Stoke Away

[Made in Wigan]

The bloke who fouled for the penalty wasn’t sent off because (as it wasn’t dangerous play) it would only have been a red if it had denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
When Powell was fouled he was 6 yards from the ball so how was that even remotely a goal scoring opportunity unless he has Inspector Gadget legs??

And it wasn’t a head butt from Williams. He ran at him from a short distance with his head down & barged him with his shoulder - no different to 2 players barging into each other with their chests as we see all the time after a bad foul. Powell deliberately threw him to the ground. A Caution for both for adopting an aggressive attitude was the right decision.
He’d clearly lost his head and was gonna get sent off soon & so should have been pulled by Rowett but none of his other challenges after that were worthy of a 2nd yellow even though you could see what was coming until the foul on Windass

Thought the officials were good tonight & Latics were even better!!

Mighty, I must say I enjoy your views from the perspective of a referee. However I respectfully disagree with your interpretation!

On both Saturday and last night we've had players deliberately hauled down yards from the centre of the goal when they would have had a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity. The defenders clearly thought they were as they cynically prevented them from reaching the ball. In these situations any benefit of doubt whether they'd reach the ball should be with the attacker - on Saturday there was little doubt, last night is more debatable I concede. However the fact there is debate should mean the referee gives the benefit of doubt to the forward given the intent behind the foul. I think the rule change is the right move for making a genuine attempt to play the ball, but pulling someone back doesn't fall in that category and in these two instances a red card should have been shown.

Re the use of the head: The camera angle isn't conclusive but from behind the goal he led and caught him with his head with some force. It was an act of aggression and petulance. His continuing mouthing off should have told the ref he was out of control and lost the plot. In fact this was evidenced by his late foul (missed by official ) on the same player a minute later and then again minutes after that. He last foul was just ludicrous.

As you know from my posts I don't do so through rose tinted glasses. If one of our players is out of order I say so. If it was evans leading with the head again I'd be very critical, as I was last season and would say he should be dismissed. If we had hauled down players in the 6 yard box as per those two incidents I would say they should be dismissed. Unlike Saturday thankfully poor officiating didn't cost us last night.

 

[DRAGNET]

Cookie is right when he said it was our night, and we are not going to be carried away by this result. You guys who are on a high (and rightly so) don't be surprised if we fail to come away with the points at QPR on sat. QPR is a potential banana skin, they will be desperate to record their first win. If we come away with a point I will be doing hoops arthritis or not.

 

[Mighty Bongsmon]

Mighty, I must say I enjoy your views from the perspective of a referee. However I respectfully disagree with your interpretation!

On both Saturday and last night we've had players deliberately hauled down yards from the centre of the goal when they would have had a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity. The defenders clearly thought they were as they cynically prevented them from reaching the ball. In these situations any benefit of doubt whether they'd reach the ball should be with the attacker - on Saturday there was little doubt, last night is more debatable I concede. However the fact there is debate should mean the referee gives the benefit of doubt to the forward given the intent behind the foul. I think the rule change is the right move for making a genuine attempt to play the ball, but pulling someone back doesn't fall in that category and in these two instances a red card should have been shown.

Re the use of the head: The camera angle isn't conclusive but from behind the goal he led and caught him with his head with some force. It was an act of aggression and petulance. His continuing mouthing off should have told the ref he was out of control and lost the plot. In fact this was evidenced by his late foul (missed by official ) on the same player a minute later and then again minutes after that. He last foul was just ludicrous.

As you know from my posts I don't do so through rose tinted glasses. If one of our players is out of order I say so. If it was evans leading with the head again I'd be very critical, as I was last season and would say he should be dismissed. If we had hauled down players in the 6 yard box as per those two incidents I would say they should be dismissed. Unlike Saturday thankfully poor officiating didn't cost us last night.

To be honest MiW, & I don't mean any offence to you or anybody else, there is only a debate amongst those who don't fully know the laws of the game & the FIFA guidance on its interpretations.

