker down.