VAR ruling on red cards

[Lovecraft]

Just now, Hearts1975 said:

You can't appeal yellows for a sending off is my understanding as well.

Another crazy rule imo considering they now have the technology to at least review the appeals whereas they didn't have it in the past.

Yup.  Pretty stupid.

 

You should be able to appeal yellow cards that either lead to a red or a suspension, as otherwise a player/team are being punished for a referees mistake.

 

 

[Hearts1975]

1 minute ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

Option should exist for restrospective removal of card. Merits outweigh dangers IMO.

100%. Bog these bureaucratic arseholes down with more paperwork and get them working for their money for a change instead of sitting in their hands counting the money 👍 

[Pasquale for King]

6 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

They are indeed. In fact i wonder if straight reds will be avoided by refs now, if they can, and just dish a 2nd yellow if option available. Tactical card use. W***er Walker grassed them up, but we all knew.

He was right too.

They even ****ed over Rangers yesterday so that shows they’re closing ranks. 

[pettigrewsstylist]

Just now, Hearts1975 said:

100%. Bog these bureaucratic arseholes down with more paperwork and get them working for their money for a change instead of sitting in their hands counting the money 👍 

Already been penalised on matchday. Double punishment is not in keeping with sporting fairness and level  playing field, since its totally down to individual refs on the day.

[JimmyCant]

1 hour ago, RustyRightPeg said:

For being an arsehole jumping into a tackle like that while already on a yellow card. Touch and go whether he played the ball or not but if that was O’Hara for example doing the same thing on the other side I’d be screaming for a second booking. 

I think the tackle is slightly from behind. Irrespective if you touch the ball you’re always going to clatter the player from that angle at that speed. You’ve gone to ground and if the player doesn’t get touched or hurdles the challenger he’s away with the ball. It’s like you had two bites. Win the ball and if not or even if you did touch the ball, you’re bringing the man down making it impossible for him to recover the loose ball he would have been favourite for. For me it’s a yellow even if he played the ball.

[henryheart]

Directly in line in Section R. It was a no risk challenge and nothing remotely like a 50/50. Snodgrass clearly played the ball and the St Mirren player, who had basically given up on winning possession, ran into him. 

[SM Sheffield]

7 minutes ago, Hearts1975 said:

I get what you are saying but surely with having it in place it no longer means that we have to accept the refs decision and specifically where he has ****ed it up 

It's a quick change to the ruling system but they have this stupid rule where they won't review a sending off based on it being 2 yellows as opposed to a straight red 

If the outcome is the same why review for one and not the other 

That was my initial point of contention 

I agree with you but that is not the current rules. And that is precisely why he should not have made that sort of challenge. Like I said you are giving the ref the opportunity to make a decision.

 

7 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

He knew he wasn’t catching him in a foot race but even if they could look at it they could say he took the man after getting the ball which is a foul these days and probably a yellow where the ball was on the pitch.

Agreed. And all of this could have been prevented of course if Neilson had subbed Snodgrass which he should have done. Both for being on a yellow and for his lack of contribution.
 

We were terrible again yesterday and were never winning the game but Snodgrass let everyone down yesterday. 

[Hearts1975]

1 minute ago, Lovecraft said:

Yup.  Pretty stupid.

 

You should be able to appeal yellow cards that either lead to a red or a suspension, as otherwise a player/team are being punished for a referees mistake.

 

 

Correct 

And I would heavily suspect that as VAR was introduced to improve decision making in all games and in the interests of fairness the only reason they haven't changed the retrospective appeals rule is that it would give the governing bodies more work to do. 

Time costs money and there is no way that they are going to put more pressure on their precious ruling bodies regardless if it would improve fairness and reverse stupid refereeing decisions where football teams get punished in the process 

Call me a cynic but they have their priorities and the integrity of the beautiful game isn't one of them 

[Pasquale for King]

6 minutes ago, SM Sheffield said:

I agree with you but that is not the current rules. And that is precisely why he should not have made that sort of challenge. Like I said you are giving the ref the opportunity to make a decision.

 

Agreed. And all of this could have been prevented of course if Neilson had subbed Snodgrass which he should have done. Both for being on a yellow and for his lack of contribution.
 

We were terrible again yesterday and were never winning the game but Snodgrass let everyone down yesterday. 

Yeah he wasn’t contributing anything, hasn't really since Livi started the ploy of closing him down back in November. 

