Igor Thiago (62 Viewers)

Igor Thiago

Banana said:
The yellow card was rescinded. It doesn't exist anymore. When have you ever seen a red card overturned on appeal and replaced with a yellow? e.g. Norgaard.

I agree it may be a little counterintuative, but that's how football disclipline works - in mysterious ways.
Click to expand...

An interesting take, as you say counterintuitive. We shall just have to watch what happens. No doubt as it is physical Brentford the appeal will be dismissed.
 

Igor Thiago

He should take this break - however long - to rethink his tactics for such situations in future. It’s obvious that standing around in ignorance/innocence is not working for him. He needs to practice his diving technique, and hit the floor first, before the other twerp. The sequence should be :- unintentional kick/slap/elbow, dive and writhe.
He who dives first, dives loudest.
 

Igor Thiago

I think it would be a really good result for Football if this red is overturned. According the the laws of the game, there's no red card offence. Can they admit it tho?

Even if its taken down to a 1 match ban i'd be happy with it, 3 matches for something unintentional surely isn't what anyone within the game would want.
 

Igor Thiago

Much as I thought Igor was stupid to get involved, it’ll almost be worth it if the audio shows Atwell couldn’t even follow the laws distinguishing cause and consequence… and that Oliver was too spineless to back his own view on the difference.
 

Igor Thiago

Banana said:
The yellow card was rescinded. It doesn't exist anymore. When have you ever seen a red card overturned on appeal and replaced with a yellow? e.g. Norgaard.

I agree it may be a little counterintuative, but that's how football disclipline works - in mysterious ways.
Click to expand...
Surely the Yellow card wasn't 'rescinded', but 'upgraded', to a Red?
Therefore any reversal of the decision for a Red, would reinstate the original Yellow? (No appeal process for Yellow cards).
Which is what most on here thought was the correct decision. Yellows for both players involved. (As did Oliver originally.)
 

Igor Thiago

badgerbee said:
Surely the Yellow card wasn't 'rescinded', but 'upgraded', to a Red?
Therefore any reversal of the decision for a Red, would reinstate the original Yellow? (No appeal process for Yellow cards).
Which is what most on here thought was the correct decision. Yellows for both players involved. (As did Oliver originally.)
Click to expand...
Been posted elsewhere but the language used by the ref was “Yellow card is cancelled” rather than upgraded.

View: https://x.com/plmatchcentre/status/2119437631352099142?a=v7pbZGJCsV-3GU16D-4&s=46
 

Igor Thiago

Igor Thiago

badgerbee said:
(y)
Fair enough. In the text, it does also say "upgraded" though.
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
As others have said anyway, it'll probably be a moot point, as they'll stick with the decision of a Red.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Entirety unhelpful, confusing phrasing describing the incident. We know how bad referees are at using precise language, that appears in the laws, to support / explain their decisions. Imagine ProRef Twitter Admin has an even looser grasp of the concept.
 

Igor Thiago

I can’t see any way it will revert to a yellow. Nor do I think the red will be cancelled. Hopefully we’ll get the ban reduced to one match and then Thiago will come back after Everton, but still one yellow from another one match ban.

At the time I thought it was a clear red. Multiple viewings, and reading the actual rules, has now convinced me that Michael Oliver’s original on the pitch decision was spot on, and that Atwell on VAR made a game changing misinterpretation of the rules. Yet no doubt he’ll not be sanctioned in any way whatsoever.
 

Igor Thiago

Gazza Bee said:
Confirmed by BBC

www.bbc.co.uk

Brentford news: Bees to appeal Igor Thiago's red card

Brentford plan to appeal Igor Thiago's red card, which was shown during Sunday's 2-0 defeat at Brighton.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
that fkin freeze frame they do, to the uneducated that just means "red"/"guilty". That picture alone will create further issues in the future if this is hopefully overturned, context is everything but the BBC don't care.
 

Igor Thiago

One small point still concerns me - how did VAR get involved in the whole incident? The Brighton player committed a foul, the ref issued two yellow cards - and surely VAR isn't required for yellow cards. So how and why did it become involved?
 

Igor Thiago

larrysigny said:
One small point still concerns me - how did VAR get involved in the whole incident? The Brighton player committed a foul, the ref issued two yellow cards - and surely VAR isn't required for yellow cards. So how and why did it become involved?
Click to expand...
Because it was Mr Atwell (It's all about him!!), I bet no other official on VAR duties would have got involved. Inconsistency is the biggest problem with refs, both on the pitch and on VAR!
 

Igor Thiago

Gazza Bee said:
Confirmed by BBC

www.bbc.co.uk

Brentford news: Bees to appeal Igor Thiago's red card

Brentford plan to appeal Igor Thiago's red card, which was shown during Sunday's 2-0 defeat at Brighton.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I appreciate my response will of course be through bees-tinted, rimmed and lensed glasses….

However, for the professional integrity and continued enjoyment of the game, it’s within everyone’s interest this be overturned.

