Refs second yellow was fine. So Gus is right. But had the ref lost control through poor decisions? And did that help provoke Fitzy's ill judgement? Yeah I think that's what I saw happening on the field.
As Dibo and Gus said TB, Fitzy still bares responsibility for his lack of control/poor judgement - provocation does not make you guiltless. But I think you're right in that the refs job is also to keep things under control and in the right competitive spirit, not just call fouls and blow whistles for goals. That guy was a buffoon, and it wouldn't have surprised me remotely if someone else dove in and got a straight red. You see it all the time. (The player should still be sent TB) but the ref should be held accountable also. It is a reflection of poor refereeing - but I think Gus would accept that.
As an former referees assessor, if I was assessing a game where this sort of thing happened, I'd be acknowledging that the referee may have handled the second caution appropriately and credit him appropriately (after all, the referee doesn't get to 'even out' his mistakes by making another one). But in terms of overall impact upon the match, I'd be highlighting that the earlier error is what caused the frustration, hence the error has had a defining impact upon the game in multiple ways (because when assessing referees, it's important to look at how one decision impacts upon the game). Saying that, and saying Fitzy is wholly responsible for his actions there aren't mutually exclusive.
As a referee (well, also former) I know I've made errors which have directly led to a player responding and getting sent off, and it left me gutted - knowing that even though the player is responsible for his own actions and I had no choice, but it was my mistake which caused the problem. One of the worst things you can face as a referee, IMO.
It was obvious when Fitzy argued after the first yellow and pointed at the penalty spot that he was upset. That was the time the referee needed to control the game. He missed the opportunity and really had no choice but to card fitzy for the second yellow.
Out of interest, how would you propose he control the game at that point? I don't think CCM's response to the non-penalty was anything particularly different to the response that occurs to half a dozen other incidents each week, so I don't think stopping the game to talk to the captains was particularly justified......not trying to be a smartarse or anything, genuinely curious.
For what it's worth, credit to Fitzy for at least being mature enough to accept the red card - but I think he knew he had screwed himself the moment he left the ground.
Look on the bright side - the post-mortem on this game will hopefully highlight the importance of staying focussed and in control rather than losing it by worrying about the referee, which could be an important early lesson for this fairly young team. I thought it was a very solid performance (still concerned about our finishing though), and it was really only because we got done for speed in the back line right at the end of the match that we lost the game. Maybe that was the result of playing a man down, maybe not.
For all the talk about Matty Simon, he had no hand in actually building up the goal - that was the winger - and there was nothing particularly creative about his positioning there. So any striker would have found themselves in the same position. and most strikers should have been able to score.
My point is, everybody's freaking out about the fact that we conceded 2 goals because we lost Matty Simon. I reckon if it had been any other decent striker on the pitch instead we still would have conceded those same 2 goals (and if we hadn't, it would really only be courtesy of the striker screwing up!). Simon's first goal was very lucky anyway - without that defensive deflection, Izzo was all over it. So personally, I'm not as worried about Simon's impact on that game as many others are