We may not agree with it, but under the current laws of the game neither of those penalty fouls were red card offences. Doesn't matter how cynical either of the fouls were - On Saturday Grigg didn't have the ball under control & it was too far away to be considered an obvious goal scoring opportunity (personally I think he may have got there but its not obvious, as a referee at least, that he would have - if he had the ball under control & was just about to shoot then fair enough but he didn't). Last night there wasn't a cat in hells chance that Powell was getting anywhere near that ball so it wasn't a DOGSO, it wasn't dangerous, it wasn't violent conduct - basically none of the things that could make it a sending off offence

Having watched it on the telly at the time & numerous times since, I think its clear that it was a charge & not an attempt to connect with his head although that is open to interpretation.
Again though, you've described it as an act of aggression & petulance - neither of those are red card offences. Yes his head had gone but that's up to the captain & manager to sort & not the ref. You could see if he stayed on a red card was coming but again you can't send someone off coz you think they might do something else in a bit. The second challenge on Powell looked a foul & a caution but I've not seen it since & neither the ref or asst thought it was.

Off the top of my head i think the only thing the ref should have done that he didn't was caution whoever flattened Powell in the build up to the first goal

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

Err on your first point, I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. The only part of the laws of the game where "deliberate" is even mentioned is around handball. There is no mention anywhere else of that word so I'm not sure where you get that from. "Deliberate" fouls are carried out all over the pitch, throughout the game & every game would get abandoned if players were red carded for deliberate fouls.
As I've said, the only instances in which the Stoke player could have been sent off for that penalty foul was if it was deemed dangerous play or if it denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity - that was neither
There is a recent change in guidance that mentions pushing, pulling etc.. still being red cards even if a penalty is awarded but it only applies to denying goal scoring opportunities and not to every foul in the penalty area. A ref can caution a player for a denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity if there was a genuine attempt for the ball.
If the ref gave the penalty at the initial point of the foul then the ball had too far to go & too many people to possibly block or get to the ball for it to be a goal scoring opportunity. If its given when Powell falls then he was nowhere near the ball so it wasn't a goal scoring opportunity and therefore can't be a red card offence
As a ref I had to sit through numerous mind numbing training sessions & examples showing what was & wasn't a red card for DOGSO under the new guidance & what wasn't and I can tell you with 100% certainty that that one last night wasn't

In fairness with Williams charge you can make a case for a sending off even if it is a weak one.
But what he did would have to be deemed violent conduct (again nothing to do with it being deliberate) or dangerous play & that was neither IMO. I can see how some could deem it violent conduct but for me the way you run at someone is irrelevant & he deliberately made contact with his shoulder & not his head anyway. For me if you deem running at someone as violent conduct then you also have to deem throwing someone to the floor (which is what Powell did) as violent conduct. You can't have one & not the other
The ref made the right decision in my book by cautioning both for adopting an aggressive attitude rather than dismissing both for violent conduct

I join MiW in respectfully disagreeing with your interpretation.

The FA rule book states: '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 if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off. '

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

(Deliberetly) holding / pulling of an opposition player with no possibility of playing the ball, when they are running into the 6 yard area to attack a cross fizzed accross the face of goal is a blatent penalty. If the ref awards a pen then the rules say it's followed by a red card - the ref on Saturday and last night both obviously prioritising trying to keep 11 men on the pitch rather than follow through with the punishment his initial decision should yield.

Williams actions were completely unnatural and needless- you simply don't lead with your head in that situation unless you choose to. You can say it was more shoulder than head in the end (which i'd agree with) but the head was in there and that is what makes it different than if he stood straight up and went should or chest to Powell. You can't use your head in an agressive manner towards an opponent regardless of how soft, silly or how much damage you do - it's never been acceptable behaviour in football.

If our lads or any other player for any other team at any level would've committed the discussed offences then I'd have been shocked to have seen them stay on the pitch in those instances.

 

[Made in Wigan]

To be honest MiW, & I don't mean any offence to you or anybody else, there is only a debate amongst those who don't fully know the laws of the game & the FIFA guidance on its interpretations.

We may not agree with it, but under the current laws of the game neither of those penalty fouls were red card offences. Doesn't matter how cynical either of the fouls were - On Saturday Grigg didn't have the ball under control & it was too far away to be considered an obvious goal scoring opportunity (personally I think he may have got there but its not obvious, as a referee at least, that he would have - if he had the ball under control & was just about to shoot then fair enough but he didn't). Last night there wasn't a cat in hells chance that Powell was getting anywhere near that ball so it wasn't a DOGSO, it wasn't dangerous, it wasn't violent conduct - basically none of the things that could make it a sending off offence

Having watched it on the telly at the time & numerous times since, I think its clear that it was a charge & not an attempt to connect with his head although that is open to interpretation.
Again though, you've described it as an act of aggression & petulance - neither of those are red card offences. Yes his head had gone but that's up to the captain & manager to sort & not the ref. You could see if he stayed on a red card was coming but again you can't send someone off coz you think they might do something else in a bit. The second challenge on Powell looked a foul & a caution but I've not seen it since & neither the ref or asst thought it was.

