| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays 15:13 - Dec 7 with 36369 views | Plazex |
Actually looks as if Sakho took fabianski down. Hope we have the card rescinded. And bloody hell 3-1 crap. |  |
| |  |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:45 - Dec 8 with 1771 views | NeathJack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:43 - Dec 8 by Shaky |
Fab comes sprinting off his line and body checks the guy miles outside the area.
He made no attempt to play the ball whatsoever. Of course serious foul play is a possibility. |
Utter nonsense. |  | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:47 - Dec 8 with 1762 views | LeonisGod |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:22 - Dec 8 by Shaky |
Is this conjecture or are you stating it as a fact. And if so what is your source?
The crux of the matter is that it would be a 1 match ban if the red card was given for denying a goal scoring opportunity.
However, as I read it that doesn't seem to be Poll's interpretation, in which case a 3 match ban becomes the default. |
Now I'm confused. If the red wasn't given for denying a goal scoring opportunity, what was it for then? Serious foul play, violent conduct? Don't think so. I think I'll leave this thread and wait for the outcome of the appeal. |  | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:53 - Dec 8 with 1750 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:43 - Dec 8 by Shaky |
Fab comes sprinting off his line and body checks the guy miles outside the area.
He made no attempt to play the ball whatsoever. Of course serious foul play is a possibility. |
He would of attempted to play the ball had Sakho not pushed it out of the way with his hand... Just saying like... |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:58 - Dec 8 with 1742 views | Shaky |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:47 - Dec 8 by LeonisGod |
Now I'm confused. If the red wasn't given for denying a goal scoring opportunity, what was it for then? Serious foul play, violent conduct? Don't think so. I think I'll leave this thread and wait for the outcome of the appeal. |
Read Poll's comments:
"First impressions were that we were seeing textbook refereeing, with Foy playing advantage: had Sakho scored it seemed that Foy’s vision would have saved the Swansea keeper from the red card as the obvious goal scoring opportunity would not have been denied.
Replays, however, showed Foy had blown his whistle immediately after the collision. Fabianski would have been dismissed even if Sakho had ‘scored’ and that goal wouldn’t have stood."
It seems to me implicit in that is Poll's interpretation that Foy rejected the concept of denying a goal scoring opportunity, because he whistled before that had become apparent.
However, we must obviously await the FA's formal statement on this to get some clarity. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:02 - Dec 8 with 1730 views | Shaky |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:53 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
He would of attempted to play the ball had Sakho not pushed it out of the way with his hand... Just saying like... |
It is truly remarkable how many posters are unable to grasp basic applied Newtonian physics, failing to perceive the cause and effect relationship between Ash's shove into the back and left arm of Sahko, with the jerk of Sahko's left arm into the ball. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:04 - Dec 8 with 1721 views | Joe_bradshaw |
If it was for serious foul play I think we have a better chance of winning an appeal than if it was for denying a goal scoring opportunity.
Countless challenges worse than that get called fouls and no more or yellows. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:09 - Dec 8 with 1703 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:58 - Dec 8 by Shaky |
Read Poll's comments:
"First impressions were that we were seeing textbook refereeing, with Foy playing advantage: had Sakho scored it seemed that Foy’s vision would have saved the Swansea keeper from the red card as the obvious goal scoring opportunity would not have been denied.
Replays, however, showed Foy had blown his whistle immediately after the collision. Fabianski would have been dismissed even if Sakho had ‘scored’ and that goal wouldn’t have stood."
It seems to me implicit in that is Poll's interpretation that Foy rejected the concept of denying a goal scoring opportunity, because he whistled before that had become apparent.
However, we must obviously await the FA's formal statement on this to get some clarity. |
Thats exactly how i saw it. At the time i thought he played advantage and brought it back for which i praised him for doing, id like to see more refs do this. Now its clear he already blew i can only judge him on why he gave the red and he is correct.
