The things is, if you go to a still of the picture a fraction later after Wing goes through the ball, he has 2 feet literally planted together. About 4 feet from the ref.
Wing reaches the ball well ahead of the opposing player. His left next to the ball studs down, right leg comes through to clear the ball. No two footed challenge, no excessive force, no contact with the opponent. No foul, no card of any colour.
The referee produced the red card so quickly, it seemed like he'd already got it ready to send someone off. He certainly didn't consider the decision.
Why make a challenge for the ball in midfield? Both teams pushing for a winning goal, break up a developing attack and build one of your own. If players don't defend in midfield people complain that the midfield is ineffective and overrun.
Exactly. I would be furious if any Wycombe player had not made that challenge. It was an excellently executed bit of football. He hasn't gone in two footed, his momentum has taken him to the floor (without contacting another player). Anyone who thinks it was dangerous must never leave the house or get in a car. I wouldn't even give it the 'mild peril' rating that children's cartoons are sometimes given.
yeah, that's all very well and good, but the referee has to referee the game according to the actual laws rather than what we would prefer them to be.
When I started watching football, and was playing football, that was not even a foul. Now, it's a red card. I prefer how it used to be but it's not the referee's fault
Wing reaches the ball well ahead of the opposing player. His left next to the ball studs down, right leg comes through to clear the ball. No two footed challenge, no excessive force, no contact with the opponent. No foul, no card of any colour.
The referee produced the red card so quickly, it seemed like he'd already got it ready to send someone off. He certainly didn't consider the decision.
Why make a challenge for the ball in midfield? Both teams pushing for a winning goal, break up a developing attack and build one of your own. If players don't defend in midfield people complain that the midfield is ineffective and overrun.
They often say that things look worse when slowed down, but that photo is the opposite.
You have to put bias and disappointment aside, but it did look for all the world that he'd got there first, cleared it, and their man sort of came into the equation late, didn't get brutally fouled (like their commentator suggested!) and you have to ask how on earth was he on the floor for so long after.
@username123 said:
The things is, if you go to a still of the picture a fraction later after Wing goes through the ball, he has 2 feet literally planted together. About 4 feet from the ref.
Exactly, several of us seem to be able to see why the ref gave it under current rules and on the first watching and that should show it's hardly an unreasonable call for him to have made.
It's alright shouting about consistency but all incidents are unique, with lots going on and different angles and there has to be some room for interpretation wether it goes our way or not.
I suspect if it the decision went the other way a few of us would accept we got away with one with very little follow up
@username123 said:
The things is, if you go to a still of the picture a fraction later after Wing goes through the ball, he has 2 feet literally planted together. About 4 feet from the ref.
Exactly, several of us seem to be able to see why the ref gave it under current rules and on the first watching and that should show it's hardly an unreasonable call for him to have made.
It's alright shouting about consistency but all incidents are unique, with lots going on and different angles and there has to be some room for interpretation wether it goes our way or not.
I suspect if it the decision went the other way a few of us would accept we got away with one with very little follow up
I guess it's just that there's some 2 footers that are so brutal, at pace and distance and lunging, that they're truly dangerous.
Whereas Wing's was t best a technicality, and despite what the guy rolling around would have you believe, wasn't at all dangerous really at that angle.
But then you can get a red card for shattering someone and putting them out for 6months, or you can get a red for handballing it on the line. There's so few differentiations in punishment.
For the Wing red card, there are two rules in play currently:
PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER
Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
I replayed it on a twitter video where you could conveniently pause each frame.
Wing has clearly lunged (both feet are clearly off the floor at the same time). His left foot is leading studs showing. His right leg completes a scissor motion and brushes their player, who makes a meal of it, nonetheless he appears to have been "touched".
The referee could also interpret that their player has been prevented from challenging for the ball due to the way Wing has gone in. Had Wing stayed on his feet then Lee may well have been able to challenge.
I can see that the Referee could interpret it as both Serious Foul Play / Playing in a dangerous manner or either.
It's a definite red under the current rules.
Should the rules be amended to allow this sort of challenge? That's another debate.
I think it’s safe to assume that no appeal has been lodged. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the referee’s decision, it makes good sense not to risk losing Wing for Burton as well (a potentially crucial game) which I understand would be the case if an appeal was rejected.
My understanding is that the ban is only increased if the appeal is regarded as frivolous. If a club makes a reasonable case for appeal, I believe there is no extension to the ban.
If the presence/absence of Wing is that important to Wycombe pushing for a play-off place, then I think it will be too late to worry by the time the Burton game comes along.
Does that "frivolous" thing even exist any more anyway?
