If it gets rescinded i'll put my hand up and say i got wrong. But for me thats a red card in any game of football and the gk knows what she did and tried to create a "what the hell" scene. But let's let time be the judge..
If it gets rescinded i'll put my hand up and say i got wrong. But for me thats a red card in any game of football and the gk knows what she did and tried to create a "what the hell" scene. But let's let time be the judge..
The chance of any red card getting rescinded is slim, but that factor doesdnt make the issuing of the red card any less incorrect. The "elbow" was barely a nudge, there was no force behind it. If anything it was just the same old keeper vs attacker in goal bollockls that goes on all the time - and this was on the mild end. The Canberra player's reaction was a joke. Absolutel hollywood reaction to being nudged out of the keepers space.
Im not going to discuss whether its a penalty or not.
But for it to be a red card, it has to be Serious Foul Play or Violent Conduct. I dont think this "elbow" qualifies as either
Here is the extract from the rules
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
VIOLENT CONDUCT Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
I assume the red was issued under this part of the law - "In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible." However the contact at best was to the ribs. No head contact at all. Besides the lack of excessive force.
I assume the red was issued under this part of the law - "In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible." However the contact at best was to the ribs. No head contact at all. Besides the lack of excessive force.
The contact was the definition of negligible. Ref got suckered by the play acting.
I don't think this will get overturned. It's a high bar (from memory the test is "could any ref come to a conclusion it was a red"). There is contact, from what looks to be the arm trying to push the attacker away, as opposed to the elbow. Reckon the attacker taking 3 steps before falling over sells this for more than what it is. Also not sure the ref actually sees the contact because the whistle was well after the contact.
I don't think this will get overturned. It's a high bar (from memory the test is "could any ref come to a conclusion it was a red"). There is contact, from what looks to be the arm trying to push the attacker away, as opposed to the elbow. Reckon the attacker taking 3 steps before falling over sells this for more than what it is. Also not sure the ref actually sees the contact because the whistle was well after the contact.
So possibly the so-called violent conduct signalled to the ref by one of the assistants? That's all I can think of. It's the very definition of poor officiating to make a ruling based on the reaction of a player to contact without actually having seen that contact.
I'd like to think the red would get overturned, but that is rare and I can't see the league wanting to admint that a first timer ref was wrong. We lose nothing with Edwards taking the gloves for the next game; Hopefully there isnt some added time off for Foster. Any more than 1 game for the red would be utterly ridiculous.
Is a red card for violent conduct 3 games by default? Could be wrong but something tells me unless it's overturned Bri might be getting a run of games.
If it's a 3 game suspension, Foster won't be available until 8th March, away at Perth Glory. ALW have a 2 week break 4th-19th Feb, to help out the Ferns who have OFC Olympic Qualifying tourney.
She has 100% thrown an elbow. Lol like lets take the blinkers off and not be so patch eyed. And 100% she knows she guilty too.
Yes the player has gone down easily but that's irrelevant to the argument.
Why give the referee an opportunity to make a decision? dumb. Referee got it right.
Don’t think she’s even gone down before a push from the defender and don’t think she was asking for anything iirc? Though maybe a teammate closer to the ref was?
I'd like to think the red would get overturned, but that is rare and I can't see the league wanting to admint that a first timer ref was wrong. We lose nothing with Edwards taking the gloves for the next game; Hopefully there isnt some added time off for Foster. Any more than 1 game for the red would be utterly ridiculous.
Is a red card for violent conduct 3 games by default? Could be wrong but something tells me unless it's overturned Bri might be getting a run of games.
If it's a 3 game suspension, Foster won't be available until 8th March, away at Perth Glory. ALW have a 2 week break 4th-19th Feb, to help out the Ferns who have OFC Olympic Qualifying tourney.
I do not known what that means, let alone understand how it applies to that pretty innocuous, certainly not violent, rearward movement of Foster’s arm as she seeks to make space for herself.
2. ‘Patch eyed’?? What the heck does that mean?
3. What magical quality do you have that allows you to know with 100% certainty what ‘she knows’?
4. ‘The player going down easily’ is irrelevant to what argument? It is entirely possible that it played a key role in the original decision to issue the red card.
Nothing you have said detracts from my view that this is almost certainly the most ridiculous sending off I have witnessed in more years than i care to remember in playing, coaching and refereeing the game.
Showtime Nixie
She has 100% thrown an elbow. Lol like lets take the blinkers off and not be so patch eyed. And 100% she knows she guilty too.
Yes the player has gone down easily but that's irrelevant to the argument.
Why give the referee an opportunity to make a decision? dumb. Referee got it right.
theprof
So the match committee does all that it can and reduces the ban from 3 to 1 match.
Clear from this that the contact isn't an elbow and it seem impossible that the ref could have seen it through that grouping of players. Untitled.png2.54 MB
Clear from this that the contact isn't an elbow and it seem impossible that the ref could have seen it through that grouping of players. Untitled.png2.54 MB
Refs totally in the wrong position, for starters! Where did they get her from?
