Torquay United Fans Forum

Wasn't there, but letter of the law states a ordering-off offence for serious foul play. Although with in the same paragraph it also states IN THE REFEREES OPINION but surely even he would have to concede thats a straight red

I couldn't disagree with you less. I said at the time it was a definite red, at no point did he have eyes for the ball and that photo confirms it. Clearly a publicity stunt by the club to show the severity of a challenge that could have seen us without one of our most experienced and consistent performers for the run in. As you say, little old Torquay would never make a dramatic song and dance about this sort of thing, nor would we get listened to.

Behind-the-Gulls wrote: The Club have made a statement-both Nicolson and Ling have said that they don't think Carayol meant to cause serious damage with his tackle,and they certainly didn't think his yelow card should have been red.

Look a little deeper... We probably have 5000 pictures of Nico, why choose to publish that exact one? What else do you expect Torquay United to come out and say, we're just not the sort of club who are going to allow ourselves to appear petty and vindictive by making the statement which the likes of Evans or Di Canio would make. What the club have done in publishing that exact photo is to make a statement about how lovely Carayol is and how excellent his map reading skills are, then given those of us paying attention a little nudge and a sly wink by showing us exactly what really happened. They don't need to make a song and dance about it, because all we will do is lose something and gain nothing. You know it was a bad challenge, I know it was a bad challenge and the club know that we know, and from that comes a slightly smug self satisfaction which we may all bask in without making ourselves look petty in the national media.

Matt.

Reckless, studs, over the top of the ball, dirty challenge, definite red!

I agree that if there's ever to be any constistency from referees as much interpretation has to be removed from the laws as possible, in which case intent can't come into it as there's no way a ref can know the player's intent. Here it looks like Muzzy intends to block the clearance but has gone over the ball and caught Nicho badly, running the risk of a serious injury and thus surely deserving of a red card. If he'd intended to boot Nicho in the shins but taken the ball the ref wouldn't know that and he wouldn't get a card.

It might make more sense if the laws were solely geared towards reducing the chance of injury. In the case of challenges like these, perhaps a red could be issued if the ball is on the floor and the foot is higher than the ball.

While we're talking rules, I'd like to see anyone waving an imaginary card booked immediately, and the same for anyone rolling on the floor when they get brushed by a raised hand. The raiser should still get a red, but nobody reacts like that to getting hit in the face, thus it's an attempt to con the ref, i.e. simulation. Rant over.

Interpretation seems to be the cause of most of the problems with refereeing in general. Nico was very lucky he didn't end up with a broken ankle after that challenge. I was surprised to see Carayol amazed that he had even been booked. To my mind intent doesn't come into it. If a player makes a reckless challenge like this - immaterial of intent, this is a red card.

The problem comes when pundits get involved and analyse the event in slow motion from 40 different angles and start to think they can read the players mind!. Are we going to debate whether the player meant it or not? who cares! Debating sendings off, reckless challenges etc simply keeps the pundits in a job. If the referee sent Carayol off, the pundits would say "that was a bit harsh". If the referee doesn't send off Carayol the pundits will say the referee got it wrong!

If referees stick to the letter of the law and stop interpreting it, players will know where they stand and will seriously think about their actions. All while there is a 'grey area' we will continue to see tackles like this. Career ending on some occasions!

The law states a red card is issued for serious foul play (there is no mention of intent). I challenge anyone having seen this picture to argue this isn't serious foul play. Perhaps the FA should clarify serious foul play - perhaps that's the problem.

ferrarilover wrote:I came here to post exactly the same thing. The picture is clearly there to show us what really happened, without the club having to make any kind of statemnt and cause trouble. That, for me, is a red card, he's gone over the top of the ball with a straight lunging leg.

Naughty boy Mustapha, your tackling is almost as bad as your geography.

Matt.

The Club have made a statement-both Nicolson and Ling have said that they don't think Carayol meant to cause serious damage with his tackle,and they certainly didn't think his yelow card should have been red.

ferrarilover wrote:I came here to post exactly the same thing. The picture is clearly there to show us what really happened, without the club having to make any kind of statemnt and cause trouble. That, for me, is a red card, he's gone over the top of the ball with a straight lunging leg.

Naughty boy Mustapha, your tackling is almost as bad as your geography.

Matt.

I came here to post exactly the same thing. The picture is clearly there to show us what really happened, without the club having to make any kind of statemnt and cause trouble. That, for me, is a red card, he's gone over the top of the ball with a straight lunging leg.

Naughty boy Mustapha, your tackling is almost as bad as your geography.

Matt.

Good picture on the .com o with the title 'tender Kev'

can be seen directly here

http://www.torquayunited.com/javaImages ... 777,00.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

surely a ?