|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Feb 28, 2022 20:34:04 GMT
Looked like his momentum took him through That's what I'm saying. Not sure which bit you are struggling with. Struggling with fuck all |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 28, 2022 20:35:07 GMT
Well this thread looks promising
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 28, 2022 20:36:52 GMT
Re the red, WD is in fact right. If you know the rules you'd know there was no chance of it being rescinded, we were daft to bother appealing
|
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Feb 28, 2022 20:38:14 GMT
Do we have a fit left back for tomorrow ? can we pick Pejic (who seems very ready in his Sentinel colums) ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2022 20:39:45 GMT
Re the red, WD is in fact right. If you know the rules you'd know there was no chance of it being rescinded, we were daft to bother appealing Is the correct answer. |
|
|
|
Post by suck_the_mop. on Feb 28, 2022 20:41:09 GMT
So basically if that is deemed a red card ( which it wasn't) then wenger is getting his dream football as no tackling allowed at any level, as you can't make tackles without MOMENTUM wasn't even fast or hard or out of control just a bang average tackle that if was done on a stoke player wouldn't even be a foul. Absolutely shocking..
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2022 20:43:38 GMT
So basically if that is deemed a red card ( which it wasn't) then wenger is getting his dream football as no tackling allowed at any level, as you can't make tackles without MOMENTUM wasn't even fast or hard or out of control just a bang average tackle that if was done on a stoke player wouldn't even be a foul. Absolutely shocking.. You can make tackles. You can't be reckless, dangerous or out of control. |
|
|
|
Post by suck_the_mop. on Feb 28, 2022 20:45:23 GMT
So basically if that is deemed a red card ( which it wasn't) then wenger is getting his dream football as no tackling allowed at any level, as you can't make tackles without MOMENTUM wasn't even fast or hard or out of control just a bang average tackle that if was done on a stoke player wouldn't even be a foul. Absolutely shocking.. You can make tackles. You can't be reckless, dangerous or out of control. He wasn't.. |
|
|
|
Post by LphPotter on Feb 28, 2022 20:47:01 GMT
So basically if that is deemed a red card ( which it wasn't) then wenger is getting his dream football as no tackling allowed at any level, as you can't make tackles without MOMENTUM wasn't even fast or hard or out of control just a bang average tackle that if was done on a stoke player wouldn't even be a foul. Absolutely shocking.. You can make tackles. You can't be reckless, dangerous or out of control. And he was neither of those, so what now? |
|
|
|
Post by suck_the_mop. on Feb 28, 2022 20:49:31 GMT
You can make tackles. You can't be reckless, dangerous or out of control. And he was neither of those, so what now? With these "rules" being implemented as some are saying correctly there would be no players on the pitch by half time.. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2022 20:49:40 GMT
You can make tackles. You can't be reckless, dangerous or out of control. And he was neither of those, so what now? He was. That's why he got a red. And that's why it was upheld on appeal. |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 28, 2022 20:58:33 GMT
You can make tackles. You can't be reckless, dangerous or out of control. And he was neither of those, so what now? The fact that he slid into the Bournemouth player way after he played the ball proves he was out of control - he couldn't stop or avoid the player. The two Pournemouth players can not be retrospectively punished as the referee clearly saw both incidents and that being the case nothing can be done, I guess to stop trial by TV. I'm surprised we appealed but I guess it was to highlight how we are being unfairly treated and to ask why. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 28, 2022 21:01:41 GMT
I'll challenge anyone to provide evidence of a softer red given against a Stoke oppenent that wasn't overturned
|
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 28, 2022 21:08:48 GMT
I'll challenge anyone to provide evidence of a softer red given against a Stoke oppenent that wasn't overturned He was out of control, completely took out the player even though he played the ball first. If he was in control he would have been able to stop. As it happened it wasn't seriously hurt but had Foc clattered into a planted leg he would probably have broken it. The fact he didn't was more luck than judgement and exactly why that rule exisists. And yes the two Bournemouth ones were equally bad but that doesn't make Fox's a good challenge. |
|
|
|
Post by stokefc on Feb 28, 2022 21:17:06 GMT
I'll challenge anyone to provide evidence of a softer red given against a Stoke oppenent that wasn't overturned He was out of control, completely took out the player even though he played the ball first. If he was in control he would have been able to stop. As it happened it wasn't seriously hurt but had Foc clattered into a planted leg he would probably have broken it. The fact he didn't was more luck than judgement and exactly why that rule exisists. And yes the two Bournemouth ones were equally bad but that doesn't make Fox's a good challenge. It's not like the pitch was watered to fuck beforehand |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 28, 2022 21:17:39 GMT
I'll challenge anyone to provide evidence of a softer red given against a Stoke oppenent that wasn't overturned This is the problem though, you can’t “provide evidence” because at the end of the day “soft” is subjective. It’s about whether you can justify a decision according to the Laws of the Game. A red card only ever has a sniff of being overturned if it’s a clear and obvious error which is impossible to justify. The ref on Saturday deemed Fox to have “lunged” at the opponent, thereby endangering his safety. I think that’s an incredibly harsh evaluation of the event, but at the end of the day easily justifiable. Fox quickened his pace because he took a heavy touch and dived in to recuperate the ball, which he did, easily, but the momentum took him clattering, not in complete control, into his opponent. (I actually think he deliberately “left one in” a bit as well) Very harsh decision but not for a second worth appealing. |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 28, 2022 21:26:19 GMT
