Initially I thought he was throwing it away to stop Gordon grabbing it and taking a quick throw whilst Trent was on the floor off the pitch. Ironically, I think if he’d just held onto it instead of throwing it away the ref wouldn’t have booked him.
Could just as equally be frustration at not getting an obvious freekick. Again though, if he holds onto it and goes to speak to the ref he probably doesn’t get booked.
Ultimately, the ref caused the situation and then couldn’t wait to get his card out. But only on that one occasion of course.
The other odd one was the linesman giving Trent a telling off for geeing up our fans when he won a throw in or goal kick right near the end. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen before and I can’t see what offence he might have committed.
I was at least glad that the football weekly podcast had someone who pushed back against “Trent should have been sent off” by saying that, to paraphrase him, Gordon is a cheating little bastard who spends half the time falling over anytime someone goes near him and spends the other half of the time putting in dangerous challenges like pushing people off the pitch by barging them in the back.
The same way we used to say Harry Kane is going to really hurt someone the way he ducks under aerial challenges and sends the defender over the top of him - Gordon is going to really hurt someone by pushing them over the advertising boards. He does it every game.
I wouldn’t have been, for precisely the same reason that was argued way above in this thread, that it was really just a matter of interpretation as to whether that was an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
I presume it was more to do with time-wasting, or at least that’s what I thought in the moment. Was fairly concerned that the twat in the middle would use that as an excuse to send him off, mind.
It’s not an impossible job, they make mistakes, which is not always nice to see but that is not the problem. For instance, the assault on van Dijk by Prickford was missed by Oliver, I hated that he missed it but I accept it because he has no bias.
The biased ones like Taylor, Coote, Tierney and so on together with Howard Webb who is backing them up are the problem and they could drop dead for all I care.
I don’t know how any argues that it’s not. Isak is ahead of van Dijk and between him and the ball. If van Dijk doesn’t trip him then he’s into the box, with the ball at his feet and only Alisson to beat.
The factors to be interpreted are;
distance between the offence and the goal - he’s certainly close enough for it to be a goal scoring opportunity
general direction of the play - ball is going forward into the box about in line with where the D joins the box
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - the pass is perfectly weighted and one you’d expect him to control for sure
location and number of defenders - there’s no cover for van Dijk
Without the foul Isak is in a clear goal scoring position. I’ve no idea what anyone can argue with here unless you’re arguing that it wasn’t a foul, which it was.
For me the second angle (6 second mark) shows why it is a red.
Could very easily not have been given, but is much easier to see why it has been given rather than the angle that has typically been shown. Its for a me a clear goal scoring opportunity. Far better position than where Darwin was when he scored his two goals.
Thats not to say the ref was not shit. Consistency is a big issue, even within the game, let alone between games.
Is it really fair minded to invent a situation, decide what would have happened with it and then get mad about that?
We have seen loads of bad calls go against us that we can use as a frame of reference for inconsistency (as troublesome as that is as a concept given that 2 incidents are ever truly the same) without having to invent situations to use to argue our points.
Notably the ball is not ahead of Van Dijk. It is precisely because Isak is having to wait for the ball that Virgil thought he had time to try to step in and nick it. At no point in that sequence though is Virgil chasing down man and ball indicative of him having been beaten by the through ball. If virgil continues to run with the man rather than try to nick it there is no way that Isak gets off a shot without having to something to make space for it.
There appears to be an interpretation that you cannot account for that in the decision making, that because Virgil made a foul he is excluded from the thought process of what happens next, but that is an interpretation that makes no sense to me and isnt explicitly supported anywhere.
But Virgil doesn’t keep running, he kicks Isak. That is what the ref is making the call on.
You can’t say it’s not a clear goal scoring opportunity because if the player who commits the foul doesn’t commit a foul and instead does something else then he might have prevented a shot from being taken. Because in that scenario there wouldn’t be a foul to blow up for so the ref wouldn’t have to consider anything.
The second van Dijk makes the challenge, he’s committed the foul. That’s why he’s excluded from the thought process of of what happens next. He fouls him, it meets the criteria for being a goal scoring opportunity and so it’s a red.
Wasn’t too much fume when the incident in the video @Dutch posted.
Some here spend more time defending decisions against us rather than acknowledgement of when we are shafted.