Off the top of my head i think the only thing the ref should have done that he didn't was caution whoever flattened Powell in the build up to the first goal

Again I disagree. King has provided guidance on the rules and I'm in agreement with his assessment. Grigg didn't need to have the ball under control (how could he it was crossed in) and he wasn't too far away from it - it actually landed a foot from him and that was after his movement had been impeded. Powells as I said is less obvious but again he was impeded in the six yard preventing him reaching the ball. Would he have done so? It's debatable, but we don't know for certain because he was fouled so in that situation it's a red card. In fact the defender thought he would have otherwise he wouldn't have fouled him.

Re the Williams one he led with his head and made contact with his chest in an unnecessary and deliberate act. Think Zidane World Cup final. Personally I think that constitutes a red as it was deliberate and a violent act.

What I will say is that the rules to this great game are open to so much interpretation and it creates great points of discussion. I found var irritating at the World Cup as quite often it was used to change decisions open to interpretation, such as all those overturned handball decisions. I didn't think it was there for that. Whilst I disagree with your interpretations I must say it's enjoyable to have a polite, respectful discussion on here for a change.

 

[moonay]

................. I must say it's enjoyable to have a polite, respectful discussion on here for a change.

Nob.

 

[piemon]

I actually thought the Williams tummy butt was silly but he was booked and obviously riled. His subsequent foul on Powell was predictable and obvious but the ref took no action - a coward

 

[Mighty Bongsmon]

I join MiW in respectfully disagreeing with your interpretation.

The FA rule book states: '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 if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off. '

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

(Deliberetly) holding / pulling of an opposition player with no possibility of playing the ball, when they are running into the 6 yard area to attack a cross fizzed accross the face of goal is a blatent penalty. If the ref awards a pen then the rules say it's followed by a red card - the ref on Saturday and last night both obviously prioritising trying to keep 11 men on the pitch rather than follow through with the punishment his initial decision should yield.

Williams actions were completely unnatural and needless- you simply don't lead with your head in that situation unless you choose to. You can say it was more shoulder than head in the end (which i'd agree with) but the head was in there and that is what makes it different than if he stood straight up and went should or chest to Powell. You can't use your head in an agressive manner towards an opponent regardless of how soft, silly or how much damage you do - it's never been acceptable behaviour in football.

If our lads or any other player for any other team at any level would've committed the discussed offences then I'd have been shocked to have seen them stay on the pitch in those instances.

The thing is KDZ, you neglect to highlight or mention the crucial bit - "which denies an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity".
Neither of the recent penalties were in how referees are asked to interpret an obvious goal scoring opportunity

The one on Saturday is less obvious I admit - the ball ultimately drops not far from where Grigg falls I grant you as it dips significantly at the last moment, however because of when the foul was made & where the ball was at the time, as a referee there are too many variables to say that "an obvious goal scoring opportunity" was denied so for that reason alone a red card cannot be issued. The laws (not rules ;-) ) mention nothing about deliberately holding/pulling an opposition with no possibility of playing the ball regardless of whether its a goal scoring opportunity or not - it has to be DOGSO & under what constitutes a DOGSO unfortunately for Latics Saturday's penalty didn't. It doesn't matter how blatant the foul is or isn't, you almost have to be about to shoot & at the very least need to have control of the ball in some form, not he may have got to it

Last night's - there isn't even any debate. He wasn't in control of the ball & he wouldn't have got to it in a million years. As its not DOGSO its not a red regardless of how blatant or cynical it was