He was out of control, completely took out the player even though he played the ball first. If he was in control he would have been able to stop. As it happened it wasn't seriously hurt but had Foc clattered into a planted leg he would probably have broken it. The fact he didn't was more luck than judgement and exactly why that rule exisists. And yes the two Bournemouth ones were equally bad but that doesn't make Fox's a good challenge. It's not like the pitch was watered to fuck beforehand Doesn't make any difference, he knew that when he launched into a sliding tackle |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2022 21:28:41 GMT
I'll challenge anyone to provide evidence of a softer red given against a Stoke oppenent that wasn't overturned This is the problem though, you can’t “provide evidence” because at the end of the day “soft” is subjective. It’s about whether you can justify a decision according to the Laws of the Game. A red card only ever has a sniff of being overturned if it’s a clear and obvious error which is impossible to justify. The ref on Saturday deemed Fox to have “lunged” at the opponent, thereby endangering his safety. I think that’s an incredibly harsh evaluation of the event, but at the end of the day easily justifiable. Fox quickened his pace because he took a heavy touch and dived in to recuperate the ball, which he did, easily, but the momentum took him clattering, not in complete control, into his opponent. (I actually think he deliberately “left one in” a bit as well) Very harsh decision but not for a second worth appealing. Finally. A voice of reason and common sense. |
|
|
|
Post by suck_the_mop. on Feb 28, 2022 21:34:07 GMT
Mr wenger and mr Robinson are on this thread welcome guys..
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2022 21:44:06 GMT
Shocking decision. The sport is run by clowns.
|
|
|
|
Post by J-Roar on Feb 28, 2022 22:26:46 GMT
And he was neither of those, so what now? He was. That's why he got a red. And that's why it was upheld on appeal. He wasn't. And the appeal was upheld to save the referee from embarrassment. |
|
|
|
Post by J-Roar on Feb 28, 2022 22:33:29 GMT
I'll challenge anyone to provide evidence of a softer red given against a Stoke oppenent that wasn't overturned He was out of control, completely took out the player even though he played the ball first. If he was in control he would have been able to stop. As it happened it wasn't seriously hurt but had Foc clattered into a planted leg he would probably have broken it. The fact he didn't was more luck than judgement and exactly why that rule exisists. And yes the two Bournemouth ones were equally bad but that doesn't make Fox's a good challenge. If it was so bad it's quite surprising not one player or anyone in the crowd was up appealing for him to be sent off. It was a shit decision by a shit referee. So shit that when a worse challenge was made later on he gave a throw. An out of his depth twat, second only to the tit who refereed us v Huddersfield. |
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 28, 2022 22:39:25 GMT
I'll challenge anyone to provide evidence of a softer red given against a Stoke oppenent that wasn't overturned This is the problem though, you can’t “provide evidence” because at the end of the day “soft” is subjective. It’s about whether you can justify a decision according to the Laws of the Game. A red card only ever has a sniff of being overturned if it’s a clear and obvious error which is impossible to justify. The ref on Saturday deemed Fox to have “lunged” at the opponent, thereby endangering his safety. I think that’s an incredibly harsh evaluation of the event, but at the end of the day easily justifiable. Fox quickened his pace because he took a heavy touch and dived in to recuperate the ball, which he did, easily, but the momentum took him clattering, not in complete control, into his opponent. (I actually think he deliberately “left one in” a bit as well) Very harsh decision but not for a second worth appealing. But he didn't lunge at the opponent. He 'lunged' at the ball and got the ball. His momentum then took him into the player. You are clearly advocating that every single tackle that causes you to then follow into an opponent is out of control and can then be deemed dangerous and ergo a red card. If you are right (you aren't) then every single player who wins a header but then because of his momentum falls into the opposing player is committing a red card offence. He is out of control, he must be, he is in the air and probably hasn't got wings. He has then clattered into a player. Maybe even his arms are up, god forbid, he touches the other players head, his head might just fall off. This is a red card. Out of control. Hitting the defender. Could break his neck. Might land on the other player and break his leg.  Send him off you yell. Send them all off. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 28, 2022 22:56:15 GMT
