Easy with hindsight, but was RS a bit naïve?

The Marshall incident is still being discussed heatedly by fans and has divided opinion. I have changed my stance, which is where my point comes from:

Your insurance company will tell you never to admit guilt after an accident. This is because it could prejudice your claim afterwards.

Slade should have adopted the same stance in my opinion. In a way it is refreshing when a manager or player speaks honestly, but maybe he should have exercised some restraint. He could easily have said that he had seen the footage but couldn't substantiate 100% whether the incident was worthy of a red card.

I have doubts having watched it again and again. Maybe the reaction of RS could be used to say that the decision was correct.

What do you think?

The Marshall incident is still being discussed heatedly by fans and has divided opinion. I have changed my stance, which is where my point comes from:

Your insurance company will tell you never to admit guilt after an accident. This is because it could prejudice your claim afterwards.

Slade should have adopted the same stance in my opinion. In a way it is refreshing when a manager or player speaks honestly, but maybe he should have exercised some restraint. He could easily have said that he had seen the footage but couldn't substantiate 100% whether the incident was worthy of a red card.

I have doubts having watched it again and again. Maybe the reaction of RS could be used to say that the decision was correct.

What do you think?

The fact that Slade said immediately after the game that it was a red card means that there's zero chance of an appeal, we'll just have to accept it.

I thought Slade was pathetic at the time.
Every manager backs their players/teams and never says what Slade said. Can you imagine Wenger, Mourinho etc. Admitting it was a red card?

i go the other way. its refreshing to see some honesty, the nonsense managers like hughes come out with all the time pisses me off.

Slade's 'admission' will have no bearing on the appeal and the three former referees on the panel will look at the situation independently before a decision is reached on a majority vote

Basically, they will each look at the incident on their own and make their decision (was it a sending off or not?) on the spot without speaking to the other two on the panel

A 2-1 decision either way is acceptable

Russell Slade could argue that he (like the the referee) reacted to what he thought he saw, but on refection having watched a video tape of the incident, he changed his mind

The panel will simply decide "Was it a sending off offence or not?" on the evidence in front of them

For the record, although I think the referee and linesman failed in their duty by missing the first offence, Marshall did kick out and (to the letter of the Law) had to be sent off

I hope the panel see it differently, though!

He certainly should have chosen his words more carefully,,,,something along the lines of "Until I see the replay I can't possibly comment".

It just makes Slade look a bit stupid but its not the first time in the media.