As an example, I remember Latics playing City at the DW & City playing a long ball to Tevez which Figueroa misjudged & so caught the ball. Had he not caught it then Tevez was clean through on goal, albeit on the edge of the centre circle in Latics half. However coz it was so far out & Tevez didn't have control of the ball the ref only gave a yellow coz there were too many variables as to what could have happened in between then & getting to the penalty area such as falling over, losing control of the ball, could have hit a divot & bounced away.
Also against Arsenal one season at the DW where I think we may have been winning 1-0 & all over em. Valenica (I think) got played through & looked favourite to get to the ball before the keeper but was tripped. However Valencia hadn't even touched the ball & whilst he looked favourite to get to it there was no guarantee. Not a DOGSO so only a caution despite it seeming unfair

With Williams the key question is whether it was violent conduct. Just having your head in or leading with it isn't - how many times do we see players go in together forehead to forehead? It happens all the time & its not a red. Similarly you can lead with your hands & push someone & its a caution or you can lead with your hands, attempt to punch them & miss & its a red. There was no headbutt (a big un or a small un) - he ran at him with his head down & caught him with his shoulder. Its aggressive. It isn't violent conduct & as I said earlier, if you think it is then so is throwing someone to the floor like Powell did so they should have both walked

 

[Mighty Bongsmon]

Again I disagree. King has provided guidance on the rules and I'm in agreement with his assessment. Grigg didn't need to have the ball under control (how could he it was crossed in) and he wasn't too far away from it - it actually landed a foot from him and that was after his movement had been impeded. Powells as I said is less obvious but again he was impeded in the six yard preventing him reaching the ball. Would he have done so? It's debatable, but we don't know for certain because he was fouled so in that situation it's a red card. In fact the defender thought he would have otherwise he wouldn't have fouled him.

Re the Williams one he led with his head and made contact with his chest in an unnecessary and deliberate act. Think Zidane World Cup final. Personally I think that constitutes a red as it was deliberate and a violent act.

What I will say is that the rules to this great game are open to so much interpretation and it creates great points of discussion. I found var irritating at the World Cup as quite often it was used to change decisions open to interpretation, such as all those overturned handball decisions. I didn't think it was there for that. Whilst I disagree with your interpretations I must say it's enjoyable to have a polite, respectful discussion on here for a change.

"Would he have done so? Its debatable" - then it's not an obvious goal scoring opportunity so it isn't a sending off no matter how blatant it is & how there was no attempt to play the ball
Whilst Grigg wouldn't in this instance have to have control of the ball for it to be DOGSO, he would have to be about to head it. As the cross is coming in you can't say with certainty that he was about to get a chance to score. Therefore it isn't a DOGSO so it isn't a sending off
I know both seem unfair as I'm a Latics fan but them are the laws & how they're interpretted so neither were sending off offences

Re Williams - Zidane headbutted him in the chest. Williams didn't - I suspect that the red mist had descended & he was about to barge him head first at force (which would have been a red) but was able to reign it in & so went with shoulder first & a bit of a bump.

 

[Oscarbon]

I am going to chuck a real spanner in to this debate, because I was not only unconvinced that it was a sending off I was not overly confident that it was a penalty.

I think it went under the heading of I have seen them given but I have also seem them not. I think it would be described by our supporters if it went the other way as "making the most of it".

As for sending off there was not a cat in heels chance of Powell getting to that ball which is why I am doubtful about him going down in the first place.

 

[C_Latic]

Seven points is one hell of a return from this run of games. To think if added time didn’t exist we’ve have 10 points and be joint top. Players will take so much confidence from last night and that to me is even more important than the three points.

Football thankfully has its way of evening things out. We were denied 2 points by a refereeing mistake on Saturday and last night Stoke had a clear goal disallowed which would have made it a very different game.

 

[Made in Wigan]

"Would he have done so? Its debatable" - then it's not an obvious goal scoring opportunity so it isn't a sending off no matter how blatant it is & how there was no attempt to play the ball
Whilst Grigg wouldn't in this instance have to have control of the ball for it to be DOGSO, he would have to be about to head it. As the cross is coming in you can't say with certainty that he was about to get a chance to score. Therefore it isn't a DOGSO so it isn't a sending off
I know both seem unfair as I'm a Latics fan but them are the laws & how they're interpretted so neither were sending off offences

Re Williams - Zidane headbutted him in the chest. Williams didn't - I suspect that the red mist had descended & he was about to barge him head first at force (which would have been a red) but was able to reign it in & so went with shoulder first & a bit of a bump.