[Pasquale for King]

11 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

I think the tackle is slightly from behind. Irrespective if you touch the ball you’re always going to clatter the player from that angle at that speed. You’ve gone to ground and if the player doesn’t get touched or hurdles the challenger he’s away with the ball. It’s like you had two bites. Win the ball and if not or even if you did touch the ball, you’re bringing the man down making it impossible for him to recover the loose ball he would have been favourite for. For me it’s a yellow even if he played the ball.

Agreed 

[Hearts1975]

2 minutes ago, SM Sheffield said:

I agree with you but that is not the current rules. And that is precisely why he should not have made that sort of challenge. Like I said you are giving the ref the opportunity to make a decision.

I take your point on board as well and yes, I would have to agree with what your saying but I was just trying to highlight through Snoddy's tackle and his unfair dismissal how ludicrous the ruling is now that they have the technology to do something about it, and therefore questioning why they haven't tweaked the current ruling given it would be the solution to end the actual problem. The other poster mentioned shanks at ER as well. We were also shafted on that one and for exactly the same thing. I've no doubt it will happen again at the same time whilst there is a bloody camera sitting there recording every part of the game and because refs make a lot of mistakes 

 

I get it's not exclusive to us but the game that we live for and love is ruined by these idiots who proclaim to know what is best for our game 

 

The other poster that posted in this thread was 100% right as well. It's important to look at what happened in isolation. I get this entirely because if you don't see it in isolation then there is far more apathy there and that feeling that if Snodgrass had remained on the park, it wouldnt have mattered anyway. 

2 minutes ago, SM Sheffield said:

Agreed. And all of this could have been prevented of course if Neilson had subbed Snodgrass which he should have done. Both for being on a yellow and for his lack of contribution.
 

We were terrible again yesterday and were never winning the game but Snodgrass let everyone down yesterday. 

 

[Hearts1975]

16 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

I think the tackle is slightly from behind. Irrespective if you touch the ball you’re always going to clatter the player from that angle at that speed. You’ve gone to ground and if the player doesn’t get touched or hurdles the challenger he’s away with the ball. It’s like you had two bites. Win the ball and if not or even if you did touch the ball, you’re bringing the man down making it impossible for him to recover the loose ball he would have been favourite for. For me it’s a yellow even if he played the ball.

That's a fair point. However, my guess on that one would be that if a player makes a tackle, goes to ground and wins the ball, the refs have to judge whether this happens first and that the player has already followed through and if the then said tackled player, runs over the player that took the ball, surely that's a fair tackle 

 

He might have clattered the player but you could also argue that the player clattered into him. I watched it back but at the actual time my initial

 reaction was when gogic went to ground he fell and contacted snodgrasses body as he had ready followed through 

 

He didn't take the ball and then subsequently follow through on the player as he was already in front of gogic when he went to ground and the reason gogic went to ground was that he fell over snodgrasses leg which was already firmly planted on the ground 

 

Guess this may provoke a difference in opinion and that's all good but that's how I saw it anyway 

 

The other poster made a good point with the rules being the way they are you shouldn't put the ref in that position and that's also a decent point tbf 

[redjambo]

9 hours ago, Scott Leitch said:

Behave.

 

Snodgrass had to go. 2 clear yellows. 

 

The second one was not a yellow. The VAR rules need to be changed to include when a second yellow will result in a sending-off. That goes for post-game appeals too.

[pettigrewsstylist]

13 minutes ago, Hearts1975 said:

That's a fair point. However, my guess on that one would be that if a player makes a tackle, goes to ground and wins the ball, the refs have to judge whether this happens first and that the player has already followed through and if the then said tackled player, runs over the player that took the ball, surely that's a fair tackle 

 

He might have clattered the player but you could also argue that the player clattered into him. I watched it back but at the actual time my initial

 reaction was when gogic went to ground he fell and contacted snodgrasses body as he had ready followed through 

 

He didn't take the ball and then subsequently follow through on the player as he was already in front of gogic when he went to ground and the reason gogic went to ground was that he fell over snodgrasses leg which was already firmly planted on the ground 

 

Guess this may provoke a difference in opinion and that's all good but that's how I saw it anyway 

 

The other poster made a good point with the rules being the way they are you shouldn't put the ref in that position and that's also a decent point tbf 

Surely its still a case of if the ref does not know 100% then he doesnt make a decision.

