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

[TLF10 4,496]

There is a stage where both Paddys feet are off the ground in that GIF. 

[Brunners 7,982]

8 minutes ago, Borodane said:

When you only have a one goal advantage it's a very dangerous play to not try and get another goal. Especially if the other team has been weaker throughout. There comes a time when they will throw caution to the wind a bit more and as that happened we had to rely on luck. It's a risky gameplay and not something I think we should do. It was hardly Norwich away where we would just try to preserve the lead. Attacking wise we were really bad in the second half.

I don't think we weren't trying to get another goal, we just didn't get a real good chance.

6 minutes ago, SmogDane said:

To follow up on my last comment - IF Paddy hits the ball with his studs, then it's reckless tackling .. But the fact he has the studs to the side, connecting with the ball on top of his foot, almost on his shin ... Makes it a questionable red for me .. Could be overturned, could not ..  Should only be a 1 match ban if any

It would be a 1 match ban because only violent conduct is a 3 game ban now.

[Redcar Rioja 5,975]

1 hour ago, Humpty said:

I’m not sure why that’s relevant. This isn’t Hollywood. The picture and video are of the same incident. Viewed together they present clear evidence as to why the ref made the decision he did.

The relevance is that in Hollywood things are deliberately filmed from different angles to create the illusion that someone has been punched or hit over the head with a plank of wood but in actual fact there is some distance between the blow and the supposed (usually well acted) impact. Therefore what we see isn't necessarily what actually occurred despite it looking convincing.

It's not about whether McNair should be shot at dawn or given a reprieve just that video footage and still photo's can be misleading depending upon the angle from which they were taken. Looking at the Gif Wilson has put up it looks to me like he made contact with the Players leg first before the ball. In real time however it just looked like he cleared a ball which had broken loose which I think is what the Ref perceived it to be until the linesman gave his interpretation of events from the angle which he viewed it at.

[Neverbefore 10,940]

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 dominated. Forget the sending off, they had enough clear cut chances to be ahead before paddy even got sent off.

If you look at all the stats across the game, they passed the ball better, they created more chances and had more shots. This was us playing at home against the only team in the league in worse form than us. Were trying to get into the play offs for Christ sake. If we put in a performance like that against reading well lose, and probably heavily again. We need to extend that 30 mins spell we had in the first half across at least 2 thirds of the match instead of for short periods. 

[Blanco 4,917]

I’ve looked at @wilsoncgp GIF over and over again and I still can’t see any reason for a foul even. Paddy wins the ball clean and Bacuna is late and catches Paddy’s foot which made it look like the other way around. The only way that won’t be overturned will be the usual EFL anti Boro bias.

[Humpty 3,261]

37 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

The relevance is that in Hollywood things are deliberately filmed from different angles to create the illusion that someone has been punched or hit over the head with a plank of wood but in actual fact there is some distance between the blow and the supposed (usually well acted) impact. Therefore what we see isn't necessarily what actually occurred despite it looking convincing.

It's not about whether McNair should be shot at dawn or given a reprieve just that video footage and still photo's can be misleading depending upon the angle from which they were taken. Looking at the Gif Wilson has put up it looks to me like he made contact with the Players leg first before the ball. In real time however it just looked like he cleared a ball which had broken loose which I think is what the Ref perceived it to be until the linesman gave his interpretation of events from the angle which he viewed it at.

As I said this isn’t Hollywood and the pictures angles aren’t deliberately shot to be misleading. The more evidence you have the clearer the picture you can put together of what happened or the basis for the decision that was made. Those two pieces of media are enough to corroborate the officials decision.

[diggerlad07 3,695]

2 hours ago, wilsoncgp said:

McNair will only be out for 1 game won't he? I don't think it will count as violent conduct as he's obviously going for the ball.

Ah yes I may be mistaken. Be interesting to see how fry and hall do 

[White Band 831]

6 minutes ago, diggerlad07 said:

Ah yes I may be mistaken. Be interesting to see how fry and hall do 

Will Fry be back?

[Redcar Rioja 5,975]

Just now, Humpty said:

As I said this isn’t Hollywood and the pictures angles aren’t deliberately shot to be misleading. The more evidence you have the clearer the picture you can put together of what happened or the basis for the decision that was made. Those two pieces of media are enough to corroborate the officials decision.

Being deliberately shot to be misleading or accidentally shot is irrelevant, its two dimensional and therefore can be misleading. The "evidence" as presented does indeed look to put McNair in the guilty camp and I am fully accepting of that but I am also very aware that angles can be very deceptive whether deliberately filmed or incidentally filmed. 

I think you are having a disagreement that doesn't exist. On the balance of what I have seen I think it's more probable than not that McNair committed a foul. However I am also wise enough to know that 2D field of depth and angles do not always portray an accurate representation. I am not disagreeing with your opinion just merely pointing out that we can't always take things at face value. The photo and Gif do look very incriminating. For example if (and it's a big "if") Paddy's foot was six inches off the opponents leg, shot low down at an angle it wouldn't give that depth and look like his boot/studs was on his leg. 

Speaking of angles there is a reason why both Bielsa and Corberan both like to squat low down while watching games, it gives them a different perspective presumably and one which they evidently feel is advantageous yet they are watching exactly the same game as their opposite number. Don't ask me what their reasoning is because I haven't a clue but it is something they clearly believe in.

[Redcar Rioja 5,975]

10 minutes ago, diggerlad07 said:

3 hours ago, wilsoncgp said:

McNair will only be out for 1 game won't he? I don't think it will count as violent conduct as he's obviously going for the ball.

Ah yes I may be mistaken. Be interesting to see how fry and hall do 

The Sky commentator (from memory) said it would be a three game ban. I'm guessing it's down to whatever the Referee has put down in his report as the reason. 

[TeaCider24 12,639]

Appeal to be submitted, anyway.

[Neverbefore 10,940]

We must have really rocked Huddersfield. They're bringing ravel Morrison in for a trial

[wilsoncgp 9,283]

19 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

The Sky commentator (from memory) said it would be a three game ban. I'm guessing it's down to whatever the Referee has put down in his report as the reason. 

That article about our appeal indeed says it was for serious foul play so would just be a single game ban. Can only assume for some reason they mistakenly thought it was for violent conduct.

[Redcar Rioja 5,975]

8 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

That article about our appeal indeed says it was for serious foul play so would just be a single game ban. Can only assume for some reason they mistakenly thought it was for violent conduct.

If it's for a single game I'd be inclined to drop it and move on unless Fry's injury means he won't be fit.

[Brunners 7,982]

24 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

That article about our appeal indeed says it was for serious foul play so would just be a single game ban. Can only assume for some reason they mistakenly thought it was for violent conduct.

Or sky are talking crap again and don't realise the rules changed.