Clubs used to be able to appeal to delay a suspension didn't they? That's why they changed it so an appeal decision would always be heard before the next game.
Would be a tight turnaround over Bank Holiday though.
@bluenotes said:
My understanding is that the ban is only increased if the appeal is regarded as frivolous. If a club makes a reasonable case for appeal, I believe there is no extension to the ban.
If the presence/absence of Wing is that important to Wycombe pushing for a play-off place, then I think it will be too late to worry by the time the Burton game comes along.
Sometimes you just hit across a good combination in an area of the pitch. Scowen and Wing felt like a really good balanced combo.
We talk about the old red card and pen being a double punishment, but losing a player for the rest of the game they're sent off in and then 3 games is a real doozy of a blow. Lost the momentum to try and win v Gillingham, and then so many key games out too.
Oh well, we can test the squad strength we talk about!
Comments
The issue, as ever, is consistency (e.g. the two missed red cards for Liverpool on Sunday), but that was the correct decision.
The things is, if you go to a still of the picture a fraction later after Wing goes through the ball, he has 2 feet literally planted together. About 4 feet from the ref.
The ref could have been more competent through the match.
Exactly. I would be furious if any Wycombe player had not made that challenge. It was an excellently executed bit of football. He hasn't gone in two footed, his momentum has taken him to the floor (without contacting another player). Anyone who thinks it was dangerous must never leave the house or get in a car. I wouldn't even give it the 'mild peril' rating that children's cartoons are sometimes given.
yeah, that's all very well and good, but the referee has to referee the game according to the actual laws rather than what we would prefer them to be.
When I started watching football, and was playing football, that was not even a foul. Now, it's a red card. I prefer how it used to be but it's not the referee's fault
They often say that things look worse when slowed down, but that photo is the opposite.
You have to put bias and disappointment aside, but it did look for all the world that he'd got there first, cleared it, and their man sort of came into the equation late, didn't get brutally fouled (like their commentator suggested!) and you have to ask how on earth was he on the floor for so long after.
Exactly, several of us seem to be able to see why the ref gave it under current rules and on the first watching and that should show it's hardly an unreasonable call for him to have made.
It's alright shouting about consistency but all incidents are unique, with lots going on and different angles and there has to be some room for interpretation wether it goes our way or not.
I suspect if it the decision went the other way a few of us would accept we got away with one with very little follow up
I guess it's just that there's some 2 footers that are so brutal, at pace and distance and lunging, that they're truly dangerous.
Whereas Wing's was t best a technicality, and despite what the guy rolling around would have you believe, wasn't at all dangerous really at that angle.
But then you can get a red card for shattering someone and putting them out for 6months, or you can get a red for handballing it on the line. There's so few differentiations in punishment.
For the Wing red card, there are two rules in play currently:
Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
I replayed it on a twitter video where you could conveniently pause each frame.
Wing has clearly lunged (both feet are clearly off the floor at the same time). His left foot is leading studs showing. His right leg completes a scissor motion and brushes their player, who makes a meal of it, nonetheless he appears to have been "touched".
The referee could also interpret that their player has been prevented from challenging for the ball due to the way Wing has gone in. Had Wing stayed on his feet then Lee may well have been able to challenge.
I can see that the Referee could interpret it as both Serious Foul Play / Playing in a dangerous manner or either.
It's a definite red under the current rules.
Should the rules be amended to allow this sort of challenge? That's another debate.
I think it’s safe to assume that no appeal has been lodged. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the referee’s decision, it makes good sense not to risk losing Wing for Burton as well (a potentially crucial game) which I understand would be the case if an appeal was rejected.
My understanding is that the ban is only increased if the appeal is regarded as frivolous. If a club makes a reasonable case for appeal, I believe there is no extension to the ban.
If the presence/absence of Wing is that important to Wycombe pushing for a play-off place, then I think it will be too late to worry by the time the Burton game comes along.
Does that "frivolous" thing even exist any more anyway?
Clubs used to be able to appeal to delay a suspension didn't they? That's why they changed it so an appeal decision would always be heard before the next game.
Would be a tight turnaround over Bank Holiday though.
Sometimes you just hit across a good combination in an area of the pitch. Scowen and Wing felt like a really good balanced combo.
We talk about the old red card and pen being a double punishment, but losing a player for the rest of the game they're sent off in and then 3 games is a real doozy of a blow. Lost the momentum to try and win v Gillingham, and then so many key games out too.
Oh well, we can test the squad strength we talk about!
Though not ideal, of the players on.the bench think Pendlebury is best fit for the Wing role.(though i will deny this if he plays and has a 'mare!)