When can one be 100% certain. If that was the case then no decisions would ever be made in the game as there has been an intervening foul preventing us from finding out. For me, unquestionably Grigg would have reached the ball - he was inches from connecting after being hauled back. Powell incident as I've said is more subjective (def a pen Oscar - blatant pull back as you'd like - it wasn't even contested) but having initially impeded his run to slow him up and then pulled him back six yards from goal then it was definitely a red as it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity if not for the intervening offence. Debatable whether Powell had the pace to reach it, but you can't factor in the ability of individual players. The intent behind the law change was to avoid harsh punishments for genuine attempts to get the ball and strict punishments were there is none. All in all the criteria for red was hit. I certainly wouldnt have complained if it was us doing the fouling and my ire would have been directed at the offender rather than the official.

As for Williams he did hit him with his head - the tv angle doesn't show it. To charge at someone from five yards and stick your head and shoulder into their chest/ribs with force is violent conduct. He'd lost the plot, there was clear intent and he should have been dismissed. Powell was challenging for the ball at the time and shrugged him off, a completely different act. He was only carded to 'even' the incident out, I don't actually think it was merited.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

If a ball is about to be played into the 6 yard area and someone is running in to attempt to get on the end of it, if the opposition player deliberetly pulls them back to impede their chance to get into a position they could feesably score from, it is a calculated attempt to stop a goal scoring opportunity by illegal means. It can't be considered a genuine attempt to play the ball, if it's deemed a penalty the rules clearly state that is a red card is the appropriate punishment.

It doesn't matter if the angle of the final pass isn't quite right or if the pace of the ball is a little too quick - the penalty is for the infringement and the intent of it. A referee can't start to get pedantic and say it was a deliberate attempt to stop a goal scoring chance, but the final pass (made potentially after the foul was made in some instances) wasn't quite good enough or the fouled players run was a second later than it should've been - therefore he's going to let the fouling team off despite deeming their intentions illegal. Not just in this instance but any game different players have different pace and strength and it's hard to know how much momentum is lost on contact, it's becomes near impossible to judge those fine margins, so you can't start to rule out red cards based on additional factors otherwise it will be too complicated and we are going to need the refs to have multiple replays and do distance, speed, time calculations to work out the feesability of a player getting to a cross or not and there would still in many instances be no definiative right answer as it becomes subjective. The rule is surely trying to keep those subjective factors to a minimum and make the decision the ref had make a simple one, in this case did Joe Allen pull Nick Powell back as he attempted to score from that cross.

If the opposition player didn't believe the striker would get to the ball they wouldn't pull them back they'd just let the striker go without taking the risk, if the striker didn't believe there was any chance they could get to the ball they wouldn't waste the energy and attempt to go for it. So clearly the attacking and defending player both thought it was a genuine goal scoring opporunity otherwise the whole event wouldn't have taken place.

 

[Mighty Bongsmon]

I'm sorry MiW & KDZ but I've sat through numerous training sessions on this & I've refereed games where I've had to apply it
And I've been assessed in those games & been told whether my interpretation of it is correct or not

I don't mean this in a condescending manner in any way shape or form but neither of you fully understand the laws of the game in this instance and how they're to be interpreted

You have to take factors in to account such as speed of the ball, speed of the player, skill levels of player, direction they were running in, whether they had control of the ball and many other factors in to consideration when deciding on whether to give a red or yellow card in incidents like the last 2 games. I'm sorry but you do - it's nothing to do with whether it was deliberate (not mentioned anywhere in the laws of the game other than handball) or whether it was calculated. In this instance its about whether it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity - there wasn't IMO so it isn't a red unless the challenge was dangerous
You can interpret whether it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity but that's it - you have to take all the factors into consideration that you say you don't. If you say Powell may not have reached it then its not a red.

