[Albion] Schelotto injury

[BensGrandad]

Stop being an idiot. They (apart from Stuart Attwell at the time) have indicated absolutely no such thing.

They have by not taking any further action which means that they didnt consider the action already taken as being inappropriate. They have inferred that his dealing with the situation was correct The authorities are quick to jump in with a charge a la Hemed. but they have chosen not to.

 

[Driver8]

https://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/...chelotto-cleared-to-play-at-everton-1-8407886

 

[Stat Brother]

Stop being an idiot.

 

[Lifelong Supporter]

https://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/...chelotto-cleared-to-play-at-everton-1-8407886

I sort of think Chris is being a bit diplomatic there, as is his usual way.

 

[McTavish]

They have by not taking any further action which means that they didnt consider the action already taken as being inappropriate.

No, that's not true - how do you know it was referred to the panel?

They have inferred that his dealing with the situation was correct

No, they haven't. They may either not have looked at it at all or they may have looked at it and decided that the challenge was not severe enough to warrant a straight red for serious foul play - the panel cannot give a retrospective yellow. There is no way that you can know that they have looked at it and decided the call was correct.

The authorities are quick to jump in with a charge a la Hemed. but they have chosen not to.

The foul has to be referred to the panel - if the referee says that he saw the whole incident then it can't be referred whether the referee got it right or wrong. The Hemed stamp was referred because neither the referee nor his assistants clearly saw the incident.

 

[Triggaaar]

Whilst we can often be myopic over decisions against us, and I wouldn't agree with referees making decisions on the basis of outcomes*, I think you may need to have a closer look. It was definitely a foul. People were excusing Kolasinac because he was looking at the ball, but when you watch in slow motion you can see that he does glance at Schelotto before the coming together and then looks away again.

Even if he didn't take his eyes off the ball, it's still a reckless foul, because he didn't need to look to know where Schelotto would be when the ball was circa 7 feet off the ground - obviously he'd be where the ball was. He shoulder charged that position, and predictably wiped Schelotto out. He immediately pointed to the ball to pretend he'd got the ball, as he knew he'd taken Schelotto out.

 

[Triggaaar]

Stop being an idiot.

You want the impossible.

 

[Triggaaar]

They have by not taking any further action which means that they didnt consider the action already taken as being inappropriate.

You're an idiot.

It would be easier to explain the space time continuum to my cocker spaniel than get anything through your thick closed skull.

 

[BensGrandad]

You're an idiot.

It would be easier to explain the space time continuum to my cocker spaniel than get anything through your thick closed skull.

so easy to say from your high and mighty position without being able to offer any solution other than you THOUGHT it was a foul My view is based on what the authorities have done or not done for whatever reason and I believe that my view is more relevant than yours but if you wish to continue with your narrow minded blue and white blinkered view carry on.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

so easy to say from your high and mighty position without being able to offer any solution other than you THOUGHT it was a foul My view is based on what the authorities have done or not done for whatever reason and I believe that my view is more relevant than yours but if you wish to continue with your narrow minded blue and white blinkered view carry on.

I know having an argument on Nsc is one of your favourite pasttimes, even when you don't believe yourself, the things that you post, but you do NOT know what the authorities have done or not done.

 

[LlcoolJ]

so easy to say from your high and mighty position without being able to offer any solution other than you THOUGHT it was a foul My view is based on what the authorities have done or not done for whatever reason and I believe that my view is more relevant than yours but if you wish to continue with your narrow minded blue and white blinkered view carry on.

This is just willful stupidity. You've no idea what "the authorities" have or haven't done so please just STOP!

 

[sams dad]

You're an idiot.

It would be easier to explain the space time continuum to my cocker spaniel than get anything through your thick closed skull.

 

[Bob'n'weave]

Even if he didn't take his eyes off the ball, it's still a reckless foul, because he didn't need to look to know where Schelotto would be when the ball was circa 7 feet off the ground - obviously he'd be where the ball was. He shoulder charged that position, and predictably wiped Schelotto out. He immediately pointed to the ball to pretend he'd got the ball, as he knew he'd taken Schelotto out.

Is the right answer.

Whatever happens, or doesn't happen, it was intentional and it was a foul.

 

[sams dad]

Is the right answer.

Whatever happens, or doesn't happen, it was intentional and it was a foul.

99.9% of the people that have viewed the TV footage would agree. BG will disagree because he loves being a cantankerous old *******.

 

[Triggaaar]

so easy to say from your high and mighty position without being able to offer any solution other than you THOUGHT it was a foul

I insult you because you ignore all efforts to explain things to you, as I will now repeat:
You suggest that all I offer is my opinion that is was a foul, but:

Dermot Gallagher has just called it as a definite red on SSN Ref Watch. For once I agree with a referee!

So you see BG, it's not just what I thought is it.

The evidence you're providing is that a panel hasn't said he now needs to be banned, but this has also been explained to you:

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.

You have come up with no evidence that any ref that has seen video footage doesn't think he should have been sent off.

But of course you ignore all the evidence, and repeat the same crap. That's why you're the subject of my insults.

 

[Lifelong Supporter]

Was clearly a foul and in days gone by it would be sorted 'Keane style' the next time we play them.

 

[BensGrandad]

I know having an argument on Nsc is one of your favourite pasttimes, even when you don't believe yourself, the things that you post, but you do NOT know what the authorities have done or not done.

Nobody knows we can only assume that
(a) They watched TV footage as that is their designated role as a refs panel.
(b) They concluded that the matter required no further action

I think that it is in our best interests to drop this matter and allow Arsenal to field their strongest side against our relegation rivals as others have mentioned.previously

 

[LamieRobertson]

seems appropriate......someone nick BG’s shovel before he hits Australia

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Nobody knows we can only assume that
(a) They watched TV footage as that is their designated role as a refs panel.
(b) They concluded that the matter required no further action

What's with the 'we'? It seems only you have assumed that.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

seems appropriate......someone nick BG’s shovel before he hits Australia

Australia is welcome to him