Matt Crooks written report

[pip_y]

Finally released by FA

https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/...pril-2021.ashx

[frogmiller]

Not loading Pip

[millertop]

11. Having viewed the available footage of the incident on numerous occasions and in great detail, the Regulatory Commission agreed unanimously that the Referee had not made an obvious error in his interpretation of the incident. The Club submitted that, when challenging for the ball, their player’s arm was not raised in an unnatural or a dangerous manner. The Club further submitted that their player’s actions were in no way dangerous to his opponent and that the clash of heads was purely accidental and not as a result of the recklessness of their player’s challenge.
12. This account was not accepted by the Commission. The Rotherham player covered a small distance which gave him a run up of speed and intensity to make the aerial challenge. Whilst it was accepted that the player’s arm was in a natural position when heading the ball, the intensity of the challenge and the fact there was a clash of heads without any contact with the ball could clearly be classed as endangering the safety of his opponent. Whilst it is accepted there was no malice in making the challenge, the Commission all understood why the Referee had decided to dismiss the Rotherham player. It was a challenge that was high risk if there was no contact with the ball and, therefore, this made the Referee’s decision entirely understandable. The Commission concluded that whilst the outcome of the challenge may have been unintentional and/or accidental, the action of the challenge itself as set out in this paragraph meant it was to be viewed as clearly endangering the safety of the opponent.

[frogmiller]

Cheers

So if you jump for the ball you have to be from a standing position if your aponent is but if he's running to head it you can then do the same?

If you make contact with a player then it's dangreous but if you don't it's dangerous as well?

If Crooks had made contact with the ball before the clash of heads it wouldn't have been dangerous?

Bonkers!

[caytonmiller]

Can't disagree with that. It's as I saw it and reckless by crooks.
Now the challenge on Viktor. Can the commission write a report on that one !

[millertop]

I understand where they’re coming from but tell me how many will you see be given a red?
Covering imo

Yes a report on Morris would be good but did we bombard them about it? I bloody hope so, that’s twice with the same ref which needs questions answered imo

[flourbasher]

The FA have mentioned enough mitigating factors in their own findings to make that a yellow.
There's certainly been an agenda with this one.

[Lasterman]

Definitely a fudge. Every/any challenge has the capacity to endanger an opponent because as a player, you don't know what your opponent is going to do in the same moment which might render your actions/movements potentially hazardous. Just trying to protect the referee with this I think.

[pip_y]

I think that Ward being only 4th official after the Barnsley game was his punishment. Should have been a 3 match ban and relegated to lower league.

[pip_y]

Not loading Pip

Must be your end