I look at your avatar and feel I should be talking cricket! In my country, if you lose you lose.. no point whinging about refs cause you ain't gonna change the result. I will have a beer for you though cause you had the curry to post on this thread!
He is in the middle of the goal and he puts it in the net and yet he wasn't interfering with play - mmh. Gives me a good idea when we have a free kick just outside the box we could stand the other 9 players between the wall and the goalie and if it deflects off the wall to one of them they are not offside. Good idea that I wonder why it has not been thought of before
I agree the ref was poor but at least he was poor for both sides. Penalty - wrong decision imo. Sending off - arguable but with studs up like that I can see why. Can`t blame the ref for offside decisions, that`s the linos job. If it`s marginal or in line it`s supposed to be given in favour of the attacker. Some you get, some you don`t. This time we got.
The penalty was the wrong decision but I bet in real time it looked like one. It didn't look like a dive, from certain angles it would have definitely looked like he'd been impeded. I think M'Vila's yelp might have influenced the referee but I bet it ****ing hurt. Nowt worse than kicking the bottom of someones studs. Harsh but I could see why it might have looked like a sending off in real time. His studs were showing. 1st one was offside and should have been given. Poor decision. 2nd one was a lot tighter than it initially looked but was possibly just offside. I've looked at MOTD and it seem to show he was in line, but looking at another replay it looked just offside. Not as bad decision by the linesman as first thought but if I was a Swansea fan i'd still be a little miffed. 3rd one was onside.
Penalty - wrong decision Sending off - not arguable. It will be rescinded. It's this that changed the course of the game. Interfering with play - does NOT mean that when somebody scores they must be interfering with play. Your stronger argument is that angel was offside when our player kicked the ball, though I admit haven't checked the rules. We were done by the officials principally because of the sending off and most neutrals agree. But water under the bridge. Good luck.
Onwards and Upwards, the next game is now the most important for both of us and all the teams still in the mix at the bottom.
Excuse me? You were one point above the relegation places before last nights game kicked off, and in poor form. Why do you think anybody would be coming to your ground to 'park the bus'? We all thought we would win last night...
I'm with you on every word fella. Mind you the rules suck that danger is enough. Punishment for almost doing something but not. It's far fetched but see why it was given under the rules. I've look at the rules and it is a sending off offence, didn't fancy arguing the toss with people who haven't read them.
Shame for you he was offside and interfering when it was struck by a Swansea player before it hit the defender. That's point the decision goes from. He was offside fella.by quite a distance. Doesn't matter if it hit our defender, that doesn't suddenly make your player onside, he was already offside when the ball was struck. Bang on that decision.
At least two of Defoe's goals are 100% onside, the other could be debated about all night. The linesman had a second to make the decision.
Quite a bit of checking to do then. Check the rules on excessive force and how danger is enough to enforce a red Card. It's all there fella. **** rule but there non the less. Studs over the ball stamping into the Challange. Very dangerous indeed. Another game and it could have ended someones career.
I've now checked the rules (I was talking about Rangel's goal btw) and if the player is offside when a team mate kicks the ball then he's offside so that decision was correct. Nonetheless it was the sending off that changed the game and my feelings on that stand. It was a genuine attempt at the ball that was nothing out of the ordinary and he did get the ball. If you're saying that's a red (I'm not sure if you are) then you're at odds with virtually every neutral observer.
It was never a red when you get to see all replays from all angles. The ref doesn't get that privilege. At first look he sees a stamping action, studs facing the ball and a player injured - and the conclusion was a red card. If ever there was a case for video technology, last night was a prime example - penalties, red cards, offside decisions the lot.
Using that argument - Defoe was onside for the first goal as he wasn;t interfering until it was touched by one of your players (the goalkeeper)? No?
We're not at odds -we look at things real time - I saw it real time and thought he was in trouble - I then saw the replay and thought "Can;t believe he's sent him off" the ref doesn;t get that second look - he saw a stamping action which was the exact motion of the defenders foot - ball or not it will be seen as a red card by the officials due to them only having the benefit of real time. I don;t think he got it wrong from his angle - but with the benefit of replays he definitely got it wrong. We're not arguing the fact that it was a wrong decision - we're a little more logical in looking at what the referee sees! It looked nasty at full speed - but harmless on the replays! I can see why he was sent off but I also think it will be overturned
Reckless tackles, Cattermole put one in a few seasons back on a Hull player, me and Marcus argued about it for a while. Cattermole got a red card. Going in recklessly, like a Ron Jeremy special, regardless of if there was contact, really does narrow down the options you leave the referee. Swings and roundabouts innit.
I'm saying that it's a gray area Whether the rules are wrong or not is irrelevant. Show your studs and go in over the ball you can't complain if you get sent off. It's just common sense in this footballing climate. Why **** about in gray areas when you can avoid completely by not stamping into challenges. My feelings on it is footy players are bunch of soft ****s, it shouldn't be a red card. But that's just an opinion which would lead to a rule change. By the rules, it's gray, I can see why it was given and any appeal will depend on how the ref view the incident in his report. If he says it was a dangerous tackle which hurt the player, it will be rescinded(as contact was minimal), if he says it was dangerous tackle which could have badly hurt someone then it will be upheld. As you don't need to make contact for excessive force to be applied, which is a sending off offence.
Exactly. Everything lies in the way it's worded in the report. It depends if the ref thinks there was contact. If he thinks there was, the red card will be taken away, if he doesn't mention contact and focuses on the danger of the challenge itself, it will be upheld.
