Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Boro v Huddersfield 2-1 (Watmore, Fletcher pen)


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Brunners said:

While the photo looks damning, I understand what DZ is saying, which is that photos can be misleading. Take it from a weird angle and you could end up with a photo that looks much worse than the actual incident actually was. 

In this case, I'm not sure. I thought it was a soft red at the time and still do I think, but it was a silly tackle to make. Wouldn't be surprised to see it overturned based on how it was given, but ultimately if McNair has to sit for a game, so be it. Will only be a 1 game ban for a red like that so not a huge deal.

How did Darnell not get sent off for this? Both feet off the floor, studs showing, nowhere near the ball. Totally out of control of his body.

E450AAB7-8C26-4F8F-874D-AC9AC55C1E62.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 730
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  •  

    69

  •  

    53

  •  

    44

  •  

    42

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just preparing myself for the game    

I'm at that point where I don't even think the team selection really matters- as long as we play hoof ball it doesn't matter who is in the team. That said, because we play hoof ball we certainly

I agree with @Borodane, the second half was very poor. We looked comfortable in the first 20mins or so of it but we had absolutely no intention of getting that extra goal. From about the 65th min they

Posted Images

Just now, AnglianRed said:

Heh. I think there was definitely contact, but Paddy tapped his ankle at worst.

For a studs up challenge it looked quite well controlled and one of the least dangerous ones I've ever seen.

Its also a great illustration of how the laws of the game can be absolutely ridiculous...and why we need officials capable of exercising well-considered judgement.

Again I'll go back to Fry's injury. That ref gave absolutely nothing...yet Paddy gets sent off for an ankle-tap, simply because the studs on one foot are showing.

Bloody idiotic if you ask me.

 

and as DZ points out again, the ref initially thought it was a foul but otherwise okay, which is correct. It's the linesman with a bad angle miles away that decides it's a red.

On the plus side, that's the first game we've won with Simpson in charge this season, in 6 attempts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CrazyL said:

How did Darnell not get sent off for this? Both feet off the floor, studs showing, nowhere near the ball. Totally out of control of his body.

E450AAB7-8C26-4F8F-874D-AC9AC55C1E62.jpeg

Well, it's a bit of an extreme example of what I mean, but it's close enough lol. From memory this was either a foul for us or I thought it should have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by the photo it looks like Bacuna's leg is planted on the ground and McNair's studs hit him at full lunge just above the ankle which if it was the case would like as not be a broken leg. The video footage is more in McNair's favour as it looked like a determined tackle rather than a blatant foul. The problem is that with angles the same thing can look different and any distance or gaps and timing is lost with a still photo.

It could go either way, depending on which bits of evidence are presented. What I find astonishing is that the same Linesman failed to spot the tug on Watmore which was far more blatantly obvious and his opinion that Hall was seemingly offside which I think was his reaction after he made contact with the ball rather than when the ball was actually played.

That's three big decisions he made which I'm not convinced he got right. Apart from that who on earth would trust someone with as dodgy a haircut as that? Give him a sheepskin coat and I know I wouldn't buy a used car from him!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CrazyL said:

How did Darnell not get sent off for this? Both feet off the floor, studs showing, nowhere near the ball. Totally out of control of his body.

E450AAB7-8C26-4F8F-874D-AC9AC55C1E62.jpeg

Now that actually looks worthy of a red card.

Did that happen before or after McNair's challenge? Just wondering if his red ended up being another case of belated justice / evening out.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you guys are talking about now, it's a fair point but I'm not sure when it comes to that picture Humpty posted whether it really matters whether he's going towards the camera or not. The position of his studs is behind the Huddersfield player's leg. He's still caught him there with his studs if that's the case. It might not be a case of properly going through.

I got a GIF of it with a delay between frames. Watch it a few times, watch when the ball moves and when the contact is made with the player's shin. The ball is static until his left foot follows through and brings the ball out of the challenge. At that point, he's already caught the player with the studs of his right boot.

mcnairred_slower.gif.0de027f586b32e2fdabe489ddf2905e0.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Denzel Zanzibar said:

Where it's still misleading....what are you not getting? Are you just here for an argument, as usual?


You’re going to have to tell me exactly kind of proof you need before you can make a decision. Stud marks on the lads legs? Drone footage? 

I understand there’s an element of bias and you want the red card overturning but a bit of objectively wouldn’t go amiss. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Humpty said:


You’re going to have to tell me exactly kind of proof you need before you can make a decision. Stud marks on the lads legs? Drone footage? 

I understand there’s an element of bias and you want the red card overturning but a bit of objectively wouldn’t go amiss. 

The camera angle is misleading. What more do you want? If Paddy had made the tackle you're suggesting he has, he'd have broken Bacunas leg almost certainly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brunners said:

The camera angle is misleading. What more do you want?

I think you can see from the video that yeah, McNair is moving towards the camera in the photo so in that respect the camera photo is misleading as it actually looks more like he's moving towards the player. In that respect, looking at both the video and the photo is giving you a clearer picture.

But I also don't think it really matters in determining if it's a red card or not when you look at the position of his boot and his studs in the picture. It's catching the player one way or another. The only real difference is if he flies through the player or if he just catches him with his studs. In terms of judging if it's a red card or not, I don't think that matters? He's still caught him with his studs with the boot that's over the ball. It's still a red, for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

I see what you guys are talking about now, it's a fair point but I'm not sure when it comes to that picture Humpty posted whether it really matters whether he's going towards the camera or not. The position of his studs is behind the Huddersfield player's leg. He's still caught him there with his studs if that's the case. It might not be a case of properly going through.

I got a GIF of it with a delay between frames. Watch it a few times, watch when the ball moves and when the contact is made with the player's shin. The ball is static until his left foot follows through and brings the ball out of the challenge. At that point, he's already caught the player with the studs of his right boot.

mcnairred_slower.gif.0de027f586b32e2fdabe489ddf2905e0.gif

This is actually the clearest for me. That's a red, no question about it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...