Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

'Other Boro stuff'


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Great quote from Kevin Blackwell in the Athletic today 🤣🤣🤣

It's my birthday today, meant to be my 30th but I've refused to allow that in current circumstances of not being able to celebrate it. I usually get my age on the back of one of my shirts so I re

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/neil-warnock-obvious-choice-manage-18614026.amp?__twitter_impression=true "Gibson is a hands-on owner and Bausor is a hands-on chief exe

Posted Images

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
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
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. 

  • Haha 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 😂😂😂

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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
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. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 🤷‍♂️

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

D4DBC46F-BA76-491B-80CE-1D06A353FB18.jpeg

that’s not just a black eye there’s also blood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

 

😄

  • Like 3
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

    • This can't be correct because Austria have made it 100% They're playing Italy I think.
    • He did indeed; I'm sure recently I watched Foster talking about it again. If anyone hasn't checked out his channel by the way you really should, his youtube content is excellent viewing. Hope the PL let him keep the gopro!
    • That one reminds me of Paul Robinson scoring with a free kick from just outside his own box. Think he beat The Cycling GK Ben Foster with that one.
    • @DurhamRedi get that concern but at moment if you look at the possible first 11. We got Dijksteel, Fry, Bola and Tav all under 25. Add to that Lumley and Paddy who are both 26. That is 6 out my first 11 that are 26 or under.  In terms of 30 or above we only really have Howson and Morsy.  And Hall but I dont think Hall starts if Fry and Paddy are both fit. A bit more experience probably wont do us any harm in terms of grinding out results. Fully respect some posters might not see it that way mind  
    • It's more because this is the route I want the club to go down sign players with potential not 30 year olds who are passed their peak. That is the case with Smith and hoillet 

×
×
  • Create New...