Heads up ref watch (Carey) (Argyle complain to FA)

[Lundan Cabbie]

That angle changes my view. Still not sure that’s red, it is a second yellow though.

A disciplinary hearing cannot change the colour of the card.

Had red ref issued a second yellow along with a red card, the suspension would have been one game. The straight red receives three matches.

The hearing has only two options. To impose the three match ban (or more if they see fit) or, overturn the suspension completely.

Red cards are never rescinded though. Even when a hearing “overturns” a red card the sending g off remains on a player’s disciplinary record forever more. Why? Because the referee’s decision is always final and no commission is above the laws of the game.

 

[esmer]

If Steve saw that I don't think he would be appealing it. Just goes to show how difficult refereeing is; same incident; two angles; two completely different conclusions.

 

[davie nine]

Gives the Channel 5 presenters and Dermot Gallagher, on Sky, something to reconsider.

 

[esmer]

Anyone on hear know how to send this clip to the F A then go for it and get justice for Carey!

The guy was sent off. Wasn’t justice served?

It would be justice for the officials though.

 

[Jose446]

Gives the Channel 5 presenters and Dermot Gallagher, on Sky, something to reconsider.

Absolutely, and the mis-conception that has been bubbling that we (Argyle) cheated our way to victory.

if this video can be sent to sky / fa / Channel 5 whoever then it should. Its critical evidence that helps Argyle and Carey clear his name and may make the pundits reconsider their comments

 

[davie nine]

.....and a copy to Steve Evans. Says he fined Taylor, perhaps he should consider fining Shepherd and apologising to the officials.

 

[Pezbuck]

On Matchday Moments, the ref is clearly saying to Shepherd that it was "off the ball", and therefore a red.

 

[Tony Flags]

Red card rescinded for Shephard. Bizarrely if given the second yellow it deserved he would be suspended next game, but as given a dodgy straight red it is rescinded and no suspension.

 

[Pogleswoody]

So ... when a player is making a run off the ball, you can legitimately deliberately block him and stick your shoulder under his chin so that he runs into it and hurts himself? All game long they deliberately blocked running players. When was the obstruction offence repealed? :think:

Fine .. carry on then! :facepalm:

 

[dunlop]

Once Gallagher gave his opinion on ref watch you could bet your bottom dollar that was going to be the decision, they (refs) have the same mentality, these appeal boards and the same who view VAR should have a mixture ex players and referees to give a judgement.

 

[Tony Flags]

The problem is that deliberate obstruction is a yellow card offence and not a red. The hapless ref on Saturday failed to deal with this Peterborough tactic all game. He should have given several yellows early on, instead he gave multiple no cards to repeat offenders and then a red.

 

[Quintrell Green]

It is not justice for Graham Carey but at the end of the day Argyle won a fractious promotion linked fixture which was aided by the absence of a Peterborough player during part of that game. I think Argyle can be quite satisfied really.
If Shepherd has this on field tactic as part of his rubbish game he will be found out sooner or later.

 

[Kevin Dacombe]

I can only assume that the appeals board or whoever they are, are not allowed to use fan videos to make a decision and have to use the official camera. In which case it looks not as bad, however, if they were to have used the video from behind the goal that we have all seen then the decision looks a bit more easy to make.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

I can only assume that the appeals board or whoever they are, are not allowed to use fan videos to make a decision and have to use the official camera. In which case it looks not as bad, however, if they were to have used the video from behind the goal that we have all seen then the decision looks a bit more easy to make.

That video does appear to suggest a straight red card was correct but I doubt Peterborough would have presented that as evidence even if they had it available because doesn’t support their case. What we not privy to is the referee’s report. The hearing have decided that video evidence doesn’t match what the ref is claiming had happened.

 

[ChepstowGreen]

I can only assume that the appeals board or whoever they are, are not allowed to use fan videos to make a decision and have to use the official camera. In which case it looks not as bad, however, if they were to have used the video from behind the goal that we have all seen then the decision looks a bit more easy to make.

That video does appear to suggest a straight red card was correct but I doubt Peterborough would have presented that as evidence even if they had it available because doesn’t support their case. What we not privy to is the referee’s report. The hearing have decided that video evidence doesn’t match what the ref is claiming had happened.

In that case I feel sorry for the referee.