|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 29, 2015 21:24:27 GMT
He gets the 'where else is he supposed to put his foot?' thing every time he does it. He might want to have a crack at putting it somewhere else. C'mon Rob, I've seen it every time he's done something like this and thought 'ah well, you've got to walk for it', but this time it was inconclusive at best. Even if he meant to step on him it was done so gingerly that even on a slow motion close up replay its severely doubtful that he meant it. In light of that it's a terrible decision in my book. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards If he meant to step on him it's a red regardless of how gently he did it isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 21:25:44 GMT
Wait until you watch MOTD. Just out of interest, if MOTD don't agree with you, are going to say fair play, or are you going to just simply say they're talking shit too? I'll still be saying "never a red card" regardless of what anybody else says. It was a joke of a decision,he was sent off for violent conduct,if that was violent conduct it is time we all started supporting a different fucking sport.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 21:26:33 GMT
I've not seen the replay yet but for what it's worth afellay lost his head when getting shoved into the hoardings, which ok maybe not a booking but its un-gentlemanly conduct, you could seriously injure someone by doing that. The. The same player has a swipe at him and fouls him, he then seems to clip afellay which infuriated him. Afellay responds with the softest of scuffs back to which he gets a red. Now come on if afellay gets a red then the Albion player should go aswell. As for Charlie's red I was up in arms shouting off as I thought the player kicked out at Charlie as he put the block in. Many more on the boothen shouted off aswell and I actually cheered until I saw Charlie walking off!!! On the radio it said he stamped on him but imho he didn't. On both red card decisions I've not seen replays so I'll hold my hands up if they were.
Also if Adam did stamp on the player and the ref has give a red card for it then why wasn't a free kick given? Instead the ref gave a throw in? Unless I'm out of date with the laws I just don't get it
|
|
|
Post by turtlefox on Aug 29, 2015 21:27:21 GMT
Just a question. Why wasn't action taken against the hand in the face from Gardner or the scissor tackle from Dawson? Cus the officials were shit
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Aug 29, 2015 21:27:58 GMT
As I said on another thread the linesman waved a foul. No one else even the West Brom player reacted but the linesman ran on and got all excited. This i believe gave Oliver the impression something serious had happened and it influenced the outcome. If he two players started fisticuffs yes but for the linesman to run on like that when no ones injured or nones protesting is shameful I think the linesman ran on before Adam had done anything. That tells you that the linesmen pre-empted anything and hence needed to see something. The ref duly obliged.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 29, 2015 21:30:39 GMT
Just out of interest, if MOTD don't agree with you, are going to say fair play, or are you going to just simply say they're talking shit too? I'll still be saying "never a red card" regardless of what anybody else says. It was a joke of a decision,he was sent off for violent conduct,if that was violent conduct it is time we all started supporting a different fucking sport. That's my point. There's not really any reason to keep telling everyone - "just wait until you see it on MOTD", if ultimately MOTD disagree with you. If they don't agree with you, you're still going to be convinced it wasn't a sending off, regardless of what they say.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 21:31:54 GMT
I'll still be saying "never a red card" regardless of what anybody else says. It was a joke of a decision,he was sent off for violent conduct,if that was violent conduct it is time we all started supporting a different fucking sport. That's my point. There's not really any reason to keep telling everyone - "just wait until you see it on MOTD", if ultimately MOTD disagree with you. If they don't agree with you, you're still going to be convinced it wasn't a sending off, regardless of what they say. Fair enough,but a lot of folk were saying that they need to see it again.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Aug 29, 2015 21:36:51 GMT
If Afalay goes so does Brunt.
If Adam goes so does McCauly for his stamp on Arnie.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 29, 2015 22:10:39 GMT
If Afalay goes so does Brunt. If Adam goes so does McCauly for his stamp on Arnie. That's my problem with Oliver today. We may well find in a minute that both were justified red cards but there were other far worse or equally as bad fouls committed by Baggies players which resulted in no sanction. Eg the push on Afalay which clattered him into the hoarding, the stamp on Arnie, the scissor tackle on Adam before his sending off and the flick in Afalay's face before his stupid reaction, to name but a few. The worst and most dangerous tackle of the day was the one in the last few minutes (the freekick Arnie ballsed up) and all that resulted in was a booking. And what did he do about the blatant time wasting all second half? Fuck all. Bent twat.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 22:12:25 GMT
Just a question. Why wasn't action taken against the hand in the face from Gardner or the scissor tackle from Dawson? Cus the officials were shit I've actually got no answer to this. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by kidcrewbob on Aug 29, 2015 22:17:19 GMT
Both soft reds but we gift wrapped em for the boy Oliver to crack one off over tonight - we also fell for the Pulis twattery as well - self inflicted. Shame.
|
|
|
Post by interestedobserver on Aug 29, 2015 22:21:17 GMT
I have no problem with either red card. Both were marginal but not necessarily unreasonable. What I don't like is that on both instances it seems two standards were in use.