This is the problem though, you can’t “provide evidence” because at the end of the day “soft” is subjective. It’s about whether you can justify a decision according to the Laws of the Game. A red card only ever has a sniff of being overturned if it’s a clear and obvious error which is impossible to justify. The ref on Saturday deemed Fox to have “lunged” at the opponent, thereby endangering his safety. I think that’s an incredibly harsh evaluation of the event, but at the end of the day easily justifiable. Fox quickened his pace because he took a heavy touch and dived in to recuperate the ball, which he did, easily, but the momentum took him clattering, not in complete control, into his opponent. (I actually think he deliberately “left one in” a bit as well) Very harsh decision but not for a second worth appealing. But he didn't lunge at the opponent. He 'lunged' at the ball and got the ball. His momentum then took him into the player. You are clearly advocating that every single tackle that causes you to then follow into an opponent is out of control and can then be deemed dangerous and ergo a red card. If you are right (you aren't) then every single player who wins a header but then because of his momentum falls into the opposing player is committing a red card offence. He is out of control, he must be, he is in the air and probably hasn't got wings. He has then clattered into a player. Maybe even his arms are up, god forbid, he touches the other players head, his head might just fall off. This is a red card. Out of control. Hitting the defender. Could break his neck. Might land on the other player and break his leg. Send him off you yell. Send them all off. No, because these things are not reducible to simplistic black-and-white, like-for-like comparisons, each incident is different and should be evaluated accordingly. But "lunging at an opponent" and "lunging at the ball and carrying into the opponent because of momentum" is a distinction without a difference. With the greatest respect the day that the authorities reject our appeal and uphold the red card - as I said they would - isn't the best day to go confidently asserting how wrong I am tbh. You just need to know the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 28, 2022 23:00:33 GMT
But he didn't lunge at the opponent. He 'lunged' at the ball and got the ball. His momentum then took him into the player. You are clearly advocating that every single tackle that causes you to then follow into an opponent is out of control and can then be deemed dangerous and ergo a red card. If you are right (you aren't) then every single player who wins a header but then because of his momentum falls into the opposing player is committing a red card offence. He is out of control, he must be, he is in the air and probably hasn't got wings. He has then clattered into a player. Maybe even his arms are up, god forbid, he touches the other players head, his head might just fall off. This is a red card. Out of control. Hitting the defender. Could break his neck. Might land on the other player and break his leg. Send him off you yell. Send them all off. No, because these things are not reducible to simplistic black-and-white, like-for-like comparisons, each incident is different and should be evaluated accordingly. But "lunging at an opponent" and "lunging at the ball and carrying into the opponent because of momentum" is a distinction without a difference. With the greatest respect the day that the authorities reject our appeal and uphold the red card - as I said they would - isn't the best day to go confidently asserting how wrong I am tbh. You just need to know the rules. I know the rules now. You've taught me. Ronaldo might have scored the greatest header of all time but it was actually a red card. Go Rules! |
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Feb 28, 2022 23:11:19 GMT
So it wasn't a dangerous tackle just a dangerous follow through? The follow through is part of the tackle. They aren't 2 separate things. He goes through the player after winning the ball. That's reckless and dangerous. They are the rules. We've had some shit decisions this season but that wasn't one of them. We need to stop playing the victim and own it. Stick to netball mate because if think there is anything wrong with that tackle you don't watch/play football at all! |
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Feb 28, 2022 23:15:15 GMT
You seem to have gone Bayernesque while Bayern has gone all WD I just understand the laws of the game. This "but he won the ball" nonsense hasn't been a valid point for years, and yet people still churn it out. Its completely irrelevant. Some clearly don't know the rules of the game. I just understand the laws of the game. No you don't! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2022 23:16:52 GMT
The follow through is part of the tackle. They aren't 2 separate things. He goes through the player after winning the ball. That's reckless and dangerous. They are the rules. We've had some shit decisions this season but that wasn't one of them. We need to stop playing the victim and own it. Stick to netball mate because if think there is anything wrong with that tackle you don't watch/play football at all! 😂😂😂 What a response!! Jesus wept. It's the laws of the game, not my opinion. Maybe do a bit of reading or research every now and then 👍 What a blanket. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2022 23:20:55 GMT
I'll challenge anyone to provide evidence of a softer red given against a Stoke oppenent that wasn't overturned This is the problem though, you can’t “provide evidence” because at the end of the day “soft” is subjective. It’s about whether you can justify a decision according to the Laws of the Game. A red card only ever has a sniff of being overturned if it’s a clear and obvious error which is impossible to justify. The ref on Saturday deemed Fox to have “lunged” at the opponent, thereby endangering his safety. I think that’s an incredibly harsh evaluation of the event, but at the end of the day easily justifiable. Fox quickened his pace because he took a heavy touch and dived in to recuperate the ball, which he did, easily, but the momentum took him clattering, not in complete control, into his opponent. (I actually think he deliberately “left one in” a bit as well) Very harsh decision but not for a second worth appealing. For the benefit of SqueeksterHe's struggling a bit.... |
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 28, 2022 23:31:56 GMT
A drunken mess who gets too emotional and starts taking it out on people on here with insults? A bloke who has literally no life, spends all his time posting on an Internet message board making hundreds of thousands of posts and who is universally despised for his constant drivel of absolute arse gravy? Up against the man who has over the last 17 years has posted mainly shite |
|