This makes me a bad fan apparently, and Mr Poll evidently. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:09 - Dec 8 with 1705 views | Shaky |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:04 - Dec 8 by Joe_bradshaw |
If it was for serious foul play I think we have a better chance of winning an appeal than if it was for denying a goal scoring opportunity.
Countless challenges worse than that get called fouls and no more or yellows. |
Good point. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:09 - Dec 8 with 1705 views | NeathJack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:58 - Dec 8 by Shaky |
Read Poll's comments:
"First impressions were that we were seeing textbook refereeing, with Foy playing advantage: had Sakho scored it seemed that Foy’s vision would have saved the Swansea keeper from the red card as the obvious goal scoring opportunity would not have been denied.
Replays, however, showed Foy had blown his whistle immediately after the collision. Fabianski would have been dismissed even if Sakho had ‘scored’ and that goal wouldn’t have stood."
It seems to me implicit in that is Poll's interpretation that Foy rejected the concept of denying a goal scoring opportunity, because he whistled before that had become apparent.
However, we must obviously await the FA's formal statement on this to get some clarity. |
You've interpreted that completely wrongly.
In no way is Poll saying that because Foy blew up early it was given for something other than denying a goalscoring opportunity.
Foy simply made a mistake in blowing up without realising that Sakho still had an opportunity to score. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:10 - Dec 8 with 1702 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:02 - Dec 8 by Shaky |
It is truly remarkable how many posters are unable to grasp basic applied Newtonian physics, failing to perceive the cause and effect relationship between Ash's shove into the back and left arm of Sahko, with the jerk of Sahko's left arm into the ball. |
... Which prevented Fabianski from playing the ball, as apposed to him deliberatly going out to foul him. However you spin it, there was no intent, no serious foul play. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:13 - Dec 8 with 1689 views | somersetsimon |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 10:26 - Dec 8 by ItchySphincter |
Brilliant link. To legitimise a red card given for denying a goal scoring opportunity a goal scored from said denied opportunity would be disallowed by the ref. Brilliant. No wonder everything's f*cked. 
 |
That's the bit I don't really understand. If Sakho had put the ball in the net, it wouldn't have counted because the referee had already decided he had been denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. That doesn't make any sense. If he had managed to score, then wouldn't that have meant that the referee was factually incorrect?
I was trying to think of a much clear cut example. Imagine that Sakho was clear straight down the centre of of goal, Fab trips him up, but he carries on and has an open goal 5 yards out. At that point, he has not been denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. What if he misses? |  | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:16 - Dec 8 with 1676 views | NeathJack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:13 - Dec 8 by somersetsimon |
That's the bit I don't really understand. If Sakho had put the ball in the net, it wouldn't have counted because the referee had already decided he had been denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. That doesn't make any sense. If he had managed to score, then wouldn't that have meant that the referee was factually incorrect?
I was trying to think of a much clear cut example. Imagine that Sakho was clear straight down the centre of of goal, Fab trips him up, but he carries on and has an open goal 5 yards out. At that point, he has not been denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. What if he misses? |
Indeed. There was no serious foul play as some are bizarrely suggesting there might have been and the only person who denied Sakho a goalscoring opportunity was Foy, not Fabianski. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:17 - Dec 8 with 1671 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:10 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
... Which prevented Fabianski from playing the ball, as apposed to him deliberatly going out to foul him. However you spin it, there was no intent, no serious foul play. |
No foul play, if you want to see some real foul play have a look at the 2 Man City "Kicks".
One studs up in the back of the defender in the midlle of his jump for the ball and the other to a Players Head, that is what you call foul play and they only got yellow cards from Andre Marriner. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:22 - Dec 8 with 1653 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:17 - Dec 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
No foul play, if you want to see some real foul play have a look at the 2 Man City "Kicks".
