Dissent shouldn't be a sending off


It was even dissent, he asked why the challenge on Clarke earlier wasn’t a foul, it was a question

Fair play to the ref for making the game today about him. Won the game single handedly.
 
Last edited:
If a player who is appears unhappy with a decision and moves towards the referee then it is an instant yellow card.

These were set out at the start of the season and were clear whether we like it or not.
There were dozens of times that happened today in the first half. None got a card. Most of them were much closer to the ref too.
 
There were dozens of times that happened today in the first half. None got a card. Most of them were much closer to the ref too.

I'm not suggesting anything else.
On this occasion unfortunately it was the correct decision.

Neil could have been sent off with his yellow.
It was coming and I bet many thought he'd walk today
 
I feel like this is only a conversation because it's happened to us now but i can see the sense.

Instead of being a yellow, which nine times out of ten makes no odds, it should be a massive fine
No, as this gives teams like Man City the nod for every player to yell abuse and indimidate the ref.
 
Interestingly, if you're going to make a rugby comparison, any abuse of the referee is an immediate red card not a yellow like in football. Rugby seem to manage fine with that and so should football.

As far as I'm concerned, Dan Neil ruined the game today not the rules.

There wasn't any abuse of the ref.

In rugby they are allowed to discuss decisions like
 
He said "that was a f***ing foul ref". The game was ruined for that. Pathetic.
Exactly that’s not dissent. It was brought in for the so called top teams screaming in the refs faces. Anyone who thinks he deserved a yellow for that is a f***ing knob.
 
I’m saying that “it’s a f***ing foul” is soft. Thousands of players will have said it before and not got a card.

Going by those rules there were plenty of other examples on the pitch today of players doing stuff on that list and not getting a card.

Blaming Neil is pathetic. The ref was rubbish.
I agree consistency is a big concern.

In terms of thousands have said it before - the rules have been tightened significanrly this season and its been made clear to all teams and players. Looking at previous seasons is irrelevant. Dan Neil is also by no means the only player to receive a card this season for dissent under the new rules either. Whether others get away with it or not its quite simple, he took the risk and he was punished. He is accountable for his actions.
There wasn't any abuse of the ref.

In rugby they are allowed to discuss decisions like
There's a difference between discussion and dissent e.g. questioning the referee's decision in an agressive/confrontational manner. And as an aside, the rugby rules are very strict. Their guidelines state saying to the ref "are you having a laugh" is worthy of a red card which seems rather severe to me but there you go.
 
Last edited:
I’m going to count how many times the telly shows a player swearing in this upcoming televised game and see how many cards are dished out.
I mean, rules are rules
 
It should be, it never is. A yellow card in those circumstances was nothing but attention seeking.

It’s hardly a surprise given where the ref came from.
 
What grief did he give him? Tell us what he said
I don't know, I didn't even know you were playing early.

Without having seen it I feel confident that the referee acted in good faith as I don't think referees are corrupt.

Perhaps your player was consistently showing dissent so the final act in your eyes may not feel sufficient to warrant a card, but like players who commit lots of niggly fouls, the referee said enough is enough and gave him a card that he deserved. You have to be a bit of a bonehead to get a second card in a game so your anger and disappointment really needs to go to the player, not the ref and not anyone who disagrees with your view.
 

Back
Top