|
Post by Squeekster on Feb 28, 2022 23:32:18 GMT
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. It is an opinion though isn't it, the ref, him being one of a few who thought it was a red, it wasn't, you can tell me his laces were undone or he followed through and broke the lads neck but the reality is that type of tackle goes on 100's of times every weekend and is rightly not punished because it's part of the game, you say conveniently you didn't see the other worse decisions that went unpunished, I say remove your blanket. I hope your not a ref by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Feb 28, 2022 23:35:43 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. For the benefit of SqueeksterHe's struggling a bit.... For red apples that's conjecture so go hide under that blanket!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2022 23:42:12 GMT
😂😂😂 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. It is an opinion though isn't it, the ref, him being one of a few who thought it was a red, it wasn't, you can tell me his laces were undone or he followed through and broke the lads neck but the reality is that type of tackle goes on 100's of times every weekend and is rightly not punished because it's part of the game, you say conveniently you didn't see the other worse decisions that went unpunished, I say remove your blanket. I hope your not a ref by the way. *you're
|
|
|
Post by BristolMick on Feb 28, 2022 23:44:58 GMT
Bent FA, what a surprise. Bent ref. It’s the ref that gets to have another look at it and decide whether to overturn. He should have had the similar foul on Brown (that he gave as a throw in to them) showed to him side by side and then asked to explain why the difference in his decision making. There are only two possibilities, incompetence or because he’s bent. If it was incompetence he surely would have changed his decision after watching it back. As he didn’t do that it must be because he’s bent. BM
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Feb 28, 2022 23:50:29 GMT
It is an opinion though isn't it, the ref, him being one of a few who thought it was a red, it wasn't, you can tell me his laces were undone or he followed through and broke the lads neck but the reality is that type of tackle goes on 100's of times every weekend and is rightly not punished because it's part of the game, you say conveniently you didn't see the other worse decisions that went unpunished, I say remove your blanket. I hope your not a ref by the way. *you're GSAM!
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 28, 2022 23:54:06 GMT
You can make tackles. You can't be reckless, dangerous or out of control. And he was neither of those, so what now? So if you drive your car successfully around a bend but too fast to prevent skidding into a car on the other side of the road after the bend or into the back of another vehicle or, worse, a pedestrian are you in control of your car?
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Mar 1, 2022 0:03:09 GMT
I was at the game and saw it live from across the pitch but directly infront of my seated position on the front row so pitch level. I believed it was a 50/50 tackle and there wasn't a hint of a booking nevermind a red card from what I witnessed live. Usually you sense when a players been naughty in a challenge and expect the red to be brandished, it certainly never appeared to be a sending off matter.
When watching the replay back Billing was kind of half heartedly stepping into the path of the ball without really going for the ball and resembled Bambi on ice when he crumpled to the ground in a heap.. The main thing Fox did wrong was hold onto the ball to long & it eventually played him into the situation he found himself in..
Watched the tackle back on the Sky highlights reel on my phone once boarded the coach after the game and my opinion even after seeing the replays and various angles was unchanged, for me it wasn't even a booking and even a yellow would of been harsh but I'd of taken it on the chin had one been given.
& this isn't an opinion being based on me being a Stoke fan either. Fox won a 50/50 challenge that was there to be won, even the slow mo of his follow through from the challenge shows his studs are pointing downwards and his leg and foot are moving downwards aswell so no intention to injure the player once he'd made contact with the ball. Was he out of control, I don't believe he was and there was definitely no intention there. So at worst I suppose the ref waving a yellow card would of dealt with the matter and the game goes on, worst case scenario..!
That's my summary without even going into the other major decisions the ref did or didn't give against us or in our favour, of which there were many I might add.
I do believe that watching the whole game live does give people's opinions more basis though and these shouldn't be disregarded out of hand & just that one sending off incident be viewed on an individual basis as ref bashing. The ref v Bournemouth was definitely punishing Stoke players for more trivial matters than other things he was letting the Bournemouth players get away with. The bookings for time wasting for eg in my opinion were harsh. Stoke players were being booked for literally a Midfielder (Thompson) throwing the ball back to a defender (Taylor Harwood Bellis) to complete a throw in. That's what happens at any point in the game regardless of score but no the ref deemed this time wasting! I honestly cringe when players time waste so blatantly, from any team even Stoke but this wasn't deliberate time wasting, merely changing the thrower isn't time wasting when it's in a defensive area and a midfielder gives it back to the defender to take the throw.
