Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

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


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Denzel Zanzibar said:

Not a red in my eyes. Perhaps another angle would clear it up though.

Well, based solely on that footage, I would say thats never a red. A yellow at most and that would be harsh IMO.

The Huddersfield player over-reacted to make it look worse than it was. If he'd really been caught with the studs, he'd have stayed down, nursing his leg. As it was, he didn't even go to ground.

Bad decision by the ref who was close enough to see it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 730
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

5 minutes ago, nunthorpered said:

Although he looked a bit shaky in parts, i thought he made quite a few key saves in the game to keep us in it

I’d agree with that. He’s been unreliable over the past month or two and i don’t think it’s unfair to say some of the criticism he’s received is just, but he had no chance of saving that free kick. The wall is there to protect that side of the goal. If the taker gets it over the wall at pace then there’s not a lot you can do about it as a keeper.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Denzel Zanzibar said:

Not a red in my eyes. Perhaps another angle would clear it up though.

Its strange as it looks like he was in control but does look like he shows his studs anf may even have brought his second leg forward. Cant see it being over turned. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AnglianRed said:

Well, based solely on that footage, I would say thats never a red. A yellow at most and that would be harsh IMO.

The Huddersfield player over-reacted to make it look worse than it was. If he'd really been caught with the studs, he'd have stayed down, nursing his leg. As it was, he didn't even go to ground.

Bad decision by the ref who was close enough to see it.

 

You’ve seen the photo though? You know he’s caught the lad with his studs. 

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

I’d agree with that. He’s been unreliable over the past month or two and i don’t think it’s unfair to say some of the criticism he’s received is just, but he had no chance of saving that free kick. The wall is there to protect that side of the goal. If the taker gets it over the wall at pace then there’s not a lot you can do about it as a keeper.

Yeah haha. Up and over like that, there was some serious pace. Not many would have got that

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Humpty said:

Scrap that...

Picture give's you an idea of why he was given a red.

Picture taken from FMTTM.

5ED4EC4F-BA74-4E32-8E1D-54CE0470422D.jpeg

Dangerous tackle with a lot of force behind it = red card

I know it is inconclusive from the angle shown in the highlights (I couldn't decide whether he'd made contact with the player, but thought it was a red if he had), but that photo is pretty clear. 

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

You’ve seen the photo though? You know he’s caught the lad with his studs. 

But based on the video footage the contact was minimal. If he'd really been hurt he'd have gone down and stayed down. The Huddersfield player's reaction looked like a poor attempt to con the ref...and he fell for it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Humpty said:

I don’t understand why you’re discounting the photo? It’s not fake.

It's not fake no, but it is just a still photo, taken from one angle. It's still inconclusive as to what happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, White Band said:

Dangerous tackle with a lot of force behind it = red card

I know it is inconclusive from the angle shown in the highlights (I couldn't decide whether he'd made contact with the player, but thought it was a red if he had), but that photo is pretty clear. 

Is it though? 
paddy was coming from the goal line straight out. This means he wasn’t going straight into their player, even though that’s what the photo makes you think. With the direction he’s going in, he either slides past their player, or if their player moves his leg forward, then he hits it - which is probably what happened. But is that Paddy’s fault? You can’t go for the ball thinking about where the opposition player MIGHT move to. Also his right foot is angled down. Yes studs are showing, but his foot is almost on top of his left leg, it couldn’t get much lower.

it may be a red card technically, but he’s terribly unlucky if it is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dangerous play, definite red card. Its in the rules.

image.png.7aeaf96d6f7402df2922ec3babbfcd1c.png

 

Of course those rules are open for interpretation (or ignoring)

Watching it real time it looked 2 footed and could be seen as out of control. I can see why it was given but it was certainly harsh and just refer to above picture for further reinforcement! 

 

As it happens I didnt watch the game. Sounds like I saved myself some high blood pressure!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Denzel Zanzibar said:

It's not fake no, but it is just a still photo, taken from one angle. It's still inconclusive as to what happened.

It’s a photo taken from an angle that isn’t covered by a camera. You can’t pick and choose which evidence you use to make an assessment of an incident. 

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

It’s a photo taken from an angle that isn’t covered by a camera. You can’t pick and choose which evidence you use to make an assessment of an incident. 

You mean like you're doing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScarBoro said:

Looks clear as a rule doesn’t it? However, what happens when the ball is loose and the player “lunges” at the ball and the opponent moves across to try to recover it? The tackler hasn’t lunged at the opponent, but ends up getting opponent as well. 
seems to me that’s what happened last night. Ball had been knocked sideways by opponent and McNair saw it clearly and did lunge in a bit to get it. Opponent tried to recover at same time and ended up where McNair was sliding in.

The difference is minimal really, what's the difference between this and the Branthwaite one if you're talking about whether he was lunging at an opponent? Not by the letter of the law maybe but I'd say in terms of judging if he was lunging at an opponent, this one is actually worse than Branthwaite's as he didn't actually have a clue where Fry was, he was watching the ball the whole way but caught him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Posts

    • DZ has already hinted that Fry may be off, perhaps he’s one of the players that doesn’t want to be at the club. 
    • I feel sorry for Johnson, was playing really well before Christmas, creating and scoring. Loan players come in, he doesn’t get a look in and we are worse for it. Spence and Coulson often get called out, alongside the strikers.   I wouldn’t be surprised if Brit, Johnson, Akpom, Coulson and Fletcher are all pretty peed off and want away.  I’m still supportive of Warnock but he needs to take some responsibility. The loan signings seem to have disrupted the team spirit. Too many all at once? Too many straight into the team? He clearly doesn’t rate any of our strikers and Fletcher annoyed him getting injured again when he said he was fit and not signing a new contract.  Such a disappointing end to the season 
    • Just had a snoop in the Norwich club website to see if there was anything "official". Seems like it is an obligation to buy upon promotion rather than an option.
    • The last 4 years have been genuinely horrendous but I can’t agree that this is worse than it was under Pulis. I mean under Pulis there were times we played a flat back 5 of shotton, ayala, flint, friend, Saville. 4 plodders in midfield and Britt stood up top with literally no one within 50 yards of him.  At least this season Neil’s brought a bit of flair in general played people in their actual positions. Admittedly he appears to have lost his *** In this respect in the last few games. I’m not making a case for Warnock’s long term vision by the way, whatever the *** that is. Just that he is marginally less crap than Pulis.
    • Warnock was never going to be the long-term solution, with him in charge expect another mid-table finish next season at best. We'll be lucky not to finish in the bottom half this season, tbh.

×
×
  • Create New...