If Affelay walks, I think Gardner(? forget who it was for WBA) walks too. Affelay a straight red for violent misconduct and Gardner (or whoever) for two yellows in quick succession (one for a professional foul and one for unsportsmanlike conduct with his hand to Affelay's face). Affelay's conduct was violent, but only technically so. You can't call it tight to the letter on one team and not the other (well I guess you can; but you shouldn't).
Same goes for Adam's stamp. If that is a stamp, Dawson's scissor kick and raising his boot into Adam merits red as well.
If the ref is going to impose himself on a match by calling it tight to the letter, he absolutely has to be consistent.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 29, 2015 22:39:49 GMT
Watching it again I felt the Affelay red was the harsher of the two.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 29, 2015 22:41:25 GMT
I have no problem with either red card. Both were marginal but not necessarily unreasonable. What I don't like is that on both instances it seems two standards were in use. If Affelay walks, I think Gardner(? forget who it was for WBA) walks too. Affelay a straight red for violent misconduct and Gardner (or whoever) for two yellows in quick succession (one for a professional foul and one for unsportsmanlike conduct with his hand to Affelay's face). Affelay's conduct was violent, but only technically so. You can't call it tight to the letter on one team and not the other (well I guess you can; but you shouldn't). Same goes for Adam's stamp. If that is a stamp, Dawson's scissor kick and raising his boot into Adam merits red as well. If the ref is going to impose himself on a match by calling it tight to the letter, he absolutely has to be concistent. And how the hell is Affellay's love tap more dangerous than the elbow Diouf received the other week?
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Aug 29, 2015 22:42:11 GMT
Well I've waited until MOTD before commenting.
Clearly the usual "he plays for stoke - you send him off" scenario. Thinking back to Liverpool, and lovren stays on for something far more blatant. We NEVER get the benefit of the doubt, refs cannot wait to send our guys off.
We get absolutely ripped off by referees time after time...lets hope the players use the sense of injustice to get a bit of a siege mentality going.
Apparently we committed 4 fouls in the match. 2 red cards...absolutely shocking that WBA still had 11 on if you look at that. Blatant fucking bias
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Aug 29, 2015 22:46:37 GMT
Wait until you watch MOTD. I've watched it and it was a sending off as i originally thought.
|
|
|
Post by peterthornesboots on Aug 29, 2015 22:48:31 GMT
Of all the days to have 2 players sent off.Adam really should know better especially when we've already lost Affelay to absolute petulance This. Afellay's sending off was just idiotic petulance. Adam was just stupid fo putting himself in a situation when we are already down to 10 men. Stupid decisions by two experience players that have cost us! (The other 9, plus subs, performed heroically!)
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 29, 2015 22:49:10 GMT
That's my point. There's not really any reason to keep telling everyone - "just wait until you see it on MOTD", if ultimately MOTD disagree with you. If they don't agree with you, you're still going to be convinced it wasn't a sending off, regardless of what they say. Fair enough,but a lot of folk were saying that they need to see it again. Clear footage on MOTD. Adam's left foot is FIRMLY planted to the ground, with his right foot on his leg. There is then absolutely no reason for him to lift his left foot off the ground and create more weight on his right foot. Sneaky and a deserved straight red.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Aug 29, 2015 23:36:57 GMT
Fair enough,but a lot of folk were saying that they need to see it again. Clear footage on MOTD. Adam's left foot is FIRMLY planted to the ground, with his right foot on his leg. There is then absolutely no reason for him to lift his left foot off the ground and create more weight on his right foot. Sneaky and a deserved straight red. So why wasn't McCauly's stamp on Arnie a red then? I've watched Adam's a few times now. Sometimes it looks like a red. Sometimes it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 29, 2015 23:43:21 GMT
Clear footage on MOTD. Adam's left foot is FIRMLY planted to the ground, with his right foot on his leg. There is then absolutely no reason for him to lift his left foot off the ground and create more weight on his right foot. Sneaky and a deserved straight red. So why wasn't McCauly's stamp on Arnie a red then? I've watched Adam's a few times now. Sometimes it looks like a red. Sometimes it doesn't. Eh? We're talking about the Adam incident on this thread, the two incidents are completely unrelated, that is unless you are suggesting that the officials today had some sort of agenda that was pro West Brom and anti Stoke. If you've watched the MOTD footage on the Adam incident a few times and you still can't make your mind up, then I don't know what to say mate - it's as clear as day.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Aug 29, 2015 23:57:01 GMT
So why wasn't McCauly's stamp on Arnie a red then? I've watched Adam's a few times now. Sometimes it looks like a red. Sometimes it doesn't. Eh? We're talking about the Adam incident on this thread, the two incidents are completely unrelated, that is unless you are suggesting that the officials today had some sort of agenda that was pro West Brom and anti Stoke. If you've watched the MOTD footage on the Adam incident a few times and you still can't make your mind up, then I don't know what to say mate - it's as clear as day. From some angles it really isn't clear. The stamp on Arnie was a definite stamp, So why no punishment? Was there an agenda against us? There were three big decisions today. All went against us. Do you really think those two reds would have been issued against Man Utd at Old Trafford?
