A new low in football officiating...

[kill_the_drum]

Totally disagree, that’s the rule. Gray was obviously happy to take a yellow card and that’s his choice. The ref is paid to officiate the game according to the rules, and that’s what he did.
So if Gray had already been on a yellow are you saying he shouldn’t have given him a second yellow? Also if Gray wasn’t on a yellow after being allowed to break the rules, and then picks up a yellow later in the game for a foul, that’s hardly fair on Cardiff.
Personally I hate the rule, but it is the rule!

[JoePass]

Totally disagree, that’s the rule. Gray was obviously happy to take a yellow card and that’s his choice. The ref is paid to officiate the game according to the rules, and that’s what he did.
So if Gray had already been on a yellow are you saying he shouldn’t have given him a second yellow? Also if Gray wasn’t on a yellow after being allowed to break the rules, and then picks up a yellow later in the game for a foul, that’s hardly fair on Cardiff.
Personally I hate the rule, but it is the rule!

Hate what happened to Leicester, ref was spot on though.

[Pies4u]

Hate what happened to Leicester, ref was spot on though.

Indeed. As Joe & KTD have indicated, no matter what the circumstances and/or emotions involved - why does celebrating a goal involve taking your shirt off? I can't think why anyone would believe that removing articles of clothing is a reasonable response to scoring or to the intensity & trauma of the past week tbh.

[jackal2]

Totally disagree, that’s the rule. Gray was obviously happy to take a yellow card and that’s his choice. The ref is paid to officiate the game according to the rules, and that’s what he did.
So if Gray had already been on a yellow are you saying he shouldn’t have given him a second yellow? Also if Gray wasn’t on a yellow after being allowed to break the rules, and then picks up a yellow later in the game for a foul, that’s hardly fair on Cardiff.
Personally I hate the rule, but it is the rule!

I'll concede (to a degree) that the problem is ultimately with the rule rather than the particular referee, but it illustrates the ineptness of the footballing authorities that they regulate to a degree where an understanding of the circumstances and emotions of the game cannot be applied. I don't know if such over-regulation is a response of the lack of common sense and ability of referees to make correct judgements in the heat of the action, or whether it is making otherwise capable officials look like idiots, but either way I can never recall a time when the overall standard of officiating has been worse.

And let's not kid ourselves, anyone who has seen a fair few football matches will know that there are certain referees whose body language betrays that they absolutely love the position of power it gives them, and enjoy being centre of attention, despite the fact that their judgement and performance often is not worthy of respect.

[JoePass]

I concede (maybe) that the problem is ultimately with the rule rather than the particular referee, but it illustrates the ineptness of the footballing authorities that they regulate to a degree where an understanding of the circumstances and emotions of the game cannot be applied. And let's not kid ourselves, anyone who has seen a fair few football matches will know that there are certain referees whose body language betrays that they absolutely love the position of power it gives them, and enjoy being centre of attention, despite the fact that their judgement and performance often is not worthy of respect.

He was right though.

[jackal2]

He was right though.

Well no. Applying a stupid rule or law correctly does not make it right. Take your pick as to whether you put the lion's share of the blame on the ref or the rule makers (probably the latter), but booking a player in those circumstances was not "right".

[Elite_Pie]

Well no. Applying a stupid rule or law correctly does not make it right. Take your pick as to whether you put the lion's share of the blame on the ref or the rule makers (probably the latter), but booking a player in those circumstances was not "right".

Can't agree at all. The ref was 100% correct in what he did and should get no criticism at all for that decision. He was just doing his job. Whether the law is stupid or not is debatable. As P4U said, why does celebrating a goal involve taking your shirt off?

[jackal2]

Can't agree at all. The ref was 100% correct in what he did and should get no criticism at all for that decision. He was just doing his job. Whether the law is stupid or not is debatable.

You cannot operate "without error or emotion". Sometimes acting without emotion or compassion is in itself an error of judgement.

"I was just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse for doing the wrong thing, as history has shown many times, but in the constructive sense I agree that the problem is ultimately with the law, the stupidity of which is actually not all that debatable.

[Elite_Pie]

"I was just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse for doing the wrong thing.

Possibly correct, but this ref didn't do the wrong thing, his decision was undoubtedly correct.

Anyway, no harm was done. Leicester got the result that very few neutrals would begrudge them.

[Elite_Pie]

I don't see what else the ref could do. His job was simply to apply the laws of the game, which it appears he did correctly. It's very dodgy ground when you start asking a ref to take emotions into account when making decisions.