It's this kind of action the ref was being picky for. He even ran up to have a go at Bonham at one point regarding alleged time wasting and he'd only just placed the ball down for the goal kick. & especially when we saw a Grade 1 lesson in time wasting antics from Luton in midweek that mostly went unchallenged or unpunished, to see a ref being so picky and anal about the smallest of things on Saturday does wrangle.
It's my belief Stoke appealed the sending off coz it was a legitimate one to challenge and one I firmly believe should have been overturned. I think as others have said, for the FA to overturn it would mean admitting the ref made a costly mistake and one which may have potentially cost us the points on, as we had to battle the next 50 or so minutes with a player down which shouldn't of been red carded. They've taken the easy decision and the fact we lost the game kind of forced their hand in coming to that decision IMHO
|
|
|
Post by Parkhall Wanderer on Mar 1, 2022 0:08:42 GMT
Perhaps a red card protest by the fans at the next home game we have the misfortune to be officiated by the clown from Saturday or from the Luton or Huddersfield game might focus the spotlight on just what is going on with us and the so called referees who’s officiating we’ve been on the receiving end of this season in particular. I’ve seen a far better standard of officiating at Leek Town games then what we have had to put up with.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 1, 2022 0:13:13 GMT
A red card protest! Ah that takes me back
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Mar 1, 2022 0:16:10 GMT
A red card protest! Ah that takes me back Who was it ordered them all in?! Do they still post?
|
|
|
Post by Parkhall Wanderer on Mar 1, 2022 0:17:09 GMT
Watching MOD on Saturday night at the handball incident at Everton reinforced the view that the standard of referees across the board in the top 4 divisions is getting worse not better ( if it could get any worse). Alan Shearer in particular was not impressed. Time for action I think. I know referees have a difficult job but they are making it worse by the week through their own incompetence and inconsistency.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 1, 2022 0:23:24 GMT
A red card protest! Ah that takes me back Who was it ordered them all in?! Do they still post? That would be one hudsongod aka waitingforwaddo aka at least one other name I think. Long gone from the board as far as I’m aware but others may have better intel
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Mar 1, 2022 0:28:14 GMT
Watching MOD on Saturday night at the handball incident at Everton reinforced the view that the standard of referees across the board in the top 4 divisions is getting worse not better ( if it could get any worse). Alan Shearer in particular was not impressed. Time for action I think. I know referees have a difficult job but they are making it worse by the week through their own incompetence and inconsistency. It's definitely a thankless task isn't it. I'm surprised they even find enough officials to allow football to function at all on the levels it does. If you think all matches from the Prem to League Two on an average Saturday/Sunday require up towards 200 officials including referees, liners and 4th officials to cover the top 4 divisions alone, nevermind the officiating required for the hundreds of non league matches in the various conference leagues etc, it baffles me how they find enough to actually put all the matches on! I always think that at school if you like footy you grow up wanting to play professionally or as high up the footy pyramid as you can. I know there are some who do, but who grows up liking football but aspiring to be a ref?! Fair play to the ones that do but I can only see the link and famous quote that only failed footballers at a young age become refs! Perhaps that's where in lies the problem 🤣
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Mar 1, 2022 3:19:13 GMT
It was a dangerous/reckless follow through. I'm not surprised in the slightest. I don't understand the initial uproar either. It wasn't a foul or even a yellow ten years ago, but the rules are the rules. Winning the ball is irrelevant in the current game. It's the nature of the challenge and your likelihood of injuring an opponent based on being reckless or out of control. Players should know better. Maybe at some point, we can just put a flag in a players shorts pocket and then instead of tackling, a player can be dispossessed if they lose the flag.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2022 6:15:02 GMT
It was a dangerous/reckless follow through. I'm not surprised in the slightest. I don't understand the initial uproar either. It wasn't a foul or even a yellow ten years ago, but the rules are the rules. Winning the ball is irrelevant in the current game. It's the nature of the challenge and your likelihood of injuring an opponent based on being reckless or out of control. Players should know better. Maybe at some point, we can just put a flag in a players shorts pocket and then instead of tackling, a player can be dispossessed if they lose the flag. Maybe. But until then, the rules are the rules. No point in pissing and crying about it.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Mar 1, 2022 7:36:10 GMT
I wonder which Stoke player is allowed a free hit against him tonight?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 1, 2022 7:40:30 GMT
So where does that leave Stoke and their left back options, if Tymon is injured? Of course the manager never considered that this situation (i.e. suspension and injury) could happen at exactly the same time, so he sent Eddy Jones, the Welsh U-21 defender, out on loan, instead of keeping him as cover...leaving us with Chester, Thompson, and Clucas, possibly in that order, none of them exactly experienced in that position. If we had three specialist players for every position we would have a squad of 33 players which isn't sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 1, 2022 7:47:59 GMT
It was a dangerous/reckless follow through. I'm not surprised in the slightest. I don't understand the initial uproar either. It wasn't a foul or even a yellow ten years ago, but the rules are the rules. Winning the ball is irrelevant in the current game. It's the nature of the challenge and your likelihood of injuring an opponent based on being reckless or out of control. Players should know better. That's how I saw it - I was very surprised we appealed. There was no intent to injure the player (which used to be a factor in deciding it was a foul) but now the player is expected to be in control when making a tackle and that includes taking slippery conditions into account. Under the rules it was a red card - whether the rules are right is irrelevant to the ref's decision and there was no way it was ever going to get overruled.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Mar 1, 2022 7:54:47 GMT
The crazy thing about appeals is that you can't appeal the decisions the ref doesn't give (a la Brown hammering) just the ones he does, both were equally damaging to Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by theonlooker on Mar 1, 2022 8:01:56 GMT
So where does that leave Stoke and their left back options, if Tymon is injured? Of course the manager never considered that this situation (i.e. suspension and injury) could happen at exactly the same time, so he sent Eddy Jones, the Welsh U-21 defender, out on loan, instead of keeping him as cover...leaving us with Chester, Thompson, and Clucas, possibly in that order, none of them exactly experienced in that position. If we had three specialist players for every position we would have a squad of 33 players which isn't sustainable. According to Wiki, including Norton and the injured Souttar, we currently have a squad size of 31 players, so not far off your unsustainable level. We have another 5 players out on loan that will start pre season with us (6 but not including Tom Ince), so make it 36...
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Mar 1, 2022 8:08:32 GMT
So where does that leave Stoke and their left back options, if Tymon is injured? Of course the manager never considered that this situation (i.e. suspension and injury) could happen at exactly the same time, so he sent Eddy Jones, the Welsh U-21 defender, out on loan, instead of keeping him as cover...leaving us with Chester, Thompson, and Clucas, possibly in that order, none of them exactly experienced in that position. If we had three specialist players for every position we would have a squad of 33 players which isn't sustainable. You appear to have missed that Jones was and is the third "specialist" on our books, only he's now out on loan. One of the reason he might have stayed with the u-23s is that he is actually not a specialist per se, as he can play centrehalf and in midfield too.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 1, 2022 8:09:01 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. Correct. And also why the Huddersfield player got a red and a 3 match ban and we went on to win the game 3-0, because refs never get it wrong and because the powers that be never close ranks and back their man........
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 1, 2022 8:45:30 GMT
If we had three specialist players for every position we would have a squad of 33 players which isn't sustainable. According to Wiki, including Norton and the injured Souttar, we currently have a squad size of 31 players, so not far off your unsustainable level. We have another 5 players out on loan that will start pre season with us (6 but not including Tom Ince), so make it 36... My mistake - I thought the poster was referring to the named squad members - not the youngsters who can played in addition. I would suggest the loanees don't count as they are either out to get experience or have no future at the club.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 1, 2022 8:52:09 GMT
If we had three specialist players for every position we would have a squad of 33 players which isn't sustainable. You appear to have missed that Jones was and is the third "specialist" on our books, only he's now out on loan. One of the reason he might have stayed with the u-23s is that he is actually not a specialist per se, as he can play centrehalf and in midfield too. Fair point but the call for the manager is whether it is better for youngsters to go out on loan and get the experience needed to be ready for the first team or keep them handy just in case - which hampers their development. The other call is whether a young specialist would be better cover than an experienced part timer - in this case would Jones be better than a part timer in the left back position - it doesn't follow that they will. If the Tymon and Fox look like they might be out long term then recalling Jones would make sense (if he's ready for the first team) as per Bursik last season. It doesn't look like either will be out long term so it's probably better just to make do for a few games.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Mar 1, 2022 9:08:12 GMT
It was a dangerous/reckless follow through. I'm not surprised in the slightest. I don't understand the initial uproar either. It wasn't a foul or even a yellow ten years ago, but the rules are the rules. Winning the ball is irrelevant in the current game. It's the nature of the challenge and your likelihood of injuring an opponent based on being reckless or out of control. Players should know better. There were a few similar situations during the latest Euro Champs, so I know about this rule by now. It was under debate. I agree it was a dangerous follow through, but not THAT dangerous ... so I would have given him a yellow card instead.
|
|
|
Post by stantheman on Mar 1, 2022 10:24:22 GMT
We're too nice on the pitch. We need to be in the faces of the Officials when shite decisions are given against us. When Brown was smashed on the halfway line, we needed 6 players in the referees face. Instead, he gave a throw in and actually helped Brown off his feet. Brown should have stayed down and rolled around like their players would have done. The shithouse, who was lawfully tackled by Fox, was just getting to his feet when a team mate whispered in his ear to stay down as the referee was going to his pocket.
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Mar 1, 2022 10:27:01 GMT
We're too nice on the pitch. We need to be in the faces of the Officials when shite decisions are given against us. When Brown was smashed on the halfway line, we needed 6 players in the referees face. Instead, he gave a throw in and actually helped Brown off his feet. Brown should have stayed down and rolled around like their players would have done. The shithouse, who was lawfully tackled by Fox, was just getting to his feet when a team mate whispered in his ear to stay down as the referee was going to his pocket. You want us to be Arsenal?
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Mar 1, 2022 11:01:35 GMT
You appear to have missed that Jones was and is the third "specialist" on our books, only he's now out on loan. One of the reason he might have stayed with the u-23s is that he is actually not a specialist per se, as he can play centrehalf and in midfield too. Fair point but the call for the manager is whether it is better for youngsters to go out on loan and get the experience needed to be ready for the first team or keep them handy just in case - which hampers their development. The other call is whether a young specialist would be better cover than an experienced part timer - in this case would Jones be better than a part timer in the left back position - it doesn't follow that they will. If the Tymon and Fox look like they might be out long term then recalling Jones would make sense (if he's ready for the first team) as per Bursik last season. It doesn't look like either will be out long term so it's probably better just to make do for a few games. I'm not sure which part timers you're referring to. They left pro football a long time ago. There's some in non-league football obviously, but we're not one of those clubs ...yet! I disagree that the purpose of having players on the club's books is to get them out on loan. The purpose of being a Stoke player is that they are available to play for Stoke. If they don't have a potential future with the club, they should either be sold (fairly unlikely) or given a free transfer. I expect Jones will be freed in the summer or next. It was entirely foreseeable that Tymon and Fox could both be unavailable at the same time, Tymon has been running on empty for quite a while and Fox is injury prone - it now took a hamstring and a suspension to put them both out, but the result is the same. Jones was needed for cover. I said so on the Oatcake in January. The loan was made in the last days of January, and I just don't think it was well thought through. Even so I don't imagine Jones would have been picked for a debut vs PL opposition, but I'd have had him on the 9 man bench, and then if further injuries occur, played him vs Blackpool or Barnsley. Instead it'll be vs Maidenhead United next.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 1, 2022 11:10:14 GMT
Don't we get a free pen just for enquiring?😆 Is the free pen applicable in FA cup. If so we should cash in tonight ideally in 75th minute at 1-1.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Mar 1, 2022 11:24:47 GMT
Redapples is not wrong. By the laws of the game, a tackle where the offender places an opponent in danger because his tackle is not fully controlled is deemed as out of control. Under the current rules, that header by Ronaldo can also be deemed as a red card because, although he's attempting to win the ball, he's out of control and could easily have broken his opponent's neck, leaving him paralysed from the neck down. Another example of this ambiguous rule is when Huth was sent off after he went for the ball and because the ground was covered in snow, he was unable to halt his impetus, which meant he took out his opponent. It's the law that needs to be changed by adding 'It's a red card if the referee deems the tackle to be a deliberate attempt to harm an opponent even if he wins the ball.' I'm absolutely sure that neither Huth or Fox deliberately attempted to harm their opponent even though they were red carded. And another reason why the rule is so stupid is because in a contact sport, the outcome of a non-intention-to-harm tackle always carries the risk of harming an opponent.
As for the tackle on Brown, like Redapples, I've yet to see it. But from what I can gather, it should have been a red card on its own merit. But that doesn't change a thing regarding this appeal for another incident. Let's face it, the ref was shit and chose to use selective bias against us by applying the rules in one incident and not applying the rules in another. And how many times has that happened to Stoke over the years! For me, bias is corruption and I'm in absolutely no doubt that many refs are corrupt in that way.
OS.
|
|