Rough Justice!

i'll point you to here:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/just_deserts

then await your apologies

 

No I did read your post:

If the point of your post is that the ref came to his own conclusion then I'd consider that responded to.

 

Anyway night shift again so off to bed. Starting to get the dislike for Norwich fans now though.

 

Even if Gervinho wasn't sent off, he would definitely get a ban after the game for raising his hands and striking someone. Barton didn't headbutt Johnson, they pressed foreheads together which happens in most heated games. Obviously Norwich had set out to do this.

 

Clearly you didn't, because he did make his own mind up, as I said. We just don't know who influenced it. Your post gave an exact recount of what they said on MOTD, which is what I posted before if you had bother to read my post. I said it was obvious e ref and the linesman didn't see it. Read my post again, rather than just that one line taken out of context

 

Apparently the referee gave it as 'intent to headbutt'

This is just factually incorrect, Barton did not go running at Johnson and thrust his head in his face, then you contradict yourself, if he moved away from Barton then why the **** would he need to rub his nose to 'see if there was damage' if he didn't get touched?

 

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...ath-stinks-sign-on-Twitter-article848567.html
LOL

 

Where's the damage to your nose you cheating scum?

 

aw have you not got over the fact that your manager and team are tactically inept.

 

If that is the case (IF) then what is all the arguing about. The referees opinion really is all that matters. I accept we, as fans, don't have to like what referees decide but we do need to live the rest of our lives not getting hung up on such decisions

We have been on the wrong end of penalty decisions and red cards this season too (in our opinion), it's gone now (although not totally forgotten)

 

Further to what I said above - IF is was for 'intent' it doesn't really matter what Johnson's reaction was, the intent was still there (in the referees opinion).

It could argued that Johnson could/should have got a yellow card (if there was no actual contact) but will we ever know for certain if there ever was contact or not? We will only have 2 peoples words for it - JB & BJ

 

the below is a pretty good take on it, i have to say, and basically sums up what i've been saying all along: that the only real controversy here is not the resulting red card, which was probably correct, but HOW the officials came to their final decisions...

http://www.norwich.vitalfootball.co.uk/sitepage.asp?a=267723

 

So if the fourth official got involved does that mean if he saw a goal that was illegally scored and says to the referee that was not a goal because this or that happened the ref would say ok no goal bo***ks.

 

Funny you should say that.....

 

Move on everybody!!

 

personally i feel the fourth official should be given something to bloody do!!

 

Please god mods...close all these threads now. Nothing to be gained. We've all obviously been watching a different game, so let's just move on!!

 

Only Brixton can close it as it was generated on the QPR board

 

Actually we would have won the game, had 'Intent to score a goal' been a factor for the referee.

'Intent to do anything' can never be a red card matter. How many times have you seen players see red, go for someone, miss completely, and get sent off? I can't really recall a single example. The officials can only go on facts - things that they actually see and that actually happened. In this case, they were told (by Holt, after a 60 yard dash in which he showed a suprising turn of speed for a fat bastard) and acted on Johnson's reaction and Holt's report.

Should never have been a red card in a million years, if they didn't see the events. The rules allow retrospective punishment for thingsthat the referee misses, and in this case they should have left it as it was and let the post-match video review decide.

That's the rules of the game, biys, and the officials cocked it up, based on being conned by the Norwich players.

We need to concentrate on the next game now - but it doesn't make it right.

And Brix - best to keep one of these threads open, so that we can continue to debate this? We know that they want to hush it all up, but it's still a talking point.

 

how can people still be lambasting holt for getting barton sent off when its blatant on tv that he was trying to get the ref to change his mind?