This weeks controversy Aribo wasn't sent off

A Hibee I know was right on social media to me last night with a picture of Aribo’s tackle. This is a guy who maintains there was nothing wrong with Porteous’s the other week.

If I was a Hibs fan I’d have been spending my night analysing why my team got pumped off Dundee Utd yesterday, not screenshotting pictures of Rangers players vs Hertz.
 
He was lucky not to see red but then Devlin should have been sent off too so it could easily have ended up 10 against 10.
 
I think this best breaks down why Porteous was a red and Aribo was a yellow.

http://www.yorkreferee.co.uk/ref-help/laws/careless-reclesss-or-excessive/

Careless, Reckless or Using Excessive Force – an evaluatation on reckless challenges and serious foul play

Referees at Select Group level continue to meet up on a regular basis to discuss, review and debate decisions that are made at National List level within the PGMOL. One of the most difficult situations for a referee, for various reasons, is to differentiate between a reckless foul and a challenge that is considered to be one of serious foul play. At a recent seminar referees identified a series of criteria which they believe will help referees at all levels distinguish between these two types of offences.

Firstly, a reminder of what Law 12 states:

“Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. (A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned)

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. (A player who uses excessive force must be sent off)

When deciding whether a challenge is worthy of a sanction i.e. punishable by a yellow or red card, take into consideration the following factors:

The position of the ball
, what are the chances of playing the ball in a fair manner? A tackle may still be considered reckless (or even with excessive force) even though the ball is played. Where contact is made with the ball and opponent at speed and without consideration for the potential danger to the opponent, it should be punished appropriately.

The speed or the intensity of the challenge. Is the player in control of his actions, or is he “off the ground” and out of control when he makes the challenge?

The part of the body used in the challenge. Has the opponent used his studs to cause serious injury to an opponent or does he use his leg or foot to tackle unfairly?

Where on the field of play has the offence taken place, for example, a handball offence can have three different outcomes depending where the offence was committed.

The element of Intent or malice – is the player purely focused on his opponent and with no concern for the position of the ball.

Final Conclusion and Advice If a player uses excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent, it does not matter whether the tackle is from behind, the front, of from the side. Particular emphasis should be placed on the elimination of challenges where a player gives no consideration to the safety and welfare of an opponent. Challenges of this nature must be considered as serious foul play and the offender must be sent off. Brutality must always result in a red card.
 
Tam McManus, eh?

CanineMasculineIvorybilledwoodpecker.webp
 
At the game I thought it was a red so Joe got away with it. Not sure about the Bacuba incident as was too far away. Anyone throw any light on it?
McManus is just an image of Stewart.
 
I think this best breaks down why Porteous was a red and Aribo was a yellow.

http://www.yorkreferee.co.uk/ref-help/laws/careless-reclesss-or-excessive/

Careless, Reckless or Using Excessive Force – an evaluatation on reckless challenges and serious foul play

Referees at Select Group level continue to meet up on a regular basis to discuss, review and debate decisions that are made at National List level within the PGMOL. One of the most difficult situations for a referee, for various reasons, is to differentiate between a reckless foul and a challenge that is considered to be one of serious foul play. At a recent seminar referees identified a series of criteria which they believe will help referees at all levels distinguish between these two types of offences.

Firstly, a reminder of what Law 12 states:

“Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. (A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned)

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. (A player who uses excessive force must be sent off)

When deciding whether a challenge is worthy of a sanction i.e. punishable by a yellow or red card, take into consideration the following factors:

The position of the ball
, what are the chances of playing the ball in a fair manner? A tackle may still be considered reckless (or even with excessive force) even though the ball is played. Where contact is made with the ball and opponent at speed and without consideration for the potential danger to the opponent, it should be punished appropriately.

The speed or the intensity of the challenge. Is the player in control of his actions, or is he “off the ground” and out of control when he makes the challenge?

The part of the body used in the challenge. Has the opponent used his studs to cause serious injury to an opponent or does he use his leg or foot to tackle unfairly?

Where on the field of play has the offence taken place, for example, a handball offence can have three different outcomes depending where the offence was committed.

The element of Intent or malice – is the player purely focused on his opponent and with no concern for the position of the ball.

Final Conclusion and Advice If a player uses excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent, it does not matter whether the tackle is from behind, the front, of from the side. Particular emphasis should be placed on the elimination of challenges where a player gives no consideration to the safety and welfare of an opponent. Challenges of this nature must be considered as serious foul play and the offender must be sent off. Brutality must always result in a red card.

