Bishop's Red Card

[undercovershrimper]

Absolutely staggering. I was fully expecting an extra game ban for a frivolous appeal.

you can be bet your bottom dollar had an oldham or coventry player done that and they had appealed they would now be looking at a 4 game ban!

 

[londonblue]

Personally, having seen it on TV, I thought it was a harsh red card and I was surprised he was sent off for that. However, I'm equally surprised it was rescinded.

 

[AndyT]

It wasn't a nasty incident. Just a petulant kick.

However, Robert Madley must have consulted with the assistant in front of the blue seats and asked what happened, then deemed it a kick out at an opponent.

So, assuming that's the case, it's a straight rule as to whether, a la Beckham '98, it's a straight red offence. If it is, then on what basis can it be overturned? .. There's hardly fresh evidence to suggest he didn't kick out at Demi! .. I'll dig out the rules if I can.

 

[AndyT]

From the FA guidelines, below, Bishop was dismissed for violent conduct, according to reports, so it's possibly been rescinded as it wasn't deemed "excessive force" but on what evidence has it been changed suddenly? :-

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the opponents’ goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)
• serious foul play
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• violent conduct
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

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.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

From the FA guidelines, below, Bishop was dismissed for violent conduct, according to reports, so it's possibly been rescinded as it wasn't deemed "excessive force" but on what evidence has it been changed suddenly? :-

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the opponents’ goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)
• serious foul play
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• violent conduct
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

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.

Well he wasn't challenging for the ball, he just kicked Demi. Probably more of a kick than Beckham did in 98. I'd like to see the report into why they recinded the red card

 

[westie]

I was sitting directly in front of the incident. For me too, it was not violent conduct, merely a petulant tap on Demetriou's ankle. As a Premier referee, I thought Madley had a shocker, but could hardly have been blamed for his decision as he sought advice from his Assistant, who for me, wrongly deemed it violent conduct.

Presumably the FA have since looked at the footage and deemed Bishop's action not to have been "violent" or used with "excessive force". The correct decision IMHO.

 

[AndyT]

Well he wasn't challenging for the ball, he just kicked Demi. Probably more of a kick than Beckham did in 98. I'd like to see the report into why they recinded the red card

Me too.

The rules need a bit of flexibility, though.

Rather than a mandatory 3 match ban, there should be an option to reduce to 1 match if the decision is reviewed and the case is confirmed as a red, but treated more like 2 x yellows, as it's less serious than "excessive force". There's a big difference between what he did and someone getting sent off for a violent tackle, that leaves a player injured. Like Alex Gilbey's challenge on Lenny, last season.

Whilst Bishop was a petulant loon, to get 3 matches is a bit OTT. A red and a reduction to 1 match, would show support for the officials, whilst accepting the player didn't act as badly as first thought.

Bishop can count himself a little lucky, but he'll learn though, as he's only 35! :smile:

 

[Agent Lomas]

Unfortunately, when you're at the top of the league, this sort of thing goes your way...not that it should.

If that was a Coventry player, he'd have a three game ban.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Unfortunately, when you're at the top of the league, this sort of thing goes your way...not that it should.

If that was a Coventry player, he'd have a three game ban.

It will be 10 minutes in the sin bin soon

 

[Lord Football]

Of course the dichotomy here is that the Scunny 8 was cautioned for grabbing Ferdinand (I think) and Bishop was sent off for flicking a kick at Dimi.

I didn't at the time understand why the 8 got a yellow card. It was either a red or nothing. It was either violent conduct or not. Having considered this further, I can only assume the 8 was cautioned for unsporting behaviour (or whatever it is called these days) because his actions were not violent. If the referee was being consistent (or actually in this the case the East side assistant as he saw them both) Bishop was either a yellow or nothing for the same reason.

However, that said, having seen it on the box, I still think its a red and don't really understand why the FA felt the need to undermine the match official.

 

[Ricey]

Of course the dichotomy here is that the Scunny 8 was cautioned for grabbing Ferdinand (I think) and Bishop was sent off for flicking a kick at Dimi.

I didn't at the time understand why the 8 got a yellow card. It was either a red or nothing. It was either violent conduct or not. Having considered this further, I can only assume the 8 was cautioned for unsporting behaviour (or whatever it is called these days) because his actions were not violent. If the referee was being consistent (or actually in this the case the East side assistant as he saw them both) Bishop was either a yellow or nothing for the same reason.

However, that said, having seen it on the box, I still think its a red and don't really understand why the FA felt the need to undermine the match official.

Andy Dawson and he grabbed Timlin by the throat.

 

[FarmdogSUFC]

Andy Dawson and he grabbed Timlin by the throat.

Timlin then told him they'd sort it out inside the absolute hero.