One studs up in the back of the defender in the midlle of his jump for the ball and the other to a Players Head, that is what you call foul play and they only got yellow cards from Andre Marriner. |
I agree, the crux to this whole issue is the consistency of the referees. Too many rules are left up to the referees interpretation and this is the result. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:29 - Dec 8 with 1625 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:13 - Dec 8 by somersetsimon |
That's the bit I don't really understand. If Sakho had put the ball in the net, it wouldn't have counted because the referee had already decided he had been denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. That doesn't make any sense. If he had managed to score, then wouldn't that have meant that the referee was factually incorrect?
I was trying to think of a much clear cut example. Imagine that Sakho was clear straight down the centre of of goal, Fab trips him up, but he carries on and has an open goal 5 yards out. At that point, he has not been denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. What if he misses? |
Refs can use their discretion. It was the exact case at Cardiff last year where i had to teach them the rules too. Their player got sent off, even after advantage was played but the striker didnt put the harder forced chance away.
If the chance was made harder as a result of the foul then the ref can see what develops from the immediate aftermath in the hope to keep the match 11 v 11 and then bring it back should he fail to convert as a result of the harder chance. For example a striker through on goal, getting fouled but staying on his feet, the foul takes him wide to an impossible angle and he missed - it can get brought back.
If the chance is the same as if he hadn't been fouled then no, many refs would not bring it back. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:39 - Dec 8 with 1608 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:29 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Refs can use their discretion. It was the exact case at Cardiff last year where i had to teach them the rules too. Their player got sent off, even after advantage was played but the striker didnt put the harder forced chance away.
If the chance was made harder as a result of the foul then the ref can see what develops from the immediate aftermath in the hope to keep the match 11 v 11 and then bring it back should he fail to convert as a result of the harder chance. For example a striker through on goal, getting fouled but staying on his feet, the foul takes him wide to an impossible angle and he missed - it can get brought back.
If the chance is the same as if he hadn't been fouled then no, many refs would not bring it back. |
Serious question. You mention the refs using their 'discretion' while making some desicions, do the appeals panel have this same ability? | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:55 - Dec 8 with 1583 views | AnotherJohn |
Oopps - this should refer to Shaky's post about the Daily Mail Graham polll article saying that it was a red card.
One interesting point about the article is that, unless I am mistaken, it has been edited to mention a handball that it neglected to discuss when it appeared shortly after the game. I added the first comment on the thread saying that Poll's piece lost all credibility for not discussiing the handball - my comment disappeared and the handball came up in an added sentence! [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 13:15]
| | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:56 - Dec 8 with 1578 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:39 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
Serious question. You mention the refs using their 'discretion' while making some desicions, do the appeals panel have this same ability? |
No, none.
Imagine it like a TMO in rugby, but instead asked for review by the team not the ref.
If a refs decision is to be overturned then it must be clear, obvious and unequivocal evidence that the reason the player got sent off for was incorrectly applied. So they will be looking at whether Fabianksis foul was denying a clear goalscoring opportunity. It was clearly doing nothing else but that hence why any appeal is frivolous.
If there is no obvious error in the deduction Fabianski prevented a clear goalscoring opportunity, then it cannot be overturned. Even if it is contentious then the decision on the field stands. It must be CLEAR evidence that Fabianski did not deny a goalscoring opportunity.
The handball is a different offence and not seen handballs cannot be reviewed. It wont make a blind bit if difference even if he handled it ten times on both hands prior to the red card offence. [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 12:59]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:24 - Dec 8 with 1534 views | AnotherJohn |
The implicit hypothesis being put forward by those who say this is a legitimate red is that the contact with Fabs forced Sakho to go wide and thereby denied him a clear goal-scoring opportunity. The counter-argument would be that it was the hand that sent the ball to the position from where Sakho had to make his shot. In this scenario the handball becomes relevant not as a prior unseen offence (which might indeed be inadmissible), but as the primary factor that affected the quality of the goal-scoring opportunity presented. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:31 - Dec 8 with 1520 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:24 - Dec 8 by AnotherJohn |
The implicit hypothesis being put forward by those who say this is a legitimate red is that the contact with Fabs forced Sakho to go wide and thereby denied him a clear goal-scoring opportunity. The counter-argument would be that it was the hand that sent the ball to the position from where Sakho had to make his shot. In this scenario the handball becomes relevant not as a prior unseen offence (which might indeed be inadmissible), but as the primary factor that affected the quality of the goal-scoring opportunity presented. |
It makes no difference. Anything after the whistle is completely irrelevant, due to the play being stopped as a result of fabianskis foul, it denied sakho with a goalscoring opportunity, the offence is then deemed worthy of a red card.
