Quote:Yiggsy
As a former lower level referee who gave it up because of ill-informed and unjustified abuse from knobheads on the pitch and on the sidelines which I didn't think the £12 a game was sufficient compensation for, I would agree that the foul on McMulty was a yellow given that it was a 51% - 49% challenge and they both had feet up. Add to that it was 20 seconds into the game and the ref would have been slated for "spoiling the game" if he had sent the lad off.
Then comes the challenge on Rides which, imo was worse and a booking in itself which would have seen him off the field.
Cook's foot was high for his first booking and I think that was probably warranted although the Wplayers surrounding the ref and the melee didn't help. Cook's second was just a bit clumsy with no malice and should have just been a free-kick as their player was going nowhere.
Norburn smacked the ball against the head of their prostrate player and should have been given the benefit of the doubt as play was just about still live at that point, nut the ref bowed to player pressure and gave the yellow.
The shirt pull on Cook should have been yellow ... can't remember if it was given though.
It is a very difficult job when you basically have 22 players trying to cheat, managers having a go and a crowd of fans calling you a See You Enn Tea whenever you make a judgement call.
What has 20 seconds into the game got to do with the decision; kind of highlights the skewed thinking and lack of safeguarding that exists. If it had happened 5 seconds into the game it should not influence the decision; it met the criteria of "A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent" and as such, should have been a red card. If you seriously think the injury was sustained by a tackle that did not endanger the opponent, then I would strongly disagree. Generalising about 22 players trying to cheat, together with your descriptive view of players, may also give an insight into the mindset of officials. It's clearly an emotive subject, but should not be swept under the carpet or justified. This will only do a disservice to all the good officials who ply their trade week in week out in an educated and conscientious manner. I don't look at this from a biased perspective as I fully agreed with the decisions to send off Norwood at Torquay and Harris against Peterborough and criticised their reckless actions. Players must pay the consequence of their actions and the punishment did not fit the crime on Saturday. I think that retrospective action regardless of action already taken by referees, would serve to help, educate and increase respect for the profession; there's also a small matter of justice as, in theory, this will also help clear the innocent as well as punish the guilty. Finally, to reflect back on the leg-breaking challenge on Vaughan last season and the decision not to give a red card, highlights a huge shortfall in the interpretation of the laws that can't be blamed on baying fans, cheating players, moaning managers. It's human to err, but it's also important to learn from your mistakes; sadly I see very little of the latter and more of a don't question officialdom attitude prevailing at this level. My new slogan for referees would be "Protection over perfection"; we can forgive you the humorous, inconsequential, nuggets of wisdom, but we need you to be our armour against assault.