MiW - "Debatable whether Powell had the pace to reach it, but you can't factor in the ability of individual players" - again sorry but if you don't think Powell had the pace to reach the ball then it isn't a DOGSO so it isn't a red. And you have to factor in ability of players - if you're reffing on a park pitch & there's a foul with a possible advantage you're far less likely to give it than if there's a foul & possible advantage in the premier league

I can see how some could view Williams as violent conduct but you;re definitely showing blue tinted specs if you think Powell "shrugged him off" whilst challenging for the ball. The ball was out of play, he grabbed hold of him & he threw him into the advertising hoardings - that's why Williams lost it
If you send Williams off (& he didn't connect with his head) then Powell has to go too. By the letter of the law both could have gone & the ref did the common sense thing & gave both a caution

 

[Lazysid]

Powell is extremely clever and knows not to cross that line for a sending off offence but has the ability to wind the opposition up (Rotherham goalie as one example)

 

[walgarthjohn]

Must act soon and get him a new contract

 

[Made in Wigan]

I'm sorry MiW & KDZ but I've sat through numerous training sessions on this & I've refereed games where I've had to apply it
And I've been assessed in those games & been told whether my interpretation of it is correct or not

I don't mean this in a condescending manner in any way shape or form but neither of you fully understand the laws of the game in this instance and how they're to be interpreted

You have to take factors in to account such as speed of the ball, speed of the player, skill levels of player, direction they were running in, whether they had control of the ball and many other factors in to consideration when deciding on whether to give a red or yellow card in incidents like the last 2 games. I'm sorry but you do - it's nothing to do with whether it was deliberate (not mentioned anywhere in the laws of the game other than handball) or whether it was calculated. In this instance its about whether it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity - there wasn't IMO so it isn't a red unless the challenge was dangerous
You can interpret whether it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity but that's it - you have to take all the factors into consideration that you say you don't. If you say Powell may not have reached it then its not a red.

MiW - "Debatable whether Powell had the pace to reach it, but you can't factor in the ability of individual players" - again sorry but if you don't think Powell had the pace to reach the ball then it isn't a DOGSO so it isn't a red. And you have to factor in ability of players - if you're reffing on a park pitch & there's a foul with a possible advantage you're far less likely to give it than if there's a foul & possible advantage in the premier league

I can see how some could view Williams as violent conduct but you;re definitely showing blue tinted specs if you think Powell "shrugged him off" whilst challenging for the ball. The ball was out of play, he grabbed hold of him & he threw him into the advertising hoardings - that's why Williams lost it
If you send Williams off (& he didn't connect with his head) then Powell has to go too. By the letter of the law both could have gone & the ref did the common sense thing & gave both a caution

As I say mighty I'm enjoying this reasoned debate, but I don't concur with several of your points.

You can't consciously take into account the individual skill, ability, pace etc of a player. It's an absolute mine field. For example if Messi had two players on the edge of the box to beat and one fouled him then for me given his exceptional skill it would be a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity but you'd never see a red. If fortune had one to beat and was bearing down on goal and brought down on the edge then it wouldnt be clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity in my opinion, yet it would likely be given as red. Sub consciously you may take into account who the player is - but you shouldn't. You should referee neutrally without bringing into the game pre conceived ideas, opinions or bias against players/opposition. I know Powell as do you, so you may believe he wouldn't reach it - however the referee can't take into account his fitness levels, his history of hamstring problems. He was brought down without any intent to play the ball in the 6 yard box and the ball was played across it - so it was a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity. I accept its all about interpretation, but mine is it was red.

Re the Williams incident it was two players tangled up competing for a ball and he shrugged him off - it was certainly no red. Williams lost it and charged at him head down from distance and struck him with his head (I saw him connect with his head) and shoulder with force. That is violent conduct, what led upto it is completely irrelevant and shouldn't have influenced the sanction. You can't argue giving both a yellow as it's common sense because as you have pointed out elsewhere in respect of the rules the term 'common sense' doesn't feature in it. You can't apply the letter of the law in one instance - such as a penalty incident and then don't apply the letter of the law in regards another and use a cop out to vindicate a decision saying it was common sense.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

With all due respect, if you are being being assessed and told that is how to apply the law i now understand why referees are making so many decisions that most fans, managers, pundits, etc would consider to be wrong. That's not an attack, it just seems like referees are interpreting laws in a drastically different way than everyone else and the seems very little effort for the FA to get everyone to aligned on a common interpretation as the rule quoted before seemed black and white, but it appears there is more to it. I think it's getting too complicated for it's own good to be honest.

 

[Mighty Bongsmon]

With all due respect, if you are being being assessed and told that is how to apply the law i now understand why referees are making so many decisions that most fans, managers, pundits, etc would consider to be wrong. That's not an attack, it just seems like referees are interpreting laws in a drastically different way than everyone else and the seems very little effort for the FA to get everyone to aligned on a common interpretation as the rule quoted before seemed black and white, but it appears there is more to it. I think it's getting too complicated for it's own good to be honest.

