diggerlad07 3,652 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 Typical Boro fans .... If a Huddersfield player had made that challenge we would be screaming for him to be sent off. Just before the FA overturned the decision, means sweet FA to me... It's still a red card! I think we only won the decision because of the linesman position and the ref mentioned in his report that he was going to give a yellow. It was reckless and unnecessary and for anyone who has played football and been on the wrong end of one those challenges, would tell you it's a straight red. It was 'dangerous' play of injuring an opponent. Which is exactly why Brantwaite should of got sent off against his tackle of Fry. This argument can go round in circles because people will say overhead kicks have the potential to injure a opponent as well. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
wilsoncgp 9,230 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 Just now, diggerlad07 said: Typical Boro fans .... If a Huddersfield player had made that challenge we would be screaming for him to be sent off. Just before the FA overturned the decision, means sweet FA to me... It's still a red card! I think we only won the decision because of the linesman position and the ref mentioned in his report that he was going to give a yellow. It was reckless and unnecessary and for anyone who has played football and been on the wrong end of one those challenges, would tell you it's a straight red. It was 'dangerous' play of injuring an opponent. Which is exactly why Brantwaite should of got sent off against his tackle of Fry. This argument can go round in circles because people will say overhead kicks have the potential to injure a opponent as well. I think overhead kicks are classified in the rules as potentially lenient spaces around this. Which kind of feels like it just muddies the waters around the rules. Link to post Share on other sites
Borodane 6,246 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 26 minutes ago, Neverbefore said: I assume that the people on here that are adamant that the appeal being successful means that it definitely wasn't a red card also believe that when someone is acquited of a crime they're definitely not guilty? Well if a surveillance camera shows a different person killing someone than the one on trial then yes. Link to post Share on other sites
Borodane 6,246 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 1 hour ago, Changing Times said: Of course they bloody don't, have you seen the state of some of this lot? Just have a look at the picture thread. Sorry losers the lot of them. Especially the OP. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Blanco 4,900 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 18 minutes ago, Neverbefore said: Yep, my point exactly. I think it was a red card but that we probably managed to get away with it due to some kind of loophole or because of the level of doubt. Just because it got rescinded doesnt mean anyone is right or wrong is my point, and the amount of "I told you so" going is is frankly very childish. Even I can’t find a reason to disagree with you on this one @Neverbefore 😂😂😂 1 Link to post Share on other sites
wilsoncgp 9,230 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 25 minutes ago, Blanco said: I didn’t believe it was a red card at the time and I still don’t now. The appeal being successful or not doesn’t change that. Plenty of guilty people have walked away Scot free just like plenty of innocent people have been banged up for nothing. Indeed. By all means you can take in the new information and therefore change your stance. And this panel's judgement is new information too so you can always change your opinion because of that too if you want. It does essentially mean you'd value their opinion more than your own from what you've seen but sure, if that's how someone views it, fair enough. I don't see the reason everyone should be expected to do that though. I'm looking at the incident, viewed all the angles we've got now and I can see what's happened and the question still remains for me about what's different between this and the Brighton red card. As I said, for Boro fans that was pretty much unanimously a red card. Circumstances are pretty similar, Stephens gets the ball first with his studs, Ramirez doesn't even touch the ball as the challenge comes in, Stephens catches Ramirez in the follow through and is sent off. Link to post Share on other sites
BillyWoofs_shinpad 1,884 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 34 minutes ago, GrimsbyBoro said: Law 12 doesn’t say it has to be on purpose just ‘A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent’ is serious foul play and a red card offence. I presume the ref didn’t think the challenge endangered the safety of the opponent. Does a black eye count as endangering the safety of an opponent? probably not. Link to post Share on other sites
BillyWoofs_shinpad 1,884 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 4 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said: Indeed. By all means you can take in the new information and therefore change your stance. And this panel's judgement is new information too so you can always change your opinion because of that too if you want. It does essentially mean you'd value their opinion more than your own from what you've seen but sure, if that's how someone views it, fair enough. I don't see the reason everyone should be expected to do that though. I'm looking at the incident, viewed all the angles we've got now and I can see what's happened and the question still remains for me about what's different between this and the Brighton red card. As I said, for Boro fans that was pretty much unanimously a red card. Circumstances are pretty similar, Stephens gets the ball first with his studs, Ramirez doesn't even touch the ball as the challenge comes in, Stephens catches Ramirez in the follow through and is sent off. Neither of them should have been reds mate. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Blanco 4,900 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 5 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said: Indeed. By all means you can take in the new information and therefore change your stance. And this panel's judgement is new information too so you can always change your opinion because of that too if you want. It does essentially mean you'd value their opinion more than your own from what you've seen but sure, if that's how someone views it, fair enough. I don't see the reason everyone should be expected to do that though. I'm looking at the incident, viewed all the angles we've got now and I can see what's happened and the question still remains for me about what's different between this and the Brighton red card. As I said, for Boro fans that was pretty much unanimously a red card. Circumstances are pretty similar, Stephens gets the ball first with his studs, Ramirez doesn't even touch the ball as the challenge comes in, Stephens catches Ramirez in the follow through and is sent off. My memory of the Stephens incident is that he looked directly at Ramirez and deliberately put the boot in so is not the same as the Paddy one. I was in the North stand that day so not too close to it but my abiding memory is that it looked deliberate at the time. Link to post Share on other sites
smogsterking the Inspirati 2,453 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 6 hours ago, Uwe said: I’m as Happy as anyone that it’s been overturned. But if it hadn’t I could kind of seen why it hasn’t even though it would’ve annoyed me. The fact that Karen Nelson had to spend upwards of 8 hours graft putting together a whole dossier proved that it wasn’t as easy either way to prove/disprove and it could have gone either way. Also this “I told you so” stuff is childish as hell. We need to be a little bit more respectful of others opinions. But that’s just my opinion 🤷♂️ Apparently it was because they didn't know how to upload documents to pdf and attach videos to the email. Otherwise it was a 5 minute dossier. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Uwe 3,543 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 30 minutes ago, smogsterking the Inspirati said: Apparently it was because they didn't know how to upload documents to pdf and attach videos to the email. Otherwise it was a 5 minute dossier. Should’ve been a gif 🤷♂️ 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Blanco 4,900 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 2 minutes ago, Uwe said: Should’ve been a gif 🤷♂️ They settled for @wilsoncgp GIF in the end. The man is a modest hero 🦸♀️ 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
GrimsbyBoro 1,959 Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said: I presume the ref didn’t think the challenge endangered the safety of the opponent. Does a black eye count as endangering the safety of an opponent? probably not. Just answer me this. Can you see an injury in this photo? Is the guy hurt? Yes or No. that’s not just a black eye there’s also blood. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
BillyWoofs_shinpad 1,884 Posted February 20, 2021 Share Posted February 20, 2021 Sure but you can’t send someone off for swinging his foot at a ball, that’s kind of the point of football. Link to post Share on other sites
Dynamo Kev 1,552 Posted February 20, 2021 Share Posted February 20, 2021 1 hour ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said: Sure but you can’t send someone off for swinging his foot at a ball, that’s kind of the point of football. you can if hes swinging his boot 6ft in air 😄 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now