I personally didn’t have much issue with cornelius’ tackle being a yellow despite it being reckless and probably with excessive force, it seems consistent with what Collum has said in the past about a bend in the leg and contact below the ankle. The issue is that following that, unless I’ve mixed him up with another player, Cornelius committed at least two other fouls that were worthy of a yellow, including hauling Osmand to the ground when he was breaking through on goal. Also interesting that the only major decision YW had an issue with is the one least discussed by both media and fans.
Thank you to the YW for accommodating the scope creep and reviewing the league cup game.
My only issue with his verdict is his description of Cornelius’ tackle. I don’t think he “slides” until after there is contact with Kenny. I see an out of control lunge, making contact studs first with a straight leg while fully off the ground.
I like that we are now discussing 50/50 interpretations rather than the days of old when we got offside calls , when yards onside. Or when a touching of heads resulted in rangers players throwing themselves to the floor. I think bar the sending off, the rest were 50/50.
Seems fair enough re the big decisions but at the game the ref was keen after the sending off to level up pulling back play unnecessarily and flashing yellow cards , but I accept I am biased.
To be fair to Nick Walsh the Yorkshire Whistler suggests that he got all bar one of the big decisions right and I suppose most importantly hasn’t had a major impact on the result , Dean Martin might be heard singing Ain’t that a kick in the head 🎶
While accepting my unconscious biased view I do not think the whistlers description of any of the incidents is actually correct in its detail. I believe he in fact, is unconsciously biased toward supporting the referee and only after slow motion interpretations. Perhaps my bias is less unconscious than I thought. lol
I would think it is inevitable, indeed probably vital he is empathetic to the referee's perspective - that is exactly the view we are asking of him. Whether i'd label that "bias" or not i'm not sure, maybe it is. But if a bias can be a little virtuous, then maybe this is?
I personally didn’t have much issue with cornelius’ tackle being a yellow despite it being reckless and probably with excessive force, it seems consistent with what Collum has said in the past about a bend in the leg and contact below the ankle. The issue is that following that, unless I’ve mixed him up with another player, Cornelius committed at least two other fouls that were worthy of a yellow, including hauling Osmand to the ground when he was breaking through on goal. Also interesting that the only major decision YW had an issue with is the one least discussed by both media and fans.
Thank you to the YW for accommodating the scope creep and reviewing the league cup game.
My only issue with his verdict is his description of Cornelius’ tackle. I don’t think he “slides” until after there is contact with Kenny. I see an out of control lunge, making contact studs first with a straight leg while fully off the ground.
I like that we are now discussing 50/50 interpretations rather than the days of old when we got offside calls , when yards onside. Or when a touching of heads resulted in rangers players throwing themselves to the floor. I think bar the sending off, the rest were 50/50.
Would have liked him to look at Diamondes knee to Kenny's head, and also the kick out off the ball.
Seems fair enough re the big decisions but at the game the ref was keen after the sending off to level up pulling back play unnecessarily and flashing yellow cards , but I accept I am biased.
To be fair to Nick Walsh the Yorkshire Whistler suggests that he got all bar one of the big decisions right and I suppose most importantly hasn’t had a major impact on the result , Dean Martin might be heard singing Ain’t that a kick in the head 🎶
While accepting my unconscious biased view I do not think the whistlers description of any of the incidents is actually correct in its detail. I believe he in fact, is unconsciously biased toward supporting the referee and only after slow motion interpretations. Perhaps my bias is less unconscious than I thought. lol
A valid point and accept .your rationale, thanks.
Hi Paul
I would think it is inevitable, indeed probably vital he is empathetic to the referee's perspective - that is exactly the view we are asking of him. Whether i'd label that "bias" or not i'm not sure, maybe it is. But if a bias can be a little virtuous, then maybe this is?