| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card 22:51 - Apr 26 with 3657 views | Bluesky |
were, I thought, incredibly candid and well considered. He'd know plenty about the subject with a goalkeeping perspective. My respect for him as a pundit upped several notches. |  | | |  |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 22:58 - Apr 26 with 3541 views | urbanpenguin |
It made no sense to me.
I understood his commentary around why and how Johnson went down, about preparing for impact and it being "human nature".
But then he said "the ref did well to spot it and it was a yellow"
and i can't marry his first comment with his second. If it's not intentional but human nature, then it wasn't with intent or cheating, so why does he assert that it's a yellow? |  | | |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 23:03 - Apr 26 with 3458 views | monty_radio |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 22:58 - Apr 26 by urbanpenguin |
It made no sense to me.
I understood his commentary around why and how Johnson went down, about preparing for impact and it being "human nature".
But then he said "the ref did well to spot it and it was a yellow"
and i can't marry his first comment with his second. If it's not intentional but human nature, then it wasn't with intent or cheating, so why does he assert that it's a yellow? |
Absolutely. If it was indeed in the nature of human movement that Johnson went over, and was not an attempt to "cheat" then how can it be construed as an offence? It was pleasantly explained nonsense. |  |
| |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 23:21 - Apr 26 with 3290 views | Juggsy |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 22:58 - Apr 26 by urbanpenguin |
It made no sense to me.
I understood his commentary around why and how Johnson went down, about preparing for impact and it being "human nature".
But then he said "the ref did well to spot it and it was a yellow"
and i can't marry his first comment with his second. If it's not intentional but human nature, then it wasn't with intent or cheating, so why does he assert that it's a yellow? |
Agreed, I thought he was going the opposite way with the first part of his analysis. |  | | |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 23:41 - Apr 26 with 3160 views | Bluesky |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 22:58 - Apr 26 by urbanpenguin |
It made no sense to me.
I understood his commentary around why and how Johnson went down, about preparing for impact and it being "human nature".
But then he said "the ref did well to spot it and it was a yellow"
and i can't marry his first comment with his second. If it's not intentional but human nature, then it wasn't with intent or cheating, so why does he assert that it's a yellow? |
He went to ground as a result of checking his forward momentum in anticipation of the outstretched leg that was withdrawn immediately before impact. Going down without contact is a technical simulation hence a yellow card but Hart suggests it was incidentally inevitable not deliberate. Ref has no option but Johnson’s character is less tarnished. Hart does concede that the second card was an idiot action when already on a yellow and who can argue with that? | | | |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 23:54 - Apr 26 with 3064 views | bournemouthblue |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 23:41 - Apr 26 by Bluesky |
He went to ground as a result of checking his forward momentum in anticipation of the outstretched leg that was withdrawn immediately before impact. Going down without contact is a technical simulation hence a yellow card but Hart suggests it was incidentally inevitable not deliberate. Ref has no option but Johnson’s character is less tarnished. Hart does concede that the second card was an idiot action when already on a yellow and who can argue with that? |
This didn't stop Phillips getting sent off in a similar way against Leicester though |  |
| |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 23:55 - Apr 26 with 3063 views | urbanpenguin |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 23:41 - Apr 26 by Bluesky |
He went to ground as a result of checking his forward momentum in anticipation of the outstretched leg that was withdrawn immediately before impact. Going down without contact is a technical simulation hence a yellow card but Hart suggests it was incidentally inevitable not deliberate. Ref has no option but Johnson’s character is less tarnished. Hart does concede that the second card was an idiot action when already on a yellow and who can argue with that? |
the FA rulebook says it is a yellow for "pretending to have been fouled". Which he wasn't and Joe Hart says he wasn't doing as well. [Post edited 27 Apr 1:28]
| | | |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 00:17 - Apr 27 with 2961 views | reusersfreekicks |
Was a word salad of bollox from Hart. Steph Houghton even worse |  | | |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 05:29 - Apr 27 with 2680 views | heavyweight |
I was surprised during the MOTD commentary for the game that immediately the commentator said 'there's no contact there, Johnson could get a yellow card' - It certainly wasn't my first thought when I saw it 'live' . I wondered if the commentary is put on after the event or really is contemperaneous ? It just seemed such a strange take for the commentator to say - or perhaps I really have blue tinged specs! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 06:34 - Apr 27 with 2574 views | LegendofthePhoenix |
Even watching the MOTD replays, in slo mo, it is impossible to tell whether there was actual contact or not. As Kieran said, there was contact, but even then, and even if there wasn't more than a slight contact, it was a leg out from Burn with Johnson at full speed - Johnson was having to navigate around him. !00%, if that is the other way, Newcastle get a free kick on the edge of the box, and a yellow card for the defender. Corrupt league, I don't even want to be in this league again until the playing field is levelled up how it used to be. The days when excitement before the season was because any one of a dozen teams could win the league, and any one of a dozen teams could get relegated. We are a million miles away from that now - it's dull, predicatble, boring and corrupt. [Post edited 27 Apr 13:21]
|  |
| |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 08:19 - Apr 27 with 2261 views | MVBlue |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 05:29 - Apr 27 by heavyweight |
I was surprised during the MOTD commentary for the game that immediately the commentator said 'there's no contact there, Johnson could get a yellow card' - It certainly wasn't my first thought when I saw it 'live' . I wondered if the commentary is put on after the event or really is contemperaneous ? It just seemed such a strange take for the commentator to say - or perhaps I really have blue tinged specs! |
I believe they are not watching the full match live for the commentary, it has been stated in the past this is the case. It always made the Jonathan Pearce commentary on MOTD a bit amusing as I knew he was acting as if it was live with his high tempo excitement but is actually doing a post match highlights commentary.
