'Other Boro stuff'

[Downsouth 6,326]

2 hours ago, TeaCider24 said:

Seems a bit beneath you, this.

It was a blatant penalty and a blatant red card.

To be annoyed that a goal kick was bafflingly given instead doesn't mean our fans are acting like children.

Every single media outlet agrees that it was the wrong decision, including on the Blackburn side.

I was being sarcastic lol!

[Old Codger 3,063]

I think we all agree it was an accident .   and probably no action will be taken, but would have had more respect if the player or Mowbray had said that they had a little sadness about it and would try to ensure there was little chance of repetition..  I remember when the game was a contact sport and the very notable thing was that if an opposition player was accidentally injured, the lad responsible nearly always apologised then and there rather than just pretending it never happened..  I'm not advocating the young lad should have both his nuts chopped off, but I am sure if Billy accidently injured anyone, he would have the manners to say "Sorry, pal" and that is all most people really want 

[wilsoncgp 9,280]

1 hour ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said:

Don’t get mad, it’s just one of those things, people see things in different ways. It would be a boring world if we all had the same opinion. 

It's a law of the game based on facts, his boot is high and he's endangered the opposition player. Your opinion that you believe is backed up by the referee, FA, Mogga etc. is based on an incorrect interpretation of the laws. Standing by that after the fact isn't just about standing by your opinions, it's also disagreeing with the laws. You're more than welcome to do that (though your reasoning is pretty archaic to say the least), the referee however is in the position to apply those laws whatever they are and he hasn't done that.

[boroie 484]

It was at the bare minimum reckless (caution + penalty), and probably excessive (red card + penalty)

 

 

 

 

[Borodane 6,297]

6 hours ago, Will said:

Yep, if the ref says he's seen it, and then written in his report that no action was required then I believe the FA can't do anything under the current rules. Although, and this doesn't apply to this incident, I think there may be an exception for violent conduct.

If the ref writes that he actually saw it but didn’t think it was a foul then he needs a ban. He will probably claim that his view was blocked and didn’t see it until Fry was on the floor. 

[estonpidge 1,449]

@Borodane
he can clearly be seen watching it on several camera angles, but as i said earlier he needs to be held accountable for his lack of a decision.

[wilsoncgp 9,280]

45 minutes ago, Borodane said:

If the ref writes that he actually saw it but didn’t think it was a foul then he needs a ban. He will probably claim that his view was blocked and didn’t see it until Fry was on the floor. 

I thought watching it back that his view might have been blocked by someone on the edge of the area. Not sure about the linesman. But that would mean he wouldn't write anything up in his report other than the injury sustained by Fry, he wouldn't write that the challenge was fine because he wouldn't have seen it, or he didn't see it and wrote that he did. There's a few potentially ridiculous scenarios that may have played out during that incident that have somehow allowed Branthwaite to get away without a suspension and most of them come back to awful refereeing on Dean Whitestone's part.

[BillyWoofs_shinpad 1,884]

1 hour ago, boroie said:

It was at the bare minimum reckless (caution + penalty), and probably excessive (red card + penalty)

 

 

 

 

I’d agree with that, caution and penalty but not a 3 match ban or a red card, we’d be gutted if it was the other way round, imagine Fry had caught someone in the face by accident and been banned for 3 matches, our fans would be livid. 
 

We were pretty *** off when Adomah had his over head kick disallowed a few years back, imagine if he’d been sent off and banned as well. 

[BillyWoofs_shinpad 1,884]

3 hours ago, Brunners said:

The classic "woah people don't actually agree with me, better back out with the 'just an opinion bro' point"

I can take that you don’t agree with me, it’s really not a problem, I’m happy to have my own thoughts. 

[Brunners 7,982]

20 minutes ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said:

I’d agree with that, caution and penalty but not a 3 match ban or a red card, we’d be gutted if it was the other way round, imagine Fry had caught someone in the face by accident and been banned for 3 matches, our fans would be livid. 
 

We were pretty *** off when Adomah had his over head kick disallowed a few years back, imagine if he’d been sent off and banned as well. 

If Fry kicked a man in the face, I'd want him to receive a red and be banned. I honestly think you have to be sociopathic not to think that.

[TeaCider24 12,631]

18 minutes ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said:

I’d agree with that, caution and penalty but not a 3 match ban or a red card, we’d be gutted if it was the other way round, imagine Fry had caught someone in the face by accident and been banned for 3 matches, our fans would be livid. 
 

We were pretty *** off when Adomah had his over head kick disallowed a few years back, imagine if he’d been sent off and banned as well. 

We were *** off because Adomah didn't kick anyone in the face, and wasn't even close to doing so.

If Adomah had took a shot on goal and followed through with his stud in to a jumping player's eye socket, I'd have had no issue with him being banned.

If Fry had made the same challenge on Branthwaite in our box, I'd have fully accepted them getting a penalty and Fry being sent off 

[Borodane 6,297]

2 hours ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said:

I’d agree with that, caution and penalty but not a 3 match ban or a red card, we’d be gutted if it was the other way round, imagine Fry had caught someone in the face by accident and been banned for 3 matches, our fans would be livid. 
 

We were pretty *** off when Adomah had his over head kick disallowed a few years back, imagine if he’d been sent off and banned as well. 

There is accidental and then there is reckless. The Blackburn player was the latter probably due to his inexperience. I’m sure he didn’t mean to do it, but that doesn’t make it less reckless and dangerous. 

[wilsoncgp 9,280]

1 hour ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said:

I’d agree with that, caution and penalty but not a 3 match ban or a red card, we’d be gutted if it was the other way round

Of course we'd be gutted, because one of our players got sent off and we gave away a penalty. What's that got to do with whether it's a caution, a penalty, a red card or whatever?

1 hour ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said:

 imagine Fry had caught someone in the face by accident and been banned for 3 matches, our fans would be livid. 

Yeah, because he'd caught someone in the face with a high boot and he shouldn't have done it. Livid because he'd kicked someone in the head and how it had, if it had at all, affected the outcome of the match. Livid from the stupidity of it, not from injustice.

1 hour ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said:

We were pretty *** off when Adomah had his over head kick disallowed a few years back, imagine if he’d been sent off and banned as well. 

The Adomah one is worth watching back as part of this discussion, so here it is (I hope the GIF isn't too big)

It's hard to see for sure but for me, this isn't clear cut either way. I'd say if you watch how Warnock attacks the ball, nothing about him changes direction as Adomah swings his foot around. So I don't think he catches him. The most significant difference for me when you talk about interpretation of the laws of Serious Foul Play here is that Adomah isn't lunging at the ball to win a challenge, he's not lunging at all, he's swinging his leg round for the overhead kick.

As you'll note from the first image boroie posted, it also specifically states that bicycle kicks are permitted so long as they're not causing danger to an opponent. To me, that certainly sounds like there could be a grey area and one that maybe isn't befitting to ensuring safety of players but in this scenario, I'd say he's close to catching Warnock even if he doesn't actually do so, so that could be deemed as dangerous.

I don't see how there's any grey area with Branthwaite's challenge on Fry though.

[TeaCider24 12,631]

I remember that Adomah "goal" so differently, hahaha.

That's far more close than I thought.

[Brunners 7,982]

I'll tell you what, though. I forgot how much I liked that kit.