The first was an obvious dive, he was never going to get anywhere near that.
Second, deliberately taken out. No question.
Mags lose, and, as our russian friends would say, toughski ****ski.
Match Day Thread Special Match Preview: Sunderland AFC Vs Newcastle United
- Thread starter Brian Storm
- Start date
-
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
-
The first was an obvious dive, he was never going to get anywhere near that.
Second, deliberately taken out. No question.
Mags lose, and, as our russian friends would say, toughski ****ski.
The first was an obvious dive, he was never going to get anywhere near that.
Second, deliberately taken out. No question.
Mags lose, and, as our russian friends would say, toughski ****ski.
But they've got the future sussed don't you? 'Knowing' that playing well one half and not scoring means they definitely would have played well in the second half and score two goals 2 needed to win with no chance of us scoring at all!
Because half time has never changed the game every and the term 'a game of two halves' doesn't exist! It's all a predetermined chain of events configured in the mind of the Mag specimen.I never seen straw clutching like the mags over this derby. They just need to accept Captain Fantastic gifted us the game regardless of the sending off.
But they've got the future sussed don't you? 'Knowing' that playing well one half and not scoring means they definitely would have played well in the second half and score two goals 2 needed to win with no chance of us scoring at all!
I never seen straw clutching like the mags over this derby. They just need to accept Captain Fantastic gifted us the game regardless of the sending off.
Absolutely right. I feel so guilty about stealing their points.
Just had a look on their "board" and some of them are saying that because the red card has been rescinded it means it wasn't a penalty 
Just had a look on their "board" and some of them are saying that because the red card has been rescinded it means it wasn't a penalty
You really expected something else?
Just had a look on their "board" and some of them are saying that because the red card has been rescinded it means it wasn't a penalty
Yeah I read that. Not allowed to debate on there without threats of bans though.
Sorry I forgot it was Meltdown (lets outdo Chernobyl) time
I don't bother Bri its not worth a few minutes of my life to "debate" with those stupid f***ers
They`re not going to give up on it mate, really. They have to find something to cling to. That`s all there is.
I've been reading through the Premier League rules on the appeal process and the more I read them the more I think that Coloccini was very lucky to have his ban rescinded (the red card isn't rescinded, just the ban - I hadn't realised that).
The rules seem to have loads of grey areas which might explain why so many appeals don't go the way that people expect. It doesn't help that the rules prohibit the appeals commission from explaining their decision. They are only allowed to publish their verdict.
According to the rules the commission are only allowed to consider very tight criteria. They cannot take into account any other players reaction (the example they give is that if a player swings a punch and misses but the other player dives then the dive is not taken into account and they will only need to decide if their was intent to punch the player) and they are not allowed to predict what might have happened following the incident (for example if another player might have got back to cover as play unfolded). They can only base their decision on the state of play as it was at the exact time of the incident.
On this occasion that means they needed to decide three things.
1. Was it clearly an honest mistake to award a foul against the player?
2. If it wasn't a mistake was it a clear goalscoring opportunity?
3. If it wasn't a mistake was another player already in a covering position to prevent a goalscoring opportunity at the time of the offence?
I don't think the goalkeeper counts as a covering player and they are not allowed to predict whether Mbemba would have got back to cover so they appear to have decided that either it wasn't a foul or it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity. As they are not allowed to predict whether the goalkeeper would have got to the ball first I don't think they could have said it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity. However, as much as I disagreed with the decision, I would also be surprised if they decided that the decision to give the foul was clearly an honest mistake.
I'm guessing they must have decided that because Fletcher wasn't in control of the ball and so decided that number two applies. But that's purely a guess. We'll never know.
Bottom line is that it makes no difference. The result stands. You beat us and we all move on.
The rules seem to have loads of grey areas which might explain why so many appeals don't go the way that people expect. It doesn't help that the rules prohibit the appeals commission from explaining their decision. They are only allowed to publish their verdict.
According to the rules the commission are only allowed to consider very tight criteria. They cannot take into account any other players reaction (the example they give is that if a player swings a punch and misses but the other player dives then the dive is not taken into account and they will only need to decide if their was intent to punch the player) and they are not allowed to predict what might have happened following the incident (for example if another player might have got back to cover as play unfolded). They can only base their decision on the state of play as it was at the exact time of the incident.
On this occasion that means they needed to decide three things.
1. Was it clearly an honest mistake to award a foul against the player?
2. If it wasn't a mistake was it a clear goalscoring opportunity?
3. If it wasn't a mistake was another player already in a covering position to prevent a goalscoring opportunity at the time of the offence?
I don't think the goalkeeper counts as a covering player and they are not allowed to predict whether Mbemba would have got back to cover so they appear to have decided that either it wasn't a foul or it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity. As they are not allowed to predict whether the goalkeeper would have got to the ball first I don't think they could have said it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity. However, as much as I disagreed with the decision, I would also be surprised if they decided that the decision to give the foul was clearly an honest mistake.
I'm guessing they must have decided that because Fletcher wasn't in control of the ball and so decided that number two applies. But that's purely a guess. We'll never know.
Bottom line is that it makes no difference. The result stands. You beat us and we all move on.
[QUOTE="Less Hope Than Neville, post: 8521435, member: 1001641"
The rules seem to have loads of grey areas which might explain why so many appeals don't go the way that people expect. It doesn't help that the rules prohibit the appeals commission from explaining their decision. They are only allowed to publish their verdict.
If they were allowed to explain why they had taken their decision it would enlighten a lot of fans but why not keep behind closed doors make the FA feel more important I suppose
The rules seem to have loads of grey areas which might explain why so many appeals don't go the way that people expect. It doesn't help that the rules prohibit the appeals commission from explaining their decision. They are only allowed to publish their verdict.
If they were allowed to explain why they had taken their decision it would enlighten a lot of fans but why not keep behind closed doors make the FA feel more important I suppose
Interesting.
The keeper can`t count as otherwise the defender wouldn`t be the `last man`.
Seems like they`ve given the foul but not the clear scoring opportunity. So, a penalty but no dismissal.
tbh I think most of us had pretty much agreed on that already.
I think Fletch had a chance of getting it but he was never scoring with his next touch, but any touch is going to take him wide and you clearly would have had a covering defender.back on the line in time. Check the replay from behind the goal on the last page fella. Mbemba has it covered imo. Pen but no way a red.
Great post. It's not like the ref adjudged out of malice. His explanation should be public and the fa's reasoning should be public without any crucifying and then the fans are fully informed.
They don't even get to debate whether or not they think it is a penalty - just whether it is an obvious mistake. Even if they thought it wasn't a penalty I don't think they could say it was a clear mistake which is why I agree it must be down to thinking it's not a goalscoring opportunity.
They aren't allowed to take into account whether Mbemba would have got back to cover. They can only decide if he was already covering at the time of the foul. If they decided it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity I think that means they had to decide that Fletcher wasn't getting the ball if it's in the penalty area like that. They really don't help themselves with not explaining things.
Most of us seem to believe it was a penalty but not necessarily a red.
Most Mags seem to believe Coloccini was idiotic for barging into Fletcher.
If Elliot was going to collect then Coloccini was indeed stupid, if not then it's a penalty.
Either way no one knows what would've happened if he'd stayed on.
Most Mags seem to believe Coloccini was idiotic for barging into Fletcher.
If Elliot was going to collect then Coloccini was indeed stupid, if not then it's a penalty.
Either way no one knows what would've happened if he'd stayed on.
The only bit they are considering is the red card, not whether or not it was a foul.
I think.
