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 15.3k
  • 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

I can't imagine that game getting approved by Hasbro...

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
2 minutes ago, Uwe said:

Should’ve been a gif 🤷‍♂️

They settled for @wilsoncgp GIF in the end. The man is a modest hero 🦸‍♀️ 

  • Like 1
  • 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

    • A Cardiff v West Brom H Huddersfield v Blackburn H Hull v Blackpool D Middlesbrough v Sheffield Utd A Preston v Stoke H QPR v Birmingham H Barnsley v Nottingham Forest D Derby v Reading H Fulham v Swansea H Luton v Coventry D Millwall v Bristol City A Peterbrough v Bournemouth
    • While we have a regressive Manager playing regressive football which as you say is the complete opposite to us except that when I actually type it it looks real scary. A regressive Manager playing regressive football. How bad can it get and where is it going to take us?  
    • Our fixtures become interesting after Sheffield United. Away to Hull next Saturday then we have a run of Home games to Peterborough and Barnsley then Away to Cardiff, Warnock's old Club who are struggling (although not quite as bad as ourselves), Home to Birmingham, Away to Luton before we go to the Hawthorns to face the Baggies on the 6th Nov. We then have two consecutive Home games against Millwall and Preston before a trip to Huddersfield on the 27th November. On paper there are some very "winnable" games amongst that lot so would it be fair to let Warnock have that run to save himself and get things back on track or is it too risky to let the performances continue and see those potential points frittered away like we have all year? It could be argued that it would be reasonable to give him those games but the reality is that we are seeing nothing that gives us any reason whatsoever that Warnock has a grip and is going to tun it around. There has been little logic, shape or reason as to how he sets his sides up. Our defence is as poor as I have seen from a Boro side in a long time. If we were solid at the back, keeping clean sheets while boring us to death there would at least be some merit in his thinking but porous doesn't begin to describe us. Our Midfield is a disjointed mess, they cant cover and shield the defence and they can't set up attacking passages of play. They seem to run around chasing back (or more likely chasing their man to mark) after we lose possession or running up chasing long punts, then running back again, then running up again meanwhile adding little of merit or quality. It's clear that it is due to tactics rather than them all being useless (including Howson in fairness). Their passing and ball retention is painful to watch rendering them a weak and ineffective unit regardless of personnel. The fact that we are lamenting the loss of a fairly basic clogger in Morsy illustrates just how desperate we have sunk and how low our expectations now are. Attack? I can only chuckle at the thought of us actually looking like we can attack and record efforts be they on or off target. With just about zero threat or opportunities, bereft of any quality of service we look hopeless.  Ikpeazu can be a real handful and Sporar has class yet neither seem to be effective in a Warnock side.  We have played many teams already with far fewer resources than Warnock has at his disposal and have been found wanting on each and every occasion with the exception of bottom of the table Forest who immediately sacked their Manager. Derby are a basket case and a collection of journeymen players and Rooney's nous (Rooney and nous in the same sentence is something I thought I would never be typing) but they comfortably nullified Warnock. Mark Robbins and Coventry (with their own set of off field issues for years) and limited budget of a side bettered us with ease. Reading with an inexperienced Keeper (not that it mattered as his Kit won't need to have been washed by the end of all that added time), and a defence consisting of midfielders square pegged into a makeshift defence kept us at bay with such ease it was demoralising. Then there was Blackpool and copy and paste. A terrible disorganised Defence, a Midfield that seemingly has a confused purpose and an Attack that rarely if ever threatens leaves me with little reason for optimism. I'm not even sure where to begin in terms of sorting it all out as it is so far off the ideal in every single department that it is scary as to how bad we have become and how likely it is to continue unabated because there are absolutely no signs of something clicking or even just misfiring. It's the dampest of damp squibs. Its like the end of Strachan and Mogga all over, all the signs are glaringly obvious and I suspect the players must think the same despite them being "a smashing bunch of lads really". If SG made a change now it could get worse but by how much? If he doesn't it could get better but again by how much? Weighing everything up I can't see anything to suggest anything but more of the same for the last quarter of the year and by that time we could be lamenting more lost points against mediocre to poor sides and seriously deep in relegation territory. Hull and Peterborough will be looking at their fixtures against us and seeing them as winnable six pointers, this against a side that had the Play Offs as the target only a few weeks back.    
    • Warnock shouldn't abuse referees. But I don't think boro fans should be calling our manager expletives online. It makes us all look silly. I imagine if we beat Sheffield United 3-0 then nobody will be calling him a p**** then. He won't be here much longer.
    • Our performances have been so bad this season that I now think Warnock leaving is the best thing all round. Our midfield hasn't been fit for purpose for most of this season as Warnock doesn't know how to get the best out of the players at his disposal. If the going gets tough then I doubt Warnock will dig his heels in to stick around for a mid-table at best kind of season, so I'm sure there's a good chance that he'll leave if there isn't an upturn in results soon. There's two more games against Sheffield United (home) and Hull City (away) before the next international break - which would be a good time to make a managerial change - so our results before then could decide whether Warnock leaves or not. Whilst Crooks has probably been our best performing central midfielder this season, I think him him being part of any three man midfield, especially with Warnock's direct tactics, massively reduces our fluidity in possession and just leads to our midfield three not functioning to anywhere near an acceptable standard. Last season we were far more fluid in possession without a unique "Warnock style" midfielder like Crooks. Something has dramatically changed in midfield from last season as we've got so much worse. I don't think the goals he has provided has been worth the negatives. Any three from Howson, Morsy, Saville and Tavernier last season performed to a far higher and consistent standard than any three this season so far. I can see the positives that Crooks adds to the team in a midfield role such as him pushing forward from midfield to be a targetman for flick-ons from Lumley's long kicks, and a very good aerial presence in both boxes in open play and set-pieces. However, aside from them, I think he really limits us as a team as the ball doesn't flow well with him in there. With three central midfielders we should be far more patient on the ball and allow our shape to open up far more with fullbacks overlapping, wide midfielder having a more infield position and midfielders playing through the thirds with quality. Instead everything in midfield is disjointed, messy and scrappy for us - with minimal quality as a unit. We've played our best football this season in the home game against Blackburn with Howson, Morsy and Tavernier in a midfield three - with Crooks playing as a targetman in strike. Kieran Scott must be tearing his hair out after watching how smoothly Norwich's midfield in their two promotion seasons move the ball around and progress it into the forward areas. Siliki and Payero both still adapting to the Championship won't help matters either. Whatever the cause is, the problem of the midfield is abundantly clear so it needs to be resolved as soon as possible.

×
×
  • Create New...