[Albion] Schelotto injury

[BensGrandad]

No retrospectivte action being taken so it would appear that the panel of refs who watch these things agreed with Stuart Atwell that it was not a deliberate foul or bookable offence. which is what I thought at the time.and subsequent TV footage hasnt convinced them that the decision made was wrong.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

No retrospectivte action being taken so it would appear that the panel of refs who watch these things agreed with Stuart Atwell that it was not a deliberate foul or bookable offence. which is what I thought at the time.and subsequent TV footage hasnt convinced them that the decision made was wrong.

You Are So Wrong.

 

[ferring seagull]

No retrospectivte action being taken so it would appear that the panel of refs who watch these things agreed with Stuart Atwell that it was not a deliberate foul or bookable offence. which is what I thought at the time.and subsequent TV footage hasnt convinced them that the decision made was wrong.

I truly think that the panel and you are wrong in this instance - END OFF !

 

[BensGrandad]

You Are So Wrong.

I am often accused of not knowing anything about football but this is a panel of professional refs who agree with the action taken or not taken however you see it , so how can that be so wrong.

 

[matbha]

Have watched the clip several times.

Kolasinac clearly knows that Schelotto is there and going to head the ball. The nature of his challenge is bound to put Schelotto in danger and is at least as bad as a high boot or swinging an elbow at another player in my view.

Only possible defence is that it’s a 50/50 ball without intent but I don’t think that’s anything like enough to outweigh the dangerous nature of the challenge.

Ref could argue he couldn’t see it clearly but the linesman certainly did.

Should have been a straight red....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Had schelotto made more of a protest he would have gone got to love the bloke

 

[Bedsex]

Had schelotto made more of a protest he would have gone got to love the bloke

How could he do that whilst he was unconscious on the floor?

 

[Exile]

No retrospectivte action being taken so it would appear that the panel of refs who watch these things agreed with Stuart Atwell that it was not a deliberate foul or bookable offence. which is what I thought at the time.and subsequent TV footage hasnt convinced them that the decision made was wrong.

You are wrong.

That they have taken no action does not mean that they ‘did not feel it was a bookable offence’. They don’t have that option open to them at all.

 

[BensGrandad]

You are wrong.

That they have taken no action does not mean that they ‘did not feel it was a bookable offence’. They don’t have that option open to them at all.

Why could they not have said it warranted a yellow which would have been the 2nd so a red card. and subsequently issued a ban of 1 game. Unlike many on here they didnt consider it worthy of a straight red card.

 

[JonnyCLately]

why could they not have said it warranted a yellow which would have been the 2nd so a red card. and subsequently issued a ban of 1 game.

Because they have no jurisdiction to do so

 

[BensGrandad]

Because they have no jurisdiction to do so

where is that written? We must assume that they considered the action taken was correct.as no other views have been expressed from the authorities.

 

[JonnyCLately]

where is that written?

Are you for real? Better still - show me the case where what you are suggesting is possible has happened - where is the precedent?

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Are you for real? Better still - show me the case where what you are suggesting is possible has happened - where is the precedent?

Stop helping him get his post count up, blokes a plank

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Triggaaar]

No retrospectivte action being taken so it would appear that the panel of refs who watch these things agreed with Stuart Atwell that it was not a deliberate foul or bookable offence.

The only ref I know of that's commented on it is Dermot Gallagher, and he said the player should have been sent off.

You're a ****ing idiot BG. I've had shits that know more about football you than you, you deluded ****.

Fair point.

Could someone post a link to where it shows this was being looked at by a panel of refs?


* note, Papa Laz should have said that, but he held back and said a milder version

 

[BensGrandad]

You stated categorically that such action was not within their jurisdiction so where is it written as to what they can and cant do. I believe the ref was correct in the manner in which he handled it.

 

[BensGrandad]

The only ref I know of that's commented on it is Dermot Gallagher, and he said the player should have been sent off.

Fair point.

Mark Halsey also said so as well but that doesnt make it correct only the views of 2 ex refs. 1 who was good and 1 who was crap.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

The only ref I know of that's commented on it is Dermot Gallagher, and he said the player should have been sent off.

Fair point.

Could someone post a link to where it shows this was being looked at by a panel of refs?

I did not say that. If that's an error can you correct it.

 

[BensGrandad]

The only ref I know of that's commented on it is Dermot Gallagher, and he said the player should have been sent off.

Fair point.

Could someone post a link to where it shows this was being looked at by a panel of refs?

Isnt it true to say all such incidents are automatically viewed by the panel?

I was not happy at the time of the incident but am satisfied that the matter has now been concluded.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Bozza should seriously think about banning BG permantely.
He brings nothing but massive arguments.
Unbelievabley he is real as I have met people that have endured a season of sitting with him.

 

[Triggaaar]

I did not say that. If that's an error can you correct it.

It's a joke, people can see you didn't say it.

 

[Triggaaar]

Mark Halsey also said so as well but that doesnt make it correct only the views of 2 ex refs.

I agree with you that the view of 2 refs doesn't in itself make it the correct view. However, you're suggesting that a panel not correcting the decision makes that the correct view.

1) I'm not sure a panel has looked at it.
2) Even if they have, it's possible that 2 out of 3 thought it was a red card, and the 3rd thought it was a yellow card, because that would mean the decision stands.

Isnt it true to say all such incidents are automatically viewed by the panel?

No, it isn't correct. What's the definition of 'such incidents'?

I was not happy at the time of the incident but am satisfied that the matter has now been concluded.

On the day you stated that you thought it was the correct decision. Most people disagree with you. Nothing has changed.