A good explanation that few supporters will be aware the detail of.

Aribo certainly was careless, probably verging on reckless but he was not attempting to use excessive force nor leaping in off the ground, in an out of control sort of way.

That being the case unless the referee is of a mind there is some sort of additional intent Aribo, or any player, should probably get the benefit of the doubt.
 
Tam McManus haha. A fat prick that sits on a sofa with 3 other fat pricks gibbering pish for an hour.
 
I couldn't see it very well from the EE, on seeing a replay of it I'd say we got away with one, that being said the ref was awful yesterday, consistently bad.
 
From the Govan Front it looked a red card to me. There’s no venom like Porteous challenge but it’s a straight leg studs up and it’s a lunge
 
Anyone got a video of this

Watching on the tv at the time it never even entered my mind that could be a red. Given he wasn't giving a card for anything to Hearts, I was a bit surprised it was even yellow. Just looked a professional foul/ trip
 
We pretty much knew what was coming from that rhat yesterday. A disgrace to the profession
Yet the rhat did not red cad Aribo. For me the yellow was correct but it was the perfect opportunity for Robertson to influence the game. That tackle was in the "seen them given" category.
He could also have given a penalty for the Balogun/ Boyce incident. It was not a penalty but Balogun was leaning on Boyce (who flung himself down) and a Ref intent on cheating us had his chance.
 
I've watched it back, and if a red card was given I don't think we could have many complaints, to be honest. I'd certainly be screaming for a red if the same tackle happened against one of our players.
I said at the time he was a lucky boy not to be sent off. And after seeing it again i say he was a lucky boy not to be sent off. It was a bad touch and a bit of a lunge for the ball. Studs up over the ball. Definite sending off. We got away with one. Swings and roundabouts.
 
I was at the game and breathed a sigh of relief as live I thought it was red. His studs not only were showing they made contact. Amazing to see how many over last 2 weeks crying harsh treatment and defended Porteous are now admitting his was a red and asking why then did Aribo not take a walk as well?

Summed it up on the phone in. We think Celtic get all the decisions in their favour, They think we get treated leniently and the rest of the league think the two Glasgow clubs get the benefit of decisions. Well that's cleared that one up then.

Bottom line is he was shown Yellow therefore cannot be revisited so move along nothing to see here :shh: B-)
 
Not a red for me. The still shot looks bad, but the video shows he’s just stuck out a leg from a standing position, yellow card is the correct outcome.

Anyone comparing it to Porteous is a moron. One player went out his way to hurt another professional, the other was late with a low impact tackle. They’re nothing alike.
 
I thought he was lucky at the time, seen it a million times, midfielder takes a bad touch, over stretches to win the ball back and is a split second late.

My initial reaction was he's off. Still got about 3 million decisions to go ourway before we break even so these deranged mental tims can shut the %^*& up.
 
Aribo miscontrolled and made a blindsided reaction to try and regain control of the ball, not realising the Hearts player was on top of him, it was a totally accidental collision.
That said, it all depended on how the referee saw it and some may have given a red.
However, there is no comparison to last week's malicious challenge by Porteous and McManus has played enough football to know the difference.
He is at it.
 
Anyone got a video of this

Watching on the tv at the time it never even entered my mind that could be a red. Given he wasn't giving a card for anything to Hearts, I was a bit surprised it was even yellow. Just looked a professional foul/ trip
I was at the game and thought it was a nothing challenge don’t think the bbc even showed it? Good to see it again.
 
I was at the game and breathed a sigh of relief as live I thought it was red. His studs not only were showing they made contact. Amazing to see how many over last 2 weeks crying harsh treatment and defended Porteous are now admitting his was a red and asking why then did Aribo not take a walk as well?

Summed it up on the phone in. We think Celtic get all the decisions in their favour, They think we get treated leniently and the rest of the league think the two Glasgow clubs get the benefit of decisions. Well that's cleared that one up then.

Bottom line is he was shown Yellow therefore cannot be revisited so move along nothing to see here :shh: B-)
Did Alfredo not get a yellow against Dundee Utd last season or the season before and it was upped to a red through Sportscene analysis?
 
Interesting that one of the people he tagged in the tweet deliberately gave away a penalty when playing against celtic on a championship final day decider.

Thankfully Dunfermline came to Ibrox and let us run over them.
 
Tam Mcmanus has played with 14 teams in his professional career. 5 went bust, 5 relegation.

Why does anyone valus his opinion?
 
Back
Top