|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 30, 2008 10:53:00 GMT
deck your whinging you bunch of girls, you exemplify all that is wrong with society today. we should of won the match easily if Cresswell had stuck one more of seventeen chances away, that's the fucking point, not that they've got some fringe Chelsea player on loan or something. Totally agree ;D Apart from the top bit, a touch right wing ;D
|
|
mski
Spectator
Posts: 4
|
Post by mski on Mar 30, 2008 10:58:37 GMT
Have e-mailed the F.A and Sky for their view on the cheating scum!
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 30, 2008 10:59:27 GMT
**should have
We're well aware that we should have won yesterday, but that doesn't change the rules. If you're a Scunthorpe or Leicester fan, what would you make of Wednesday's sixth loan player scoring? The fact is that they breached the rules and benefited from it. We may as well have played Gallagher and rested the injured Cort for the much better Zakuani if nothing was going to happen. You could say that it is their flouting of the rules that exemplify all that's wrong with society - what's the point of being an honest, law abiding citizen if some little upstart shits decide they can do whatever they want, suffering a meagre punishment?
|
|
|
Post by vientianescfc on Mar 30, 2008 11:00:01 GMT
Why the hell should there be a replay??!! They broke the rules why should they get another bite of the cherry? It's akin to saying a drunk driver should be allowed to sober up and then if he drives ok the next day he can have his license back.
The long and the short of it is they broke the Football League rules and benefitted from it - this is cheating they should forfit the game and we should be awarded full 3 points.
Any other action is pointless and totally negates any reason for having rules in the first place. As for other promotion chasing teams - well if the same happened to them they'd been saying exactly the same as us, so any opposition from them would be completely ungrounded. At the other end the teams fighting relegation wouldn't be impressed if they are give just a fine.
The League has to make a decision and it has to not only punish Sheff Wed but reward us - the only sensible decision is to impose the 0-3 score and award us the 3 points. If the shoe was on the other foot you could bet you arse that Sheff Wed would be wanting exactly the same. Imagine if yesterday we had Gallagher on the bench also and he came off the bench and scored/assisted in a winning goal - would Wednesday just say 'oh well'. .. would they bollox!
I just hope that the FL grows some balls and makes what is not only a tough decision but a fair decision, they've done it before in kicking Bury out of the FA Cup and they need to do it now to make it clear that cheating is not tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 30, 2008 11:02:50 GMT
Surely the point that we're choking horrifically and are in need of the Heimlich Maneuver is an entirely valid, but also an entirely seperate point?
The wailing and gnashing of teeth is not meant to cover anything up, but the fact is their club secretary/CEO/manager has completely f****d it up, and there'll be a price to pay
|
|
berty
Spectator
Posts: 36
|
Post by berty on Mar 30, 2008 11:03:28 GMT
deck your whinging you bunch of girls, you exemplify all that is wrong with society today. we should of won the match easily if Cresswell had stuck one more of seventeen chances away, that's the fucking point, not that they've got some fringe Chelsea player on loan or something. If standing up for what you believe in and objecting to the injustice of a team that cheats is what's wrong with society then I must, indeed, be the wrongest wrong that society has ever produced. I believe that if we had potential impact players on the bench rather that token substitutes then it may well have changed the outcome of the game. We weakened our team yesterday to follow the rules, they didn't - it could have cost us points.
|
|
|
Post by Norfolkstokie in manchester on Mar 30, 2008 11:07:35 GMT
Did all 6 loan players actually play?
|
|
|
Post by M on Mar 30, 2008 11:09:52 GMT
Did all 6 loan players actually play? No they didn't, I think it was four or five of them that did.
|
|
|
Post by padders01 on Mar 30, 2008 11:14:23 GMT
Bolder and Slusarski did not come on, but that isn't the problem.
The rules state that only five can be named in the 16 man squad
They named six
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 30, 2008 11:25:54 GMT
Now I'm learning stuff: I didn't know they hadn't even used all six of them: Stoke-on-Trent would of* run right out of Kleenex if that had happened.
Oooh we could of* done this Oooh we could of* done that if they hadn't cheated and Creswell didn't miss two sitters.
|
|
berty
Spectator
Posts: 36
|
Post by berty on Mar 30, 2008 11:29:37 GMT
Winger, they broke the rules and therefore should be punished. If there's any slim chance that Stoke can get anything out of it then you're damn right - I'll whinge my arse off!!
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 30, 2008 11:30:56 GMT
get yourself down Claims Direct berty: No win no Fee.
|
|
|
Post by Mama's Itchy Crotch on Mar 30, 2008 11:31:04 GMT
What have the FA done about this?
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Mar 30, 2008 11:32:08 GMT
Now I'm learning stuff: I didn't know they hadn't even used all six of them: Stoke-on-Trent would of* run right out of Kleenex if that had happened. Oooh we could of* done this Oooh we could of* done that if they hadn't cheated and Creswell didn't miss two sitters. Ooohh look at the big gay author trying to act all hard (NQM). What are you even doing on our board? Fook off to the Narwich Board, Narwich fan and discuss infected spinal baps!
|
|
|
Post by Mama's Itchy Crotch on Mar 30, 2008 11:34:20 GMT
Now I'm learning stuff: I didn't know they hadn't even used all six of them: Stoke-on-Trent would of* run right out of Kleenex if that had happened. Oooh we could of* done this Oooh we could of* done that if they hadn't cheated and Creswell didn't miss two sitters. fuck off bck, to your homeland
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 30, 2008 11:37:19 GMT
[quote author=winger board=Potters thread=1206813085 Ooohh look at the big gay author trying to act all hard (NQM). What are you even doing on our board? Fook off to the Narwich Board, Narwich fan and discuss infected spinal baps! ;D Fook off down the Narwich: it's the New Fook off Down the Fale \o/
|
|
berty
Spectator
Posts: 36
|
Post by berty on Mar 30, 2008 11:39:21 GMT
get yourself down Claims Direct berty: No win no Fee. I'm trying to help the cause of the club I love. Sorry if you don't approve.
|
|
|
Post by stokie63 on Mar 30, 2008 11:39:27 GMT
i dont think we will be awarded a win but you cant go breaking rules without punishment what if sheff wed stay up by 1 point the other team thats gets relagated wont be pleased about this this involves a few clubs not just us but the fa aint got the bollox to award us the points have they.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2008 11:50:56 GMT
it will just be a fine for sheff weds thats ok with me as long as the FA do the same to us if we play all 7 of our loan players for the rest of the season
|
|
|
Post by vientianescfc on Mar 30, 2008 12:02:30 GMT
Stokie63 - exactly - the whole size of yesterdays game is a huge part of this issue.
It was top plays near bottom yesterday - the fact that we were yesterday top and with the 2 extra points we still would be and are aiming for the 50 million quid bonus on the table for promotion. On the other hand they are fighting for there place to stay in the Championship and any points they can get will help claw themselves to safety.
*If* it had been a game between say 13th and 16th with little for either to play for - then the FA *could* easily take the cowards route and just deduct the offending team their point and I'd expect there would be little complaint from anyone.
However the situation is far far removed from that! The 1 point to them is a life line towards staying in the Championship and the 2 points we dropped are a huge step toward us sealing auto promotion and a large pay day in the Prem. The points affect the teams around both team - Leicester et al won't be happy that Sheff Wed get a point but Hull et al will be happy we've dropped two and they've clawed us closer.
We should not settle for anything less than we should be award the full points.
The FA CANNOT retract into there shells and hide from this decision it's a major decision that has got to be made since it will affect both the relegation and promotion race of the Championship.
Sure *if* we'd of put away our chances we would of won yesterday - however they are *ifs* but the fact remains that regardless of the score yesterday they broke the rules. Sure *if* (again) we'd of won - then sure we wouldn't be so concerned however I am sure even the FL wouldn't of just said oh well and not done anything about it.
The laws of the game are there for all clubs to adhere to - if clubs are going to ignore them and just do what they feel fit then what is point of having the laws?
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 30, 2008 12:18:50 GMT
Hang on, I'm struggling to follow this argument. If they hadn't fielded four out of six loaness, we'd have won and so we should get two points given to us. Is that it?
|
|
|
Post by captainbirkseye on Mar 30, 2008 12:19:21 GMT
Has anyone contacted skysports news yet
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2008 12:19:47 GMT
I agree sour grapes but rules are rules i'm afraid. True but if that was the case then Stoke may have been reduced to 10 men or even 9 in the first half for awful tackles Utter shit mate them kind of decisions happen in every match, we should have had a penno so what? What your team did was to break FA rules simple and plain. No straw clutching or sour grapes. We had enough in that match to win and should of all but a stupid mistake from Nash. However Sheff Wed should be accountable.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 30, 2008 12:21:47 GMT
No, that's not it.
What 'it' is is that they, intentionally or not, have cheated. If a team are 5-0 down after 89 minutes and their forward goes clean through, gets to the edge of the box and is hacked down, you still have to give the free kick and red card, even if it won't have any consequence on the match. There's no point in the law being there if it won't be punished, we may as well have played Gallagher and Zakuani.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2008 12:26:20 GMT
What is the consequence to the rule break? Is it decided by the situation of the match? Bury were in the cup when the did it and got booted then Leeds were fined I suppose because they lost.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2008 12:26:22 GMT
A quick warning to ADMIN: As a member of the Listen-With-Joe-Club on match days, I'd like to note that topics on this board often have a habit of deleting themselves when they reach Page-13 (and sometimes a little sooner). ... Just a friendly warning ... (I have collected all of the heavy-dense from this thread - that's unqiue information, not every post* - and shoved it on an email to The-Lovely-Tony-Scholes ... Just in case it all goes ... poooooofffff ...) ta * - And obviously none of the contributions from the Nasty-Author-From-Narwich (Might I also suggest replacing this campaign with the one (now dead) currently residing at the top of the board? ... Or failing that, pinning the one from mumf ) ah
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 30, 2008 12:27:15 GMT
This is true, hence the matchday thread having only 4 pages. It should have 17. Lock the post, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 30, 2008 12:36:11 GMT
Laws had tactical changes and cover for injuries available to him throughout the 90 minutes that he couldn't have had if he'd had a legal 16 to choose from once the whistle blew. The whole game was, from that moment on, played on a basis running totally contrary to FA rules. It's black and white and they should have the book thrown at them.
And they weren't doing it against an invisible enemy; we suffered directly and the rest of the Championship suffered indirectly.
If we'd have flouted the rules as flagrantly, we would have had the option of Gallagher at some point, as opposed to Buxton, who was never going to be a serious option to come on.
And we could have had Zakuani as a proper alternative to Cort. Although he did well, he was struggling with a calf injury for most of the game.
Even us plebs on this messageboard knew all about this rule, and we knew it'd mean hard decisions, noses being put out of joint and the strength of our 16 being affected.
Wednesday stuck 2 fingers up, didn't bother with the hard decisions, gained an illegal advantage and we suffered.
|
|
|
Post by stokie01 on Mar 30, 2008 12:41:40 GMT
Go to The FA About it
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 30, 2008 12:43:32 GMT
They left two of these ace shithot players on the bench so it made no 'legal' odds to what happened on the pitch whatever their 'options' were. This thread is litigation culture in a nutshell: you fall over and immediately start looking around for someone to sue rather than thinking you should watch where you're going.
|
|