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 30, 2015 0:01:24 GMT
Looked like Adam stood on the inside of the WBA's lads thigh, deliberately, presumably because he was incensed by the scissor tackle with a bit of afters that went in on him. It's a red I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 0:07:07 GMT
The sole reason its not a red is that it has happened so quickly without any of the officials properly seeing what went on.
Unless of course, if you want to get yourself on the tv.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 30, 2015 0:12:41 GMT
Eh? We're talking about the Adam incident on this thread, the two incidents are completely unrelated, that is unless you are suggesting that the officials today had some sort of agenda that was pro West Brom and anti Stoke. If you've watched the MOTD footage on the Adam incident a few times and you still can't make your mind up, then I don't know what to say mate - it's as clear as day. From some angles it really isn't clear. The stamp on Arnie was a definite stamp, So why no punishment? Was there an agenda against us? There were three big decisions today. All went against us. Do you really think those two reds would have been issued against Man Utd at Old Trafford? And from the MOTD angle it is, erm ... really clear. So there was a conspiracy against us today from the officials? Fine, if you want to believe that. Stoke won't appeal Adam's sending off.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 30, 2015 0:16:45 GMT
The sole reason its not a red is that it has happened so quickly without any of the officials properly seeing what went on. Unless of course, if you want to get yourself on the tv. I saw it and I'm a blind cunt. The liner saw it perfectly and made the correct decision.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Aug 30, 2015 0:20:46 GMT
From some angles it really isn't clear. The stamp on Arnie was a definite stamp, So why no punishment? Was there an agenda against us? There were three big decisions today. All went against us. Do you really think those two reds would have been issued against Man Utd at Old Trafford? And from the MOTD angle it is, erm ... really clear. So there was a conspiracy against us today from the officials? Fine, if you want to believe that. Stoke won't appeal Adam's sending off. I don't think they'll appeal either decision. Do you really think overall in the game that we got balanced decisions?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 30, 2015 0:28:43 GMT
And from the MOTD angle it is, erm ... really clear. So there was a conspiracy against us today from the officials? Fine, if you want to believe that. Stoke won't appeal Adam's sending off. I don't think they'll appeal either decision. Do you really think overall in the game that we got balanced decisions? I think by the letter of the law it would have been understandable if he'd sent off BOTH Afellay and Gardner, if one's goes, then the other one has to go also. Having said that, I don't think a single person would have raised an eyebrow if he hadn't even booked either of them and had just simply have given them both a ticking off for being such pussies - it's what I would have done. Adam had to go though.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Aug 30, 2015 0:37:45 GMT
I don't think they'll appeal either decision. Do you really think overall in the game that we got balanced decisions? I think by the letter of the law it would have been understandable if he'd sent off BOTH Afellay and Gardner, if one's goes, then the other one has to go also. Having said that, I don't think a single person would have raised an eyebrow if he hadn't even booked either of them and just simply had have given them a ticking off for being such pussies - it's what I would have done. Adam had to go though. So we got the shitty stick then? McCauly had to go too. If you're going to interpret a player putting his foot down in a fraction of a second as a stamp then McCauly had no defence.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 30, 2015 0:41:14 GMT
I think by the letter of the law it would have been understandable if he'd sent off BOTH Afellay and Gardner, if one's goes, then the other one has to go also. Having said that, I don't think a single person would have raised an eyebrow if he hadn't even booked either of them and just simply had have given them a ticking off for being such pussies - it's what I would have done. Adam had to go though. So we got the shitty stick then? McCauly had to go too. If you're going to interpret a player putting his foot down in a fraction of a second as a stamp then McCauly had no defence. I think we got the rough end of the stick on the Afellay one, I thought Adam was clear cut, I didn't see the McCauly one.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Aug 30, 2015 0:49:53 GMT
I don't think they'll appeal either decision. Do you really think overall in the game that we got balanced decisions? I think by the letter of the law it would have been understandable if he'd sent off BOTH Afellay and Gardner, if one's goes, then the other one has to go also. Having said that, I don't think a single person would have raised an eyebrow if he hadn't even booked either of them and had just simply have given them both a ticking off for being such pussies - it's what I would have done. Adam had to go though. It's naivety and stupidity,though. I missed Gardener's tapping of Affelay's face at first and agree both should have gone, but that's sort of the point. Gardner gave him a sly tap, out of the sight of the referee and just enough to wind Affelay up. Affelay leapt to his feet and make a big fuss of putting his hand to Gardner's face, making the crime very obvious. That's why he was sent off and Gardner wasn't.
|
|