+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 840
Latest: Azza
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 2
New Today: 2
Stats
Total Posts: 66522
Total Topics: 4984
Most Online Today: 67
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 3
Guests: 19
Total: 22

Author Topic: Wayne Cartmel, Dorking v. Chesterfield 06.08.22  (Read 1319 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


lincs22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
A simple decision - No 6. slow to retrieve the ball, then rolling down the line. Defo - delay of game....
Agree Agree x 9 View List

Seagull

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Maidstone
    • View Profile
A simple decision - No 6. slow to retrieve the ball, then rolling down the line. Defo - delay of game....

Looks like several of us are all agreed that no.6 should have been cautioned rather than no.3. A mistake by Mr. Cartmel I would say. Just proves that all Refs are human!

RCG

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,873
    • View Profile
And then dissent 4 arguing his player couldnt be sent off 😆😆😆😆😆😆
Agree Agree x 1 View List

charlieboy

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,203
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Ex level 4
I think Paul cook who I’m not a fan of has a fair point here , referees at this level can’t be making that sort f mistake, human yes but just not concentrating properly, and if he really thought he cautioned the right player then he doesn’t deserve to referee that level, period!
My views are my own and not that of rate the ref .
Like Like x 1 View List

Wollongong Ref

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
    • View Profile
The player who was sent for timewasting really didn't do anything wrong, it was his mate. A poor decision especially for a second YC.
The send off of the keeper had terrible mechanics about it. I would say that the AR was tipped him off, and if that is the case it is poor from the referee as that part of the field is really his. I would say and I realise I only say a 6 min clip but that the referee lacked presence and authority. THis referee can add a lot to his game.

Seagull

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Maidstone
    • View Profile
The player who was sent for timewasting really didn't do anything wrong, it was his mate. A poor decision especially for a second YC.
The send off of the keeper had terrible mechanics about it. I would say that the AR was tipped him off, and if that is the case it is poor from the referee as that part of the field is really his. I would say and I realise I only say a 6 min clip but that the referee lacked presence and authority. THis referee can add a lot to his game.

I agree re the second YC situation. Wrong player cautioned. Re the GK red card, to be fair to Mr. Cartmel, I suspect he followed the ball and play up field so could be forgiven for not seeing what the GK did. Perfectly acceptable for the AR to draw his attention to misconduct. That forms part of his duties as an AR.

Rosstheref

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
I think the other player who was slow the rolled the ball away should have been cautioned. I wonder if he knew the other player was already on a Caution and if he did realise then he wouldn't have done it? Just a lapse in concentration but I'm sure he'll learn from it, with this being his first season at this level.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Ref Watcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
A simple decision - No 6. slow to retrieve the ball, then rolling down the line. Defo - delay of game....

Looks like several of us are all agreed that no.6 should have been cautioned rather than no.3. A mistake by Mr. Cartmel I would say. Just proves that all Refs are human!
It doesn't prove that ALL refs are human; just this one.  ;)
Funny Funny x 1 View List

charlieboy

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,203
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Ex level 4
Second yellow card and subsequent one match suspension has quite rightly been rescinded. On grounds of mistaken identity….. hmmm yeah right.
My views are my own and not that of rate the ref .
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Seagull

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Maidstone
    • View Profile
Second yellow card and subsequent one match suspension has quite rightly been rescinded. On grounds of mistaken identity….. hmmm yeah right.

Tenuous reason perhaps but, as you say, quite rightly rescinded. Hopefully, that caution has been re-allocated to the no.6 player who should have been cautioned.
« Last Edit: Sun 14 Aug 2022 10:37 by Seagull »
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Carter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
It as to be mistaken identity, you cant appeal a caution on any other grounds, so they cant give any other reason for it being rescinded.

Like Like x 1 View List

Leggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: East Grinstead
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Long Retired Level 3
It as to be mistaken identity, you cant appeal a caution on any other grounds, so they cant give any other reason for it being rescinded.

If a club is appealing on the grounds of mistaken identity, do they have to identify the correct culprit to that the sanction can be reallocated to their record?  Or does the caution simply disappear into the ether?

RCG

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,873
    • View Profile
The caution will be applied to the correct offender, in this case the number 6
Like Like x 1 View List

Seagull

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Maidstone
    • View Profile
It as to be mistaken identity, you cant appeal a caution on any other grounds, so they cant give any other reason for it being rescinded.

If a club is appealing on the grounds of mistaken identity, do they have to identify the correct culprit to that the sanction can be reallocated to their record?  Or does the caution simply disappear into the ether?

Yes, they do and as RCG says above, the caution will be applied to the no.6 in this case.