Otherwise queue dark arts on acid in every single game
 

Igor Thiago

upnorthbee said:
that fkin freeze frame they do, to the uneducated that just means "red"/"guilty". That picture alone will create further issues in the future if this is hopefully overturned, context is everything but the BBC don't care.
Click to expand...

Freeze frames work both ways.
This is as he stood up, using the only angles VAR showed Oliver.
He goes to put his head in on him.
Thiago went to push away and as he came with his own force, the shove looks worse to get him away from him. It was only the "follow through" that caught him rather than a deliberate act to face.

11036.jpg

11039.jpg

11042.jpg
 

Igor Thiago

Igor Thiago

larrysigny said:
One small point still concerns me - how did VAR get involved in the whole incident? The Brighton player committed a foul, the ref issued two yellow cards - and surely VAR isn't required for yellow cards. So how and why did it become involved?
Click to expand...
Of course VAR reviews any incident that could be a potential red, regardless of whether yellows have been issued. That's not the salient point. The salient point is whether there was any intent in the arm striking the face. I think all the evidence and context suggests there was no intent, which is why I think this could be overturned. Unlike the Yarmoliuk incident, which I think we were right not to challenge.
 

Igor Thiago

cliffbee said:
Of course VAR reviews any incident that could be a potential red, regardless of whether yellows have been issued. That's not the salient point. The salient point is whether there was any intent in the arm striking the face. I think all the evidence and context suggests there was no intent, which is why I think this could be overturned. Unlike the Yarmoliuk incident, which I think we were right not to challenge.
Click to expand...
Is intent needed / will it be taken account of in an appeal? You can still be sent off for a swinging arm when jumping for a header even if there is no intent to actually catch someone. I'd be surprised if it gets overturned but am glad we have tried as everyone sensible agrees this is not a dismissal offence
 

Igor Thiago

Jago16 said:
Is intent needed / will it be taken account of in an appeal? You can still be sent off for a swinging arm when jumping for a header even if there is no intent to actually catch someone. I'd be surprised if it gets overturned but am glad we have tried as everyone sensible agrees this is not a dismissal offence
Click to expand...
Intent certainly does come into it. It's why the Norgaard red card on Pickford was overturned when it would have been a sending off if he wasn't making a genuine attempt to play the ball.
 

Igor Thiago

Jago16 said:
Is intent needed / will it be taken account of in an appeal? You can still be sent off for a swinging arm when jumping for a header even if there is no intent to actually catch someone. I'd be surprised if it gets overturned but am glad we have tried as everyone sensible agrees this is not a dismissal offence
Click to expand...
The laws are different if the ball is in play (your example of challenging for a header - Serious Foul Play) vs when the ball is not in play Violent Conduct. The latter is the only part that specifically mentions striking the head or face and the deliberate nature of the act. Thiago was sent off for Violent Conduct, that requires intent.

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

VIOLENT CONDUCT
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
www.thefa.com

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game
www.thefa.com www.thefa.com

At least our disciplinary challenges are making us one of the best informed sets of supporters regarding the laws of the game.
 

Igor Thiago

Words like intent and reckless are quite subjective and contextual whereas touch, pull and contact are not.
 

Igor Thiago

Jezybee said:
The laws are different if the ball is in play (your example of challenging for a header - Serious Foul Play) vs when the ball is not in play Violent Conduct. The latter is the only part that specifically mentions striking the head or face and the deliberate nature of the act. Thiago was sent off for Violent Conduct, that requires intent.

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

VIOLENT CONDUCT
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
www.thefa.com

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game
www.thefa.com www.thefa.com

At least our disciplinary challenges are making us one of the best informed sets of supporters regarding the laws of the game.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thank you, genuinely did not know there was a difference for ball in and out of play on this stuff .

All comes down to whether it was deliberate then, which it obviously was not.

Not that I have faith the panel will agree.
 

Igor Thiago

ChesilB said:
BFC appeal red card. Meanwhile, well known Brentford fan tells BBC that the Club has a discipline problem.

Hmm! Helpful, I'm sure you'll agree.
Click to expand...
I think that both things can be true. Regardless of provocation, Thiago shouldn't be reacting as he did and hitting a player in the face. But it also shouldn't be considered a red card in light of context.
 

Igor Thiago

hanworthbee said:
Why ? He's a fan who is allowed an opinion?
Click to expand...
Anyone can have an opinion but when it is aired on the biggest website in the UK as a Brentford fan view and everyone is invited to comment, it's better to be a little more measured. He doesn't represent this fan's view, that's for sure.
 

Igor Thiago

PGH_Bee said:
I think that both things can be true. Regardless of provocation, Thiago shouldn't be reacting as he did and hitting a player in the face. But it also shouldn't be considered a red card in light of context.
Click to expand...
The way you have phrased that makes it sound like he hit him in the face on purpose. That would be a red card. The whole point is that the face contact was accidental when Thiago was looking the other way and trying to get away from being held - instigated by the premeditated provocation to fake an injury and persuade the ref to send him off.

I think I saw on Sky that the cheat has withdrawn from international duty - presumably another attempt to exaggerate the situation?
Or maybe his pride is hurt following being called out by various parties 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom