Leeds Utd v Fulham

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
wakeycentraloneleeds said:
Two subs changed the game. Well done goalie for putting a good ball in to space and harrison looks far better on the right. Good finish by Alioski he put it in the space left of keeper.
Click to expand...
Harrison looks better on the right, i have been saying it for ages, Costa off and Alioski on the left..... result, not rocket science Amigo ffs
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wakeybreakyheart
Emu said:
Nobody asks. If the incident is caught on camera and is clear cut then the FA have the right to review it.

As far as I can tell it's just a case of reviewing the game.
Click to expand...
The FA? Stands for Feck All when it comes to Leeds opponents. In fact, they'll prolly issue a retrospective yellow for White headering Mitrovich's poor wee elbow.
 
Infidel said:
Harrison looks better on the left, o have been saying it for ages, Costa off and Alioski on the left..... result, not rocket science Amigo ffs
Click to expand...

Did you mean Harrison on the right? Anyway, if Harrison switches, why not give Costa a run in his natural position on the left? That's where he tore this division in bits with Wolves (with a certain Barry Douglas behind him whipping in some of the best crosses around).

I feel sorry for Douglas. He seems injury prone and has never had a run in the team. He has shown glimpses of his quality. Sometimes players just don't fit in at a club. Shame, he has proven to be a very valuable player at this level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Infidel and davy
Emu said:
The rules were clarified and tightened up at the start of the 2013-14 season and now, according to the Football Association rule book, disciplinary chiefs will be able to consider retrospective action in the two following situations

* firstly, for acts of violent conduct that occur secondarily to a challenge for the ball;

* secondly, in off-the-ball incidents where one or more match official did see the incident but their view was such that none of them had the opportunity to make a decision on an act of misconduct that took place.

In the first case the match officials may not have seen anything at all so it will not be included in the match report - but an incident may subsequently flagged up by television coverage and the FA can initiate action.

In the second case, the referee or one of the linesman may have got a partial view of something but they were not certain as to exactly what had happened. In those circumstances they may include a reference to an incident in their report and request a review.

FA Director of Governance Darren Bailey explained the changes. “This enables The FA to consider acts of violent conduct, like an elbow or a stamp, which have occurred after a challenge for the ball or coming together of players.

“It is sometimes difficult for officials to see such incidents, as they are often concentrating solely on the challenge for possession of the ball, and we are mindful of this.

“Also, where off-the-ball incidents are concerned, it allows action to be taken where an act of misconduct could not have been seen by the match officials, even though they may have seen some part of the players coming together.

“This provides an appropriate level of discretion for The FA to consider action. However, we remain of the view that the best outcome is that referees are able to make correct judgements on the day to benefit the teams involved.”
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Actually, the mention of a stamp reminded me that Knockeart stamped on one of our players when he was on the deck. Forgotten who it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NostradEmus
Emu said:
The rules were clarified and tightened up at the start of the 2013-14 season and now, according to the Football Association rule book, disciplinary chiefs will be able to consider retrospective action in the two following situations

* firstly, for acts of violent conduct that occur secondarily to a challenge for the ball;

* secondly, in off-the-ball incidents where one or more match official did see the incident but their view was such that none of them had the opportunity to make a decision on an act of misconduct that took place.

In the first case the match officials may not have seen anything at all so it will not be included in the match report - but an incident may subsequently flagged up by television coverage and the FA can initiate action.

In the second case, the referee or one of the linesman may have got a partial view of something but they were not certain as to exactly what had happened. In those circumstances they may include a reference to an incident in their report and request a review.

FA Director of Governance Darren Bailey explained the changes. “This enables The FA to consider acts of violent conduct, like an elbow or a stamp, which have occurred after a challenge for the ball or coming together of players.

“It is sometimes difficult for officials to see such incidents, as they are often concentrating solely on the challenge for possession of the ball, and we are mindful of this.

“Also, where off-the-ball incidents are concerned, it allows action to be taken where an act of misconduct could not have been seen by the match officials, even though they may have seen some part of the players coming together.

“This provides an appropriate level of discretion for The FA to consider action. However, we remain of the view that the best outcome is that referees are able to make correct judgements on the day to benefit the teams involved.”
Click to expand...

The FA did f-all when Alioski was nutted by an opposing sub whilst trying to retrieve the ball (can't remember who it was against)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Irishshako and Gessa
Emu said:
Nobody asks. If the incident is caught on camera and is clear cut then the FA have the right to review it.

As far as I can tell it's just a case of reviewing the game.
Click to expand...
I’d imagine every team in the top 6 and those just outside it will ensure they make enough noise to ensure it is reviewed
 
  • Like
Reactions: NostradEmus, lifecheshirewhite and Farsleyexile
Emu said:
Did you mean Harrison on the right? Anyway, if Harrison switches, why not give Costa a run in his natural position on the left? That's where he tore this division in bits with Wolves (with a certain Barry Douglas behind him whipping in some of the best crosses around).

I feel sorry for Douglas. He seems injury prone and has never had a run in the team. He has shown glimpses of his quality. Sometimes players just don't fit in at a club. Shame, he has proven to be a very valuable player at this level.
Click to expand...
Yep on the right, been saying it for ages .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NostradEmus and Irishshako
2whitestripes said:
Hi Guys, I come in peace or pieces actually.
We had the better of the first half but didn't make the most of it. You killed it with the second goal and our defending was lacking for sure. You deserved the win and I doubt you need me to say that either.
There were some controversial moments and the Mitro incident was a lucky escape. I thought Kebano being sent off was harsh, 2 soft yellows, but perhaps it was payback for Mitro.
My feeling is just now to steady the ship to get in the playoff's, if Mitro gets banned that may be difficult.
My last comment is about Steve McClaren, he talks crap and lost interest in him since the umbrella and then pretending he was dutch. He rubished Mitro from the start and has obviously not seen him play since they were at Newcastle together.
Good luck is hard to offer but with Brentford being the other threat, good luck.
Click to expand...

agree with all of that except the we ‘deserved to win bit’ thought on balance of play you were good for at least a point... for once this year we took most of our chances and the opposition didn’t take theirs. Though there’s always gonna the argument that the side that takes their chances deserve the points.

Didn’t think we deserved to lose at Fulham.

That’s football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back