[waterboy11]

Happened right in front of Me. Won the ball cleanly and Gogic kicked his leg.

 

never a yellow. 
 

ref was atrocious yesterday, on par with how poor we were. At one point Shaungnessy grabbed shankland with both hands and threw him to the ground ref saw it and did nothing. Tony watt falls over gets a free kick was embarrassing 

[Hearts1975]

5 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

Surely its still a case of if the ref does not know 100% then he doesnt make a decision.

There is most definetely an element of that but even although I'm on the other side of the argument I think that's what a few folk are saying now is that you shouldn't give him the option as there is no way to know that I'd he doesn't know 100% he will on occasion give it anyway knowing there won't be scrutiny on it, or at least it won't be reviewed by Var ... Assuming we are talking about him dishing out yellows and not reds 

I take their point and I'll be upfront and honest, I think there are referees in our game that would hide behind the rule book but at the same time blatantly bend the rules to, let's just say, suit teams where they have a personal interest 

 

F... It, what I'm saying is that some of our refs are uglies, through and through, and if the rule book allows them to manipulate things to suit their own agenda, they will do it 

 

They shouldn't get away with it now we have the tech in place to catch out the cheating baswards but only if the rules are changed to allow us to get them and catch them out 

 

Interesting some of these rules which could be changed IE not having to re review yellow cards which lead to reds are still in place. Begs to ask the question why. 

 

 

[pettigrewsstylist]

5 minutes ago, Hearts1975 said:

There is most definetely an element of that but even although I'm on the other side of the argument I think that's what a few folk are saying now is that you shouldn't give him the option as there is no way to know that I'd he doesn't know 100% he will on occasion give it anyway knowing there won't be scrutiny on it, or at least it won't be reviewed by Var ... Assuming we are talking about him dishing out yellows and not reds 

I take their point and I'll be upfront and honest, I think there are referees in our game that would hide behind the rule book but at the same time blatantly bend the rules to, let's just say, suit teams where they have a personal interest 

 

F... It, what I'm saying is that some of our refs are uglies, through and through, and if the rule book allows them to manipulate things to suit their own agenda, they will do it 

 

They shouldn't get away with it now we have the tech in place to catch out the cheating baswards but only if the rules are changed to allow us to get them and catch them out 

 

Interesting some of these rules which could be changed IE not having to re review yellow cards which lead to reds are still in place. Begs to ask the question why. 

 

 

I hear you. I got up and left before it could be taken. Season tkt those days in upper D so great view of it.

4 hr drive home fuming in the dark.

From memory, i think it maybe kept title race alive for them.  

Edited April 9, 2023 by pettigrewsstylist

[Hearts1975]

6 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

I hear you. I got up and left before it could be taken. Season tkt those days in upper D so great view of it.

4 hr drive home fuming in the dark.

From memory, i think it maybe kept title race alive for them.  

Sums the whole thing up perfectly 

 

Feel for you and everyone else that was there.

I live on the other side of the planet otherwise I would have been there suffering as well. 

4 hours - long drive.

Kudos to you mate 👍

[SectionDJambo]

I would imagine that if VAR was able to look at second yellow cards, to make sure of the resulting red card, the players would ask why the first yellow isn't looked at as well. There will be plenty of times that it's the first yellow that has been the error. 

Ultimately, the first yellow is a warning to a player that he has to be very careful and not give the referee any opportunity to give a soft second one.

Having said that, how often have we seen opposition players, this season, not given a second yellow when they could easily have been? The ref yesterday couldnt wait to get the second yellow out for Snodgrass. Every foul isn't a yellow card.

[Hearts1975]

2 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

I would imagine that if VAR was able to look at second yellow cards, to make sure of the resulting red card, the players would ask why the first yellow isn't looked at as well. There will be plenty of times that it's the first yellow that has been the error. 

Ultimately, the first yellow is a warning to a player that he has to be very careful and not give the referee any opportunity to give a soft second one.

Having said that, how often have we seen opposition players, this season, not given a second yellow when they could easily have been? The ref yesterday couldnt wait to get the second yellow out for Snodgrass. Every foul isn't a yellow card.

They would have to review the 2 cards for a sending off. Thing is though,  how many times does it actually happen in a game ?

Should be few and far between so getting it right and adding a few minutes in stoppage time for the review would be the only compensating feature to consider