'Other Boro stuff'

[RiseAgainst 1,094]

I can understand the referee missing it in real time. I find it harder to understand the assistant also missing it. I find it incomprehensible that repeated post-match viewing of that incident could deem it unworthy of retrospective punishment. That's not me being vindictive, but wild head-high studs damn well deserve censure.

Mogga is blinkered, but the Blackburn fans know what they saw. They were as sickened as we were at the time, when the result wasn't known. Personally, I want Branthwaite to learn from a potentially career ending mistake, not laugh it off and assume it's okay to endanger an opponent like that. God forbid, next time he does that, someone really might lose an eye.

 

[wilsoncgp 2,950]

1 minute ago, RiseAgainst said:

I can understand the referee missing it in real time. I find it harder to understand the assistant also missing it. I find it incomprehensible that repeated post-match viewing of that incident could deem it unworthy of retrospective punishment. That's not me being vindictive, but wild head-high studs damn well deserve censure.

Mogga is blinkered, but the Blackburn fans know what they saw. They were as sickened as we were at the time, when the result wasn't known. Personally, I want Branthwaite to learn from a potentially career ending mistake, not laugh it off and assume it's okay to endanger an opponent like that. God forbid, next time he does that, someone really might lose an eye.

 

It's maddening, mate. One way or another, the system has *** up. Either the referee has seen it and reported it as a nothing incident and a goal-kick, so retrospective action can't be applied. Or it wasn't reported and they don't feel retrospective action should be applied. Neither of those outcomes is good enough.

[BillyWoofs_shinpad 1,234]

31 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

It's maddening, mate. One way or another, the system has *** up. Either the referee has seen it and reported it as a nothing incident and a goal-kick, so retrospective action can't be applied. Or it wasn't reported and they don't feel retrospective action should be applied. Neither of those outcomes is good enough.

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. 

[TeaCider24 1,936]

Thing is, as bad as the connection with Fry's face was, which is definitely why I'm still angry about it, that would have been a red card wherever it hit his body, anywhere on the pitch.

You can't make studs up challenges that connect in the modern game.

 

[Brunners 2,516]

Just now, TeaCider24 said:

Thing is, as bad as the connection with Fry's face was, which is definitely why I'm still angry about it, that would have been a red card wherever it hit his body, anywhere on the pitch.

You can't make studs up challenges that connect in the modern game.

 

Especially not 6 foot in the air 🙂 

[Brunners 2,516]

4 minutes 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. 

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

[estonpidge 343]

doesn't H&S state something along the lines of " by your actions or inactions cause harm or endanger a person" well this is Fry's work place and by not having awareness of his own actions in the vicinity of others he endangered a player. Red card, Penalty not violent conduct so no retrospective required.

the Ref should be the one receiving retrospective action for missing a blatantly dangerous act, when he is there to apply the laws and protect the players.

[Brunners 2,516]

16 minutes ago, estonpidge said:

doesn't H&S state something along the lines of " by your actions or inactions cause harm or endanger a person" well this is Fry's work place and by not having awareness of his own actions in the vicinity of others he endangered a player. Red card, Penalty not violent conduct so no retrospective required.

the Ref should be the one receiving retrospective action for missing a blatantly dangerous act, when he is there to apply the laws and protect the players.

If the ref doesn't mention it in his report the FA can look at it violent conduct or no..If he deserves a red card on the day, and the three game ban that comes with it, why does he not deserve the 3 game ban after the fact?

[RiseAgainst 1,094]

19 minutes ago, estonpidge said:

doesn't H&S state something along the lines of " by your actions or inactions cause harm or endanger a person" well this is Fry's work place and by not having awareness of his own actions in the vicinity of others he endangered a player. Red card, Penalty not violent conduct so no retrospective required.

the Ref should be the one receiving retrospective action for missing a blatantly dangerous act, when he is there to apply the laws and protect the players.

I could be wrong - I usually am - but I thought professional sportspeople and athletes were bound by different laws to us plebs. Or does H&S legislation designed to cover offices and factories still apply to footballers?

[Neverbefore 1,666]

2 minutes ago, Brunners said:

If the ref doesn't mention it in his report the FA can look at it violent conduct or no..If he deserves a red card on the day, and the three game ban that comes with it, why does he not deserve the 3 game ban after the fact?

It's not violent conduct though, it's dangerous play. Violent conduct needs to have perceived intent. I'm fairly sure dangerous play without intent only results in 1 or 2 game bans. 

[Brunners 2,516]

1 minute ago, Neverbefore said:

It's not violent conduct though, it's dangerous play. Violent conduct needs to have perceived intent. I'm fairly sure dangerous play without intent only results in 1 or 2 game bans. 

then he deserves the 1 or 2 game ban, whatever the red card would have given him. 

[Will 893]

1 minute ago, Neverbefore said:

It's not violent conduct though, it's dangerous play. Violent conduct needs to have perceived intent. I'm fairly sure dangerous play without intent only results in 1 or 2 game bans. 

Yeh, all reds that aren't violent conduct are 1 game bans as standard now.

[Neverbefore 1,666]

25 minutes ago, Brunners said:

then he deserves the 1 or 2 game ban, whatever the red card would have given him. 

He does but it's probably been put in the refs report as been seen as not endangering anyone as ridiculous as that is. The rules are dumb and we can have a whinge about it but this outcome really isn't surprising and I would have actually been more shocked to see something come of it. May as well just move on at this point and try to use it like mourinho would - they're all against us, let's show them what we can do kind of thing.

[Humpty 257]

2 hours ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said:

The ref, the linesman, Mogga and the FA all came to the same conclusion as me, it was an accident which warranted no further action. It’s the hysterical fans on a forum who disagree. 

It's 'serious foul play'. If a player endangers the safety of another via his actions, whether it was intentional or not, its a red card. There's nothing more to it really. It is quite cut and dried.

[wilsoncgp 2,950]

And to further clarify, the foot enters the 'endangering' position as soon as it goes above his waist, thus considered a 'high boot'. Which it does, thus Serious Foul Play, thus red card. There's no maybe about it, certainly not maybe a yellow, it's a red card offence.