Humpty 3,260 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 I'll be honest I don't feel too put out by that decision. Lansbury' certainly wasn't a red in my book. Traore's was borderline given the pace he was going Link to post Share on other sites
GwenStuani 4 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 Bruce: "common sense has prevailed" Absolutely with thomas - but out 2 second string centre mids on and kuck fick out of lansbury in the same of "common sense" A precedent has been set Link to post Share on other sites
akadave 2 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 "Steve Bruce might actually be going mad." give the lad a chance. He wouldn't have had a career without Gary Pallister carrying him all those years. That must prey on his mind a lot, so he daren't give anything Boro related any credit. Link to post Share on other sites
Brunners 7,982 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 I'll be honest I don't feel too put out by that decision. Lansbury' certainly wasn't a red in my book. Traore's was borderline given the pace he was going Traores wasn't even a tackle. They've basically said cynically taking out someone from behind is ok, but going for a block and mistiming it is a 3 game ban. Link to post Share on other sites
Nics 8 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 I'll be honest I don't feel too put out by that decision. Lansbury' certainly wasn't a red in my book. Traore's was borderline given the pace he was going Traores wasn't even a tackle. They've basically said cynically taking out someone from behind is ok, but going for a block and mistiming it is a 3 game ban. Actually, if you think it's not a tackle it only makes the case stronger for a red card. He hit the man going at a reckless pace - If you don't even deem it as a tackle it only means it was - more - reckless. Traore was not in control of his action. All in all, he did the action with no consideration for his opponent, or with very little consideration. I'll say it for a third time. It was a red card in my book. Link to post Share on other sites
Humpty 3,260 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 I think the fact there's only one camera angle muddies the water. Hey ho...it's happened. Time to move on. Link to post Share on other sites
BillyWoofs_shinpad 1,884 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 The colour of the card was red, it was a red card. Link to post Share on other sites
Humpty 3,260 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 *Face palm* Link to post Share on other sites
AnglianRed 6,320 Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 Absolute bull***, the FA are a bunch of Boro hating ***. But we knew that already. Onwards and upwards. This... :@ Reeks of favouritism by the FA...or at least anti-Boro sentiment. No consistency and no explanation as to why a genuine red card was overturned and an erroneously awarded one allowed to stand. Link to post Share on other sites
AnglianRed 6,320 Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 I'll be honest I don't feel too put out by that decision. Lansbury' certainly wasn't a red in my book. Traore's was borderline given the pace he was going Traores wasn't even a tackle. They've basically said cynically taking out someone from behind is ok, but going for a block and mistiming it is a 3 game ban. Exactly. Traore barely touched the other guy (from the footage I've seen) and in fact was more at risk of injuring himself by colliding with the advertising boards. Link to post Share on other sites
boroinbishop 65 Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 Don't think the qpr commentators realise they're live Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts