[Albion] Was it a red?

[sydney]

Unconscious? From a body check? That’s some serious blue and white specs you’ve got on lad.

with a ref that couldn't see a 6 ft 5 black lad running half the width of the field with his shirt off i think you have to say anything was possible , patterson sucked atkinson in going down like a wounded ballet dancer when he was actually taken out by the trailing leg not the leading one........chambers and jorghino both got away with similar tackles , the latter was worse imho .......fowler says stephens was not a red , scholes says it was .......rudiger and the little everton winger were booked for something that the ref didn't even see.......the officiating at this level wasn't very good this weekend ....numerous contentious points , one of which arguably cost us 3 points.Also mina's foul on hazard was a full boot in the shin two footed and only a yellow ........definitely grounds for an appeal imho.....we'll see...!! blue and white specs ...?? yeah...

 

[doogie004]

Ref watch on sky Dermont says
“Definite red card as there was intent in tackle “
Offside was understandable as Lino was running back ?
And one of the assistants should of seen shirt off
So only one out of three in our favour then


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kjgood]

He gave the ref a decision to make and yes the Cardiff players helped him make his mind up. But....he was off his feet with studs up whether he made a big contact or not. Interesting though that a very similar tackle on Mo Salah by Fulhams Chembers on Sunday was just a yellow.

The Ref was awful and ruined the game.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Ref watch on sky Dermont says
“Definite red card as there was intent in tackle “
Offside was understandable as Lino was running back ?
And one of the assistants should of seen shirt off
So only one out of three in our favour then

That's two out of three, he's saying they got wrong.

Stating that missing the offside was 'understandable' because the lino was in the wrong position, doesn't mean it wasn't offside!

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

with a ref that couldn't see a 6 ft 5 black lad running half the width of the field with his shirt off i think you have to say anything was possible , patterson sucked atkinson in going down like a wounded ballet dancer when he was actually taken out by the trailing leg not the leading one........chambers and jorghino both got away with similar tackles , the latter was worse imho .......fowler says stephens was not a red , scholes says it was .......rudiger and the little everton winger were booked for something that the ref didn't even see.......the officiating at this level wasn't very good this weekend ....numerous contentious points , one of which arguably cost us 3 points.Also mina's foul on hazard was a full boot in the shin two footed and only a yellow ........definitely grounds for an appeal imho.....we'll see...!! blue and white specs ...?? yeah...

I agree there’s an issue of inconsistency. How Stephens gets a red and Chambers a yellow is beyond me. The same with the shirts coming off and having different punishments. Yet that doesn’t get away from the fact Stephens’ challenge was still a red card offence.

 

[El Turi]

Ref watch on sky Dermont says
“Definite red card as there was intent in tackle “
Offside was understandable as Lino was running back ?
And one of the assistants should of seen shirt off
So only one out of three in our favour then


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The offside was from a throw in rather than a long ball over the top so the linesman didn't have a long way to go to keep up with play. There really is no excuse for him missing it.

 

[GT49er]

Ref watch on sky Dermont says
“Definite red card as there was intent in tackle “

Not denying it was a red card by todays softy non-contact standards, but so much wrong with that statement. It wasn't a tackle - the Cardiff player was not in possession of the ball - it was a 50/50 ball which Stephens went in for too hard. And as for 'intent' - yes, of course there was intent; the intent was to get the ball - and there's nothing wrong with that. To suggest there was a deliberate attempt to commit a bad foul and injure a player. as Gallagher's comment suggests, is ridiculous and derogatory.

IMHO, like.

 

[One Love]

Not denying it was a red card by todays softy non-contact standards, but so much wrong with that statement. It wasn't a tackle - the Cardiff player was not in possession of the ball - it was a 50/50 ball which Stephens went in for too hard. And as for 'intent' - yes, of course there was intent; the intent was to get the ball - and there's nothing wrong with that. To suggest there was a deliberate attempt to commit a bad foul and injure a player. as Gallagher's comment suggests, is ridiculous and derogatory.

IMHO, like.

What other explanation is there?

If the Cardiff player is standing on that leg he's going to suffer a very bad injury. It broke his shinpad in half as it was.

He must know by now you can't commit tackles like that.

Oh hang on , he also doesn't seem to realise that committing needless fouls around the edge of our box every game puts us in danger of conceding a goal from the free kick.

 

[GT49er]

What other explanation is there?

The one I just gave - his only intention would have been to get the ball.

He must know by now you can't commit tackles like that.

Once again, it wasn't a tackle. It was a mis-judged attempt to get a 50/50 ball. You can only make a tackle when another player is in possession of the ball.

 

[One Love]

The one I just gave - his only intention would have been to get the ball.


Once again, it wasn't a tackle. It was a mis-judged attempt to get a 50/50 ball. You can only make a tackle when another player is in possession of the ball.

Wow splitting hairs.

OK substitute challenge for tackle. My point still stands.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

FWIW (nothing) I'd say it was at the least reckless, and thus at least deserving of a yellow. Given that Stephens ought have already been on a yellow anyway, from the really ill-advised lunge on the edge of our box, we honestly can have no complaints that he went off.

About all we can possibly feel aggrieved about is that he's banned for three games when possibly it should