So yes, they can engineer the commentary to appear to anticipate a decision. |  |
| |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 09:09 - Apr 27 with 2034 views | Garv |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 06:34 - Apr 27 by LegendofthePhoenix |
Even watching the MOTD replays, in slo mo, it is impossible to tell whether there was actual contact or not. As Kieran said, there was contact, but even then, and even if there wasn't more than a slight contact, it was a leg out from Burn with Johnson at full speed - Johnson was having to navigate around him. !00%, if that is the other way, Newcastle get a free kick on the edge of the box, and a yellow card for the defender. Corrupt league, I don't even want to be in this league again until the playing field is levelled up how it used to be. The days when excitement before the season was because any one of a dozen teams could win the league, and any one of a dozen teams could get relegated. We are a million miles away from that now - it's dull, predicatble, boring and corrupt. [Post edited 27 Apr 13:21]
|
It's not corrupt, it's just that the gap between teams like Newcastle and Ipswich is so big that the inclination of officials is that Ipswich probably would have to cheat to get ahead in a game like that, hence the split second decision to see Johnson's fall as a dive and not a foul.
If that had been at the other end it's more likely he'd give a foul because it's more likely we'd have needed to foul the man to stop him getting in the box - because it would have been a player of much higher quality than Ben Johnson.
And if we're honest you can see why that inclination exists. To get a win or even a draw yesterday we would had to foul them a lot (which we did) and get away with it a lot (which we didn't).
Bigger clubs get more decisions because they play better, are fouled more and aren't typically the ones trying to 'spoil' the game. I don't use that word disparagingly but if one team was trying to disrupt that game it was us.
(I haven't seen the Ben Johnson incident since seeing it in the ground by the way.) [Post edited 28 Apr 10:24]
|  |
| |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 12:05 - Apr 27 with 1680 views | stonojnr |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 05:29 - Apr 27 by heavyweight |
I was surprised during the MOTD commentary for the game that immediately the commentator said 'there's no contact there, Johnson could get a yellow card' - It certainly wasn't my first thought when I saw it 'live' . I wondered if the commentary is put on after the event or really is contemperaneous ? It just seemed such a strange take for the commentator to say - or perhaps I really have blue tinged specs! |
of course it is :) unless you think they magically say just enough words to match up with the specific clip highlights.
some of its taken in game, but theyll do ADR style over dubs to get it so it looks vaguely professionally put together and prescient for the moment. | | | |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 13:54 - Apr 27 with 1482 views | TheBoyBlue |
I couldn't really understand what he was going on about. He seemed to be saying that Johnson wasn't diving but that a yellow there was correct. I get that it wasn't a free-kick, but surely that should've sufficed. Especially when all season we've been watching opponents throwing themselves to the floor and not only getting away without a yellow but invariably getting the free-kick.
All academic of course, but taps into the incredibly bad luck we've had this season. | |
| |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 14:27 - Apr 27 with 1389 views | lazyblue |
It was a dead cert yellow card and some need to get over it | | | |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 14:51 - Apr 27 with 1302 views | DJR |
The angle on MOTD did not rule out contact, and because it was outside the box, I am not sure why Johnson would have done it deliberately given it looked like he had beaten his man and so could have shot.
Putting it another why would Johnson want a free kick in preference to a shot on goal? |  | | |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 15:22 - Apr 27 with 1194 views | HighgateBlue |
Any comments that are properly considered, and from someone with reasonable intelligence, are extremely welcome in relation to this issue. Whether the conclusion is that it shouldn't have been a yellow, or that it should.
The discussion on TWTV is a good example of this. Sensible, sane, intelligent discussion. Not shouting "corrupt!" as soon as something as simple as a harsh yellow card goes against us.
A yellow card, people! In a game we would have lost anyway, in all likelihood. Is that really worth accusing a professional person of fraud for? No. Refs are essential to the functioning of football, that sport we love, and it's tiresome to have to hear people call them corrupt whenever they make a decision that may have been harsh or wrong.
In my view, the ref got it wrong and that was his fault. He made an error. Every ref since time immemorial has done that in virtually every game. It's not the ref's fault that Johnson committed a clear yellow card offence was he was already on one yellow. Neither is it the ref's fault what the VAR rules are.
It's also quite inconsistent to hear the same people who want VAR scrapped altogether grumbling when we can't get a retrospective VAR of a yellow card incident that happened over half an hour previously, solely when it happens to affect Ipswich.
