Here Is A Question

[GazzaBTFC]

Now we're all over yesterdays game, lets discuss provocation and reaction.

 

Now we all know the letter of the law as regards reaction. Warren Ryan and Pat Sappleton have paid that price but what about provocation. If the referee blows his whistle for an infringement and a player continues his challenge or acts in a way to provoke a reaction and does, should that player be punished as well?

 

I ask the question for a couple of reasons.

 

One - Out of the five sendings off, three were provoked. Now, I will put in this disclaimer. I think of those sendings off, all were correct. You cannot react. BUT surely the provckee (can't be arsed to correct my spelling but you know what I mean) should be punished as well.

 

Two - Although there are players with a reputation of reacting, Pat Sappleton isn't one of them.

 

Now I know this will stir some up but I will say that the player that reacts was wrong to and the punishment was correct. Any further punishment is between the club and the player. But the player that caused the reaction was wrong as well, especially if the referee has blown his whistle. There are two sides.

[Simon BTFC]

Actually it's 4 out of 6 sendings off for retaliation - don't forget Neil Cousins' v Folkestone.

 

In fairness to referees (and that's not a phrase you often hear) they often do punish the original offences - the chap that Warren elbowed against Heybridge got booked for his troubles etc.

 

Yesterday the whistle had already gone when Parmenter and Pat got involved - the original offence was a handball.

 

These days you just can't raise your hands whatever the provocation - oppo players know that if you do and they go down you are 99% certain to get a red card.

[Dilbert]

Solve the problem at source, DON'T REACT. Watch Nathan, he just gets up and walks away. I would go one step further and laugh at the offender and let him react !!!!

[GazzaBTFC]

Dilbert, I agree but the question was, should the provocke be punished?

 

Here's another. If so, should he also be given a red?

[The Town Crier]

Players winding each other up for the purpose of provocation are not breaking any football rule. Retaliation by the same method is not against any football rule.

 

Professional players know the rules… hands on retaliation is not permitted.

 

 

 

If a burglar breaks into my house and I find him, then the rules state that I should make him as comfortable as I can during his visit, It is MY responsibility to ensure that he comes to no harm, If he were to trip on a paving slab whilst walking away from my house with me prized team photo of the 2005/6 Billericay team, then he COULD successfully sue me for damages.

Not only that, he can, whilst wandering around my house as I open each door for him, making sure he comes to no harm, provoke me, and I’m not to retaliate.

I/We are expected to shake his hand, give him a pat on the back and wave him on his merry way.

.

Them's the rules…..but……Sometimes the rules Suck.

[paulc27]

Players have sought to gain an advantage by winding each other up for years and at every level of the game. In the world cup i think its fair to say a few managers will be encouraging their players to gain an advantage by winding Rooney up. The difference between and good players and a great player are the ones that simply concentrate on the game let the football do the talking. At our level of the game, as Dilbert says, there is not better example than Nathan.

Pat should know better, he gives away lots of fouls over a season, gets away with some pretty bad ones, so its fair to say he can dish it out. After saturday its also clear he cannot be on the receiving end.

[The Town Crier]

After re-reading my post, it may look to some that I was supporting Pats actions, I wasn't

He was wrong, a deserved the Red.

 

My post was about rules, not Pats sending off

 

I Agree with Dilbert and Paul, Nathan is the best example of how a player should deal with a situation of provocation and reckless or persistent fouling.