Watching Soccer Special last night, John Salako said that Pudil was held down by Noone and then flung his hand out once they got up but he could not tell if there was any contact. If there wasn't any contact, then Pudil should not have been sent off but had a yellow for the intent and Noone should have had a yellow for holding Pudil down in the first place whether there was contact or not.
According tot he BBC stats Watford had 56% possession in the first half - not exactly suggesting mankey's team were "camped in our half"!!! Zola was spot on - we were in control and heading for victory until the two sendings off - we hit the post twice and as for a penalty in the first half - thats a joke right? - the penalty in the second half was ball to hand and therefore shouldn't have been given either.
From the thread on the Cardiff City board: "One of the best observed minutes silences I've witnessed. Football is of little consequence when you consider recent events. I thought the atmosphere lingered on into the game. I am in the family stand but stadium seemed quiet until we managed to start chasing the game at 11 v 9. Watford were well organised and worked well on the break, possibly giving Marshall more important saves to make than Almunia. I was frustrated along with everybody else for most of the game but in particular at how poor our crossing was. We seemed to be going for a deep cross and a nod back at every opportunity, corners, free kicks and open play, regardless of whether or not we had players in position to provide the nod back! Also scared witless once we had the lead as it appeared that we had swapped numbers and we had less players on the pitch as everybody retreated into our area. Amazing how the whole mentality of both sets of players changed with that 2nd goal of ours. I have to say I thought Watford coped admirably with the loss of players. The 2 guys up front still managed to cause a few problems and held the ball up and ran the channels as well as anyone could have expected in the circumstances. " Agree with you too yellotoyou, though i do think for the first 15 minutes they had the better of us..but once we settled, they struggled more than we did.
Technically that is incorrect - the law is written 'strikes or attempts to strike an opponent'. Red Card, ipso facto. The pundits should really go away and do a refereees course middle some games. PGMOs should try to exercise a bit more discretion (call it dangerous play or adopting an aggressive attitude for the YC) but they have long since decided that they are the centre of the universe, particularly where Watford are concerned.
Right, i have taken time to calm down an review what footage i can and consult the rulebook. First of all i am please for Tommie Hoban getting his second goal for the club. Fair play to the lad, he seems to be developing into a decent player. Yet another product of the academy done good. Secondly i think the Chalobah sending off was a bit unfair, all night Cardiff players were picking the ball up after a free kick/throw in was given to watford. They would run a few paces and then drop it but the ref never did anything. Yet he books Chalobah for kicking the ball not 2 seconds after he blew the whistle. I think thats harsh, but he was looking for a reason to send someone off all night. I have not seen the incident which got Pudil sent off, but having spoken to a couple of Cardiff fans on the night and read Dan's account of it on twitter i think it was a joke. Noone lashed out at Pudil and apparently had him by the throat so Dan defended himself by pushing Noone away. But as always the officials miss the provocation and see the reaction. I also have no doubt that Noone dramatised the whole thing. As for the penalty its debatable. when i get a second i will post the dirct quote of law regarding hand ball
Pretty much agree with that. Was in the family stand where it looked like Bellamy was taken down but I've not seen it on the box. I think a draw would have been fair but hey... That's footy.
The first goal was against the run of play completely and soemthing of a mess. SECOND half is when we camped in the Watford half, including the minuted befor the first sending off. Granted, we did little with the possession til we got the pen but we rode a bit of luck. Happy to accept the the first pen incident wasn't a pen even though I was right behind the goal and it looked like one from where I was sitting/standing/getting up. However, there were several occasions when the second yellow could have been given so the idea that some great injustice has been done is a fallacy. Zola was not spot on. There was half an hour to go and you were not ' in complete control' and heading ofr victory. The complacency is there, in that sentence, clear as. You lost, with little discipline and are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think otherwise. Nonetheless, you deserved a little more. Jew didn't win it, you threat away.
iPhone predictive and big (welsh, of course) fingers. God, those gags about the welsh language pop my ribs every ****ing time. What a ****ing hoot.
Having somewhat belatedly just watched the highlights of the match - I have to say that if we had been denied a penalty for what Hogg did, I would feel mightily aggrieved. He may not have had time to move his hand away, and it may well have looked like 'ball to hand' rather than the other way around, but his hand was obviously in a place it had no reason to be - it looked to me as though he had deliberately 'spread himself' as any goalkeeper would do. Fair penalty to me. Re Pudil sending off - no view whatsoever, so who knows? What annoyed me though, was the commentator's remark that 'there was no argument from the player' - isn't that exactly what refs/the FA tell players to do? Didn't Eustace get an extended ban a while ago for arguing after being sent off? It seems that they can't win whatever they do. Felt sorry for Chalobah in a way - his first yellow was a result of his own excellent anticipation. If Whittigham's first touch hadn't been so poor, Chalobah's tackle would have been perfect as he simply went for where the ball would normally be expected to have been. Them's the breaks I suppose.
Always the trouble with handballs...very few people agree 100%! You almost need a rule like in hockey if that if it touches the hand (foot in the case of hockey) then its handball but that would be pretty harsh!
And then, as happens in hockey, you would have players deliberately aiming there in order to gain a free kick. It's one of those contentious rules about which, given the regular controversies it provokes, something needs to be done. Quite what I don't know though - do away with it altogether and run the risk of turning the game into rugby? Or, given that the offence is named handball, apply it to the use of the hands only and not the arms? About the only thing that is clear is that the players themselves need to play their part and stop cheating - but I suspect that the sun will freeze over before that happens.
Everoyne just needs to be more careful I guess! Trouble is managers,fans and players expect officials to be perfect every game and to hide the faults of their own team the former always blame the officials. I laughed when watching MOTD2 the other day and Alan Shearer said the ref got the red card of the Everton player wrong having watched a zillion replays having himself admitted he thought there was a ful on FIRST sight!
Still makes for a lop-sided contest though, which to my mind is simply unfair. I can't speak for ice hockey having never watched a game, but it's quite common in rugby for teams to take advantage & score when the opposition are a man down. I'd still rather the Aussie Rules system - or the basketball system where players can be fouled off but replaced by someone from the bench.
When you explained the Aussie Rule system the other day BB, I did think that it was far better than what we have now. Use your three subs too early and you might finish up a man short, but football is supposed to be entertainment and most days a sending off can spoil a game.
If all three subs have been used earlier and a player is crocked by an opposition 'red card' tackle, there are still four subs on the bench. Any one of those could be deemed an 'emergency' replacement.
BB, I've seen several ice hockey matches in what is now the EIHL where "short-handed" goals are scored and if the team with the numerical advantage scores, then the sin-bin period is over, so a 2 minute punishment could end up as no more than seconds. Bizarrely, there is one rule in ice hockey that doesn't apply to a short-handed team - icing is not an offence. This is where the puck is played from your defensive third to your attacking third without anyone in the middle third touching it.