I agree with your last sentence but that is how FIFA are handing down the interpretations of law & that is how the FA are handing them down to County FA's and that is how they are telling the referees to interpret it.
I don't always agree with the laws of the game & their interpretation, but that is what they are.

So in actual fact the referees (in most instances) interpret the law correctly & its the players, managers, pundits & supporters who often aren't. It's they who more often than not need to learn the laws of the game whilst I accept that the FA's need to be clear in what they mean - when i did my training at 32 years of age having watched & played football since I was 3 or 4, I was surprised how many laws of the game & their interpretation that I'd been getting wrong for years

I've lost count of the number of times that I've been watching a game on the telly & the pundits are going on that a decision from the ref was wrong when in actual fact its correct in law & the pundit doesn't know what they're on about. The number of players who don't know the laws of the game is scary sometimes

 

[Mighty Bongsmon]

As I say mighty I'm enjoying this reasoned debate, but I don't concur with several of your points.

You can't consciously take into account the individual skill, ability, pace etc of a player. It's an absolute mine field. For example if Messi had two players on the edge of the box to beat and one fouled him then for me given his exceptional skill it would be a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity but you'd never see a red. If fortune had one to beat and was bearing down on goal and brought down on the edge then it wouldnt be clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity in my opinion, yet it would likely be given as red. Sub consciously you may take into account who the player is - but you shouldn't. You should referee neutrally without bringing into the game pre conceived ideas, opinions or bias against players/opposition. I know Powell as do you, so you may believe he wouldn't reach it - however the referee can't take into account his fitness levels, his history of hamstring problems. He was brought down without any intent to play the ball in the 6 yard box and the ball was played across it - so it was a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity. I accept its all about interpretation, but mine is it was red.

Re the Williams incident it was two players tangled up competing for a ball and he shrugged him off - it was certainly no red. Williams lost it and charged at him head down from distance and struck him with his head (I saw him connect with his head) and shoulder with force. That is violent conduct, what led upto it is completely irrelevant and shouldn't have influenced the sanction. You can't argue giving both a yellow as it's common sense because as you have pointed out elsewhere in respect of the rules the term 'common sense' doesn't feature in it. You can't apply the letter of the law in one instance - such as a penalty incident and then don't apply the letter of the law in regards another and use a cop out to vindicate a decision saying it was common sense.

You do have to consciously take individual players into account - if you're talking about whether Antonee Robinson would reach a cross or whether Colin Greenall would reach it, the 2 are completely different players.
Its not about going in to games with pre-conceived ideas about individual players but as the game progresses you very quickly get an idea of who is quick, who's a bit dirty, who's the gobby one & all sorts of opinions & they can help inform your decisions such as whether they'd reach a cross or whether they'd be able to use a play on to their advantage or whether they'd just mess it up

Whether you think they would score it as in your examples of Messi & Fortune however can't be taken into account - its whether its an obvious goal scoring opportunity & not whether you think they're capable of scoring from it. That (as contradictory as I'm aware it may sound) is different to whether they would reach the ball before an opponent or get to the ball at all

As for common sense - believe it or not, referees use it all the time and being assessed you're expected to use it. For example delaying the restart of play is a caution but how many players do you see knock the ball away a bit to delay the restart at a throw or a corner during a game? If you cautioned everyone there'd be no-one left on the pitch. Similarly, you're not allowed to grapple with opponents when challenging for the ball but players do it all the time (such as Grigg for the 1st goal last night) & it isn't punished. There are fouls all over the place that the ref could give but doesn't as they try to keep the game flowing coz if they blew for every little infringement the game would never get going

As I've said, with Williams I can see the argument for violent conduct even in spite of me not agreeing that contact was made with the head.
I'm not saying the ref only decided to caution him coz Powell threw him to the ground (& we'll have to agree to disagree with what Powell did coz for me he did throw him to the floor after the ball was in touch). What I'm saying is that if charging at someone in the manner Williams did is a red then so is throwing someone to the floor as I'm sure you'd feel if someone does that to you tomorrow in work!!
For me both were aggressive & both were cautions & if you interpret one as violent then so is the other IMO