In relation to the Johnson yellow card specifically, if the shoe had been on the other foot, and the ref thought it was no foul, there would be many screaming "why hasn't he booked him for diving then??!!" Refs can't win. We need to recognise our own biases far far more than we do, and have some degree of basic respect for fellow humans, even if they do happen to be referees.
In a perfect world, errors would not happen. We can all agree on that. But there is no system in the world in which that is the case. As a society, we used to accept that. Even when football fans used to beat each other up for laughs, and hold hideous racist views, they still had enough good grace to accept that decisions sometimes go against you, and it didn't automatically mean that Geoff the ref, a geography teacher from Staffordshire, was automatically receiving brown envelopes from a far eastern betting syndicate. |  | | |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 15:44 - Apr 27 with 1112 views | longtimefan |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 15:22 - Apr 27 by HighgateBlue |
Any comments that are properly considered, and from someone with reasonable intelligence, are extremely welcome in relation to this issue. Whether the conclusion is that it shouldn't have been a yellow, or that it should.
The discussion on TWTV is a good example of this. Sensible, sane, intelligent discussion. Not shouting "corrupt!" as soon as something as simple as a harsh yellow card goes against us.
A yellow card, people! In a game we would have lost anyway, in all likelihood. Is that really worth accusing a professional person of fraud for? No. Refs are essential to the functioning of football, that sport we love, and it's tiresome to have to hear people call them corrupt whenever they make a decision that may have been harsh or wrong.
In my view, the ref got it wrong and that was his fault. He made an error. Every ref since time immemorial has done that in virtually every game. It's not the ref's fault that Johnson committed a clear yellow card offence was he was already on one yellow. Neither is it the ref's fault what the VAR rules are.
It's also quite inconsistent to hear the same people who want VAR scrapped altogether grumbling when we can't get a retrospective VAR of a yellow card incident that happened over half an hour previously, solely when it happens to affect Ipswich.
In relation to the Johnson yellow card specifically, if the shoe had been on the other foot, and the ref thought it was no foul, there would be many screaming "why hasn't he booked him for diving then??!!" Refs can't win. We need to recognise our own biases far far more than we do, and have some degree of basic respect for fellow humans, even if they do happen to be referees.
In a perfect world, errors would not happen. We can all agree on that. But there is no system in the world in which that is the case. As a society, we used to accept that. Even when football fans used to beat each other up for laughs, and hold hideous racist views, they still had enough good grace to accept that decisions sometimes go against you, and it didn't automatically mean that Geoff the ref, a geography teacher from Staffordshire, was automatically receiving brown envelopes from a far eastern betting syndicate. |
The thing that annoys me is the inconsistency. There was a foul very early in the game, I think it was on Jack Clarke breaking halfway in the Newcastle half with lots of space in front of him, where the Newcastle player knew there was danger and deliberately stopping him with no intent to play the ball. The ref gave the foul but didn’t award what should have been an obvious yellow, even if it was early doors. You know if that had happened the other way around the Town player would be in the book. Also, in case of the of the penalty he decided it wasn’t a foul, so where was the card for the massive dive the player took trying to sell the decision? He would have had to rescind it after VAR, but the fact he didn’t caution in the first instance speaks volumes. | | | |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 16:04 - Apr 27 with 1026 views | monty_radio |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 23:41 - Apr 26 by Bluesky |
He went to ground as a result of checking his forward momentum in anticipation of the outstretched leg that was withdrawn immediately before impact. Going down without contact is a technical simulation hence a yellow card but Hart suggests it was incidentally inevitable not deliberate. Ref has no option but Johnson’s character is less tarnished. Hart does concede that the second card was an idiot action when already on a yellow and who can argue with that? |
"Going down without contact is a technical simulation"
That would make tripping over your own feet a yellow card. In the Lambert era that might have meant one or two of those esteemed loan players being sent off for two bookable offences. | |
| |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 16:17 - Apr 27 with 978 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Joe Hart's comment about Johnson's yellow card on 15:44 - Apr 27 by longtimefan |
The thing that annoys me is the inconsistency. There was a foul very early in the game, I think it was on Jack Clarke breaking halfway in the Newcastle half with lots of space in front of him, where the Newcastle player knew there was danger and deliberately stopping him with no intent to play the ball. The ref gave the foul but didn’t award what should have been an obvious yellow, even if it was early doors. You know if that had happened the other way around the Town player would be in the book. Also, in case of the of the penalty he decided it wasn’t a foul, so where was the card for the massive dive the player took trying to sell the decision? He would have had to rescind it after VAR, but the fact he didn’t caution in the first instance speaks volumes. |
The thing is referees are human and so will always be inconsistent. The VAR officials are also human and equally inconsistent. Until this season I was a fan of VAR because I thought it generally gave a more accurate outcome. This season I have paid more attention to VAR and found that it simply doesn't improve outcomes. It should be scrapped because its only impacts are delay and doubt. Accept that referees as well as players make genuine mistakes and that they are part of the game.
Goal-line technology and semi-automated offsides are here to stay and there can be little argument against them (although I would like to see offside scrapped entirely instead). |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