Where the ball went after and what actions the player took after make no difference what so ever, they dont come into it. And neither does the offence of handball missed by the ref in the led up to it.. It is a separate un reviewable offence. [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 13:33]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:32 - Dec 8 with 1520 views | skippyjack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:29 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Refs can use their discretion. It was the exact case at Cardiff last year where i had to teach them the rules too. Their player got sent off, even after advantage was played but the striker didnt put the harder forced chance away.
If the chance was made harder as a result of the foul then the ref can see what develops from the immediate aftermath in the hope to keep the match 11 v 11 and then bring it back should he fail to convert as a result of the harder chance. For example a striker through on goal, getting fouled but staying on his feet, the foul takes him wide to an impossible angle and he missed - it can get brought back.
If the chance is the same as if he hadn't been fouled then no, many refs would not bring it back. |
He doesn't deny him a goalscoring opportunity though.. he infringes him.. yellow card.
It's like when a slight foul occurs in the middle (but the player carries on). the ref gives advantage.. then when advantage is over he gives the fouling player a yellow.. I can't see how a ref can send a player off when he doesn't deny an opportunity.. it's a yellow card offence.. he doesn't deny him.. he infringes him.. yellow card. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:32 - Dec 8 with 1519 views | ItchySphincter |
He didn't deny a clear goalscoring opportunity. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:33 - Dec 8 with 1516 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 12:56 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
No, none.
Imagine it like a TMO in rugby, but instead asked for review by the team not the ref.
If a refs decision is to be overturned then it must be clear, obvious and unequivocal evidence that the reason the player got sent off for was incorrectly applied. So they will be looking at whether Fabianksis foul was denying a clear goalscoring opportunity. It was clearly doing nothing else but that hence why any appeal is frivolous.
If there is no obvious error in the deduction Fabianski prevented a clear goalscoring opportunity, then it cannot be overturned. Even if it is contentious then the decision on the field stands. It must be CLEAR evidence that Fabianski did not deny a goalscoring opportunity.
The handball is a different offence and not seen handballs cannot be reviewed. It wont make a blind bit if difference even if he handled it ten times on both hands prior to the red card offence. [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 12:59]
|
Thought as much, so basically any desicion made by a ref where he's 'used his discretion' is 'un-appealable' as they would always have to back the ref.
I get your point about the handball not being factored and actually think that you may be correct on this, however I fail to see how this could be justified by a review panel. Whether intentional or not, there was clearly a handball and this then resulted in Fabianski having to adjust his run/body position at the last possible moment, causing the collision, (It could be 'interpreted' that Sakho denied Fabianski a goal saving opportunity.) They simply cannot justify that this would of happened without the infringement by Sakho, yet he goes 'unpunished' and we suffer a red card and ban. Common sense dictates that this is unjust and should surely be overturned?(Not that I think it will mind!) [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 13:38]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:36 - Dec 8 with 1510 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:32 - Dec 8 by ItchySphincter |
He didn't deny a clear goalscoring opportunity. |
Yes he did. The foul resulted in the play stopping when he was through on goal with an empty net, therefor that foul denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. Straight forward case. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:42 - Dec 8 with 1494 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:36 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Yes he did. The foul resulted in the play stopping when he was through on goal with an empty net, therefor that foul denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. Straight forward case. |
no it didn't but you continue to desperately look for reasons why the Swans should be punished.
I've seen more sensible and less one sided responses to all of this from Cardiff fans. Have a think about that. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