Clear and obvious error by an inexperienced referee. In all likelihood the ref got a split second and partial glimpse of Foster’s arm being extended, but drew the wrong conclusion as a result of the Canberra player’s theatrical performance.
2ndBest
Clear from this that the contact isn't an elbow and it seem impossible that the ref could have seen it through that grouping of players. Untitled.png2.54 MB
Clear from this that the contact isn't an elbow and it seem impossible that the ref could have seen it through that grouping of players. Untitled.png2.54 MB
Refs totally in the wrong position, for starters! Where did they get her from?
Was her first a-league game with the whistle, no idea where she came from but she was clearly out of her depth.
Next game for the women against Newcastle will be a big test. A bit of pressure to get some kind of result. As following game is away to Western Utd on 18th Feb, the day before the OFC olympic qualifying final on 19th Feb (so bound to be plenty of the Nix player unavailable against WU). There is a one week break at ALW after the WU game for the womens international window. So at least Nix players that could potentially play upto 5 games in the Samoa heat at the OFC tournament will get a chance to rest before there next game away to Mel Victory on 03 March. Edit. First game of the OFC tournament is 7th Feb. 3 days after the Nix play Newcastle. So I guess the question is, will there be Nix players already on international duty and unavailable for this game as well. Bri Edwards being one of those potential players.
posting still photos doesn't paint the picture...you can freeze frame any part of that elbow phase. You guys complain about VAR when its not played in normal pace but when it suits its ok. Watch the video's, plenty out there from different angles. Only on this forum are people defending the GK actions.
100% thrown elbow. Cry wolf it may get rescinded but i'd be surprised.
Not like she's a star keeper anyway so wouldn't lose any sleep over it, nothing between her and Edwards. Maybe Foster will learn her lesson.
posting still photos doesn't paint the picture...you can freeze frame any part of that elbow phase. You guys complain about VAR when its not played in normal pace but when it suits its ok. Watch the video's, plenty out there from different angles. Only on this forum are people defending the GK actions.
100% thrown elbow. Cry wolf it may get rescinded but i'd be surprised.
Not like she's a star keeper anyway so wouldn't lose any sleep over it, nothing between her and Edwards. Maybe Foster will learn her lesson.
"Thrown Elbow" is Hyperbole more like a nudge and the Canberra player going down like she had been shot is just plain cheating and par for the course from Aussies.
The Nix players travel to Samoa after the Newcastle game. There will definitely be a number out for the WU game though.Ranix
Next game for the women against Newcastle will be a big test. A bit of pressure to get some kind of result. As following game is away to Western Utd on 18th Feb, the day before the OFC olympic qualifying final on 19th Feb (so bound to be plenty of the Nix player unavailable against WU). There is a one week break at ALW after the WU game for the womens international window. So at least Nix players that could potentially play upto 5 games in the Samoa heat at the OFC tournament will get a chance to rest before there next game away to Mel Victory on 03 March. Edit. First game of the OFC tournament is 7th Feb. 3 days after the Nix play Newcastle. So I guess the question is, will there be Nix players already on international duty and unavailable for this game as well. Bri Edwards being one of those potential players.
theprof
Fenix
2ndBest
Clear from this that the contact isn't an elbow and it seem impossible that the ref could have seen it through that grouping of players. Untitled.png2.54 MB
Refs totally in the wrong position, for starters! Where did they get her from?
Was her first a-league game with the whistle, no idea where she came from but she was clearly out of her depth.
It looked like an elbow to me, not a violent one. I’m pretty sure it looked like an elbow while watching 10 other players in the box without slo mo. People here act like it is the most outrageous Red card ever, it’s not.
It looked like an elbow to me, not a violent one. I’m pretty sure it looked like an elbow while watching 10 other players in the box without slo mo. People here act like it is the most outrageous Red card ever, it’s not.
Given the type of contact that goes on at any set piece particularly from attackers towards keepers these days that contact was barely worth noticing (note the ref probably couldnt have seen the actual arm swing given her poor positioning). The ref reacted to the flop of the attacker and more than likely some comment from the assistant refs. The simple fact the ban of 3 matches for a violent conduct red was reduced to 1 match is enough to realise the ref made the wrong call.
If she threw an elbow she would have been charged with violent conduct. She wasn't.
And if it's not violent conduct,it shouldn't have been a red card. So there we have it.
if you read the article about the reduction of the ban it explains why the red card stood. Essentially the Nix would have to appeal to get the card removed, they didnt due to the reduction of the ban which was applied the next day. Like any of those appeal cases if you lose the punishment could be higher. The Nix probably looked at the 1 match ban and figured it wasnt worth the effort/cost etc. This way the ref isnt directly blamed for making the wrong call (APL saves face) and the nix only get a small manageable punishment for a poor decision.
