Red card appealed

Watford have appealed against the Zeegelaar red card on Saturday. Be interesting to see if that's overturned.

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/sport/watford-appealing-marvin-zeegelaars-red-908270

 

Doubt it.

 

Great. Now we'll probably be done for putting in a frivolous appeal.

 

In this month's WSC leading article was about diving and the new panel reviewing them. It mentioned that a lot of those who'd been investigated were of Portugese or Brazilian. It mentioned thatcour Richarlison was investigated by them. I thought his penalty was so clear cut that it didn't even go to this panel?

 

To be totally honest, I think it was a witch hunt by the media why it went to review. It was a small club getting a decision against a big club, and this cannot be allowed to happen. It has to be some form of cheating surely.

IMO this was the only reason why it was reviewed, because the media got their claws into it. I've seen far more obvious dives and clear cheating which are being justified and not reviewed, since the Richarlison penalty. If it's clear cut then anyone could be reviewed, but when it's a close one then it depends on who the player or club is an how the media portray it.

 

They seem to have a very high standard for what makes an appeal frivolous. I'd be very surprised if they do decide ours is, given some of the others that have been rejected, but not judged frivolous.

 

After Silva described the decision as 'harsh harsh harsh harsh' afterwards I don't think we had any choice but to appeal. I don't think it was a sending off, but I was brought up watching football when it was a man's game, so I'm almost certainly wrong

 

I agree, apart from one poster on here, I think most even minded people have seen this as a harsh sending off. It's one of those 50/50 calls though. In fact the entire game had many incidents of this nature.

Had the ref not sent off Zeegelaar nothing would have been said. The same could be said of the two Burnley goals he disallowed. Both could have stood and nothing would have been said. He could have also given Watford three penalties.

It just goes to show that tight games, like last Saturday's, are often decided by the interpretation of the referee on the day. On another day, with a different ref, Zeegelaar stays on and Richarlison is awarded a penalty and we probably go on to win.

To appeal this decision will not be seen as frivolous, as there has been a lot of comment from people within the game to say it was harsh or should not have been a red. I think it's one of those decisions that cannot be seen as blatantly wrong though, which is why it will be hard to justifiably overturn. That's the problem Watford have, but there is enough in it to justify an appeal and get some type of protest registered.

 

Can't see the point. Damage already done and a rest might do him some good.

 

How about making Burnley play their next game with 10 men for 45 minutes. More fair than giving us Zeegelaar back.

 

Would be amazed if this is overturned. It was a harsh red insofar as it looked like he slipped a bit and didn't mean to go in like that but that's the risk you run when you fly into a tackle recklessly. Particularly irritating to make that tackle in a nothing area of the pitch when we were in no danger.

 

2 feet off the ground and a nasty photo of the contact made with the other guys leg. 0% chance of an overturn. Higher % chance of an additional match added to the ban.

 

If the ref admits that he missed Zeeglegar's touch on the ball, or misjudged the distance Zeeg was from the player when he went to ground, or misthought that Z's feet were both off the ground/ studs up throughout the movement, or that he fell for the Burnley players theatrics about the severity of the contact, then it will be overturned.

If he instead pretends to be sure that he thinks it was a red - to cover his own back - then it is likely that the red will stand.

The vast majority of experts think it was never a red-card. It's quite clear to most that have played the game that the tackle was incredibly non-dangerous. But that is inconsequential if the ref doesn't want to admit to a mistake.

 

Not sure why we are appealing it. Seems like a fair red to me.

 

I don’t think this has any chance of being overturned. Stupid challenge put referee on the spot and he came down on the side of red. Seems fair enough.

 

Was a red imo

 

Love these comments from Silva. He sees it exactly the same way as I do with regards to referees, but his comments will probably fall on deaf ears.

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co....ws/silva-officials-treat-watford-equal-908958

 

HB1 - you have no idea why they are appealing this. Maybe they truly believe it was very, very harsh or maybe they want the officials to know they will make a song and dance about any 50/50 decision moving forward to make them think. Who knows

On first viewing I thought it was a straight red. So did many on here. Whether that view is right or wrong I still maintain that it was unnecessary to make a tackle like that to have that debate.

 

What a strange comment to make. I know exactly why they are appealing this, as the club feels the decision was unfair. I even saw Silva's press conference and he said the exact same thing.

If you get time, watch the Silva press conference. It's clear to me he is feeling Watford are being an example of, whereas others get away with it. I'm so pleased he is standing up for the club like this. About time someone did, as reading the views of many on here, they accept absolutely everything that's thrown at the club, and even go out of their way to justify it.

Good on Silva I say.

 

Look this conversation can go round in circles. Personally I don’t believe that Watford are targeted by officials in any way. I believe that they have a tough job to do and make decisions on the spot as they see it. Sometimes they are right and sometimes, on the evidence of slow motion and a thousand replays from all angles, they are proved to be incorrect

You don’t and you are entitled to your own view

 

If the officials are always favoring the larger clubs would that not ultimately show up in the fair play tables?



Only is doesnt. The FP tables seem quite mixed between different sized clubs and has been for the past few seasons i looked up. There doesnt appear to be any pattern at all.. https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/fairnesstabelle/wettbewerb/GB1

 

Yeah, we were weakened for half a match, may as well allow ourselves to be weakened for the next three as well.

 

Lol having a bad day?

Chap's just had a broken nose and no rest since. We've got Palarse, Huddersfield and Brighton coming up. Arguably 3 weaker teams.
Knowing in advance we are without him puts us in a stronger position than having to use a substitute.

The booking was possibly harsh but I think it's a risk appealing, don't want to make it worse or use up any goodwill. Hence my reasoning.

 

With Chalobah missing until probably Feb, Britos still not fit, Hughes out for a couple more weeks, Okaka still unfit, Prodl still easing back in after a lay off, Kaboul out for the long term, do you think it's genuinely wise to be without arguably our best left back for 3 more games during one of the most congested periods of the season? If we have the option?

 

Anyone know when we find out if he’s got off?

 

Deeney says he doesn't think we'll win the appeal as the sending off was probably right by the letter of the law. But as a player he doesn't it should be.

 

Another useful contribution from Deeney!

 

Seriously, how can anybody tell me that this tackle is not dangerous

 

Looks like Zeegelaar is the one being assaulted to me.

 

Talk me through the first picture. The one with the studs up heading towards his ankle. Not the second one when he jumps out of the way to avoid an injury

 

Shouldn't we have heard a decision by now? Like how many games they're going to add to his ban for having the cheek to contest it?