[Albion] Schelotto injury

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Simmo, why don't you put him on your ignore list?

Crikey - this thread has got seriously out of order.

I have only one person on my ignore list, more out of sadness than anger.

 

[FatSuperman]

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.

Perhaps because they all work for the same organisation, who have a history of defending ref's decisions, regardless of how farcical they are. Incidentally, have you ever thought about working for the FA in some official capacity?

 

[Saunders]

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.

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

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

Decision stands as yellow? He was booked for dissent earlier in the game he didn’t even get a yellow for that assault.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

stop beating about the bush and get to the point

Have you finished painting your kitchen

 

[GT49er]

I don't think so. Incidents can be reported, but the panel don't look at everything that the ref hasn't acted on, or that the ref may have got wrong.

They may have looked at this incident, I don't know.

What I do know, is that he should have been sent off.

Have you looked at the Sky footage much?

I thought they just looked at things that were complained about? - like Hemed's 'stamp' that numerous TV pundits howled about it being attempted murder or something.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Have you finished painting your kitchen

Waiting for a plumber ............

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Waiting for a plumber ............

An old saying : If you can shit you can paint

 

[BensGrandad]

I , and I am sure many others, are under the impression that the sole aim and purpose of the refs review committee/panel is to rectify any mistakes or omissions made in a game. This being the case as it was a much talked about incident I would think that it fell with their remit. We must then assume that they looked at it via TV footage etc as it is inconceivable that they just ignored it. It then follows that they as a committee decide that no further action should;d be taken therefore that would indicate that either they considered Atwell's actions and decision to be correct or they had no power to impose a further punishment therefore the matter is seen as not being a red card offence and the matter is deemed closed.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

To be fair to Schelotto, he was at the reserve game on Monday and when asked by a couple of people he said he was fine and it was nothing. He didnt seem bothered by it at all. So perhaps like him its time for us to all move on, and enjoy him having a superb game at Goodison on Saturday.

 

[Gazwag]

Did anybody really expect any retrospective action, it was an Arsenal player, had it been the other way around it would have been a season long ban

 

[kevo]

Did anybody really expect any retrospective action, it was an Arsenal player, had it been the other way around it would have been a season long ban

Maybe not season-long but I am absolutely convinced if it had been one of our players there would be retrospective action. It's a total farce that Hemed should get banned for his 'stamp' yet that reckless assault on Sunday goes unpunished.

 

[BNthree]

To be fair to Schelotto, he was at the reserve game on Monday and when asked by a couple of people he said he was fine and it was nothing. He didnt seem bothered by it at all. So perhaps like him its time for us to all move on, and enjoy him having a superb game at Goodison on Saturday.

Saw him in Waitrose last night and asked him how his head was. He said fine, no big deal.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Did anybody really expect any retrospective action, it was an Arsenal player, had it been the other way around it would have been a season long ban

Maybe, but I didn't think it was even a foul, personally, but I'm guessing I'm in the minority

 

[Triggaaar]

I , and I am sure many others, are under the impression that the sole aim and purpose of the refs review committee/panel is to rectify any mistakes or omissions made in a game. This being the case as it was a much talked about incident I would think that it fell with their remit. We must then assume that they looked at it via TV footage etc as it is inconceivable that they just ignored it.

I don't think we should assume that.

It then follows that they as a committee decide that no further action should;d be taken therefore that would indicate that either they considered Atwell's actions and decision to be correct

That's not true, as I believe all 3 members of the panel need to agree, so 2 out of 3 may have felt it should have been red, and the other may have thought it should be yellow. All of them may have thought the player should have been sent off, but under the rules, that doesn't mean a retrospective ban. If they even looked at it.

the matter is deemed closed.

It probably is closed, but we've not been debating that.

 

[Triggaaar]

Saw him in Waitrose last night and asked him how his head was. He said cheese.

Worrying.

 

[The Birdman]

When I saw him play his first games I thought he looked a bit light weight however he's given a new dimension which you need at this level.
Well done CH

 

[Triggaaar]

Maybe, but I didn't think it was even a foul, personally, but I'm guessing I'm in the minority

Have you seen all the sky footage? There you can see that before Kolasinac gets to the ball, he throws is shoulder into it. Doing that is going to cause trouble.

Even if you haven't seen that, you agree that Kolasinac didn't get the ball right? So he was late to the challenge, and wiped out Schelotto. Why do you think that's not a foul?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Maybe not season-long but I am absolutely convinced if it had been one of our players there would be retrospective action. It's a total farce that Hemed should get banned for his 'stamp' yet that reckless assault on Sunday goes unpunished.

And Lukaku getting away with trying to kick Gaetan Bong twice in their penalty area at OT earlier in the season. And we know that WAS reviewed.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Have you seen all the sky footage? There you can see that before Kolasinac gets to the ball, he throws is shoulder into it. Doing that is going to cause trouble.

Even if you haven't seen that, you agree that Kolasinac didn't get the ball right? So he was late to the challenge, and wiped out Schelotto. Why do you think that's not a foul?

I was just talking about how I saw it from one look on the TV (with the cameras quite a way away) and my initial reaction was they were both looking at the ball and it was just a 50/50 accident. It's certainly true that having seen some of the replays since, he does get his shoulder down into Schelotto, but there's only one angle that - to me - looked at all deliberate. I still don't think he was trying to hurt, I think he was just quicker at protecting himself. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, maybe I'm being too generous, I don't really care as long as he's not still injured - he's been a revelation of late.

 

[Exile]

Did anybody really expect any retrospective action, it was an Arsenal player, had it been the other way around it would have been a season long ban

Did anybody WANT any ban?

Arsenal’s next FIVE PL matches are against the bottom half. Want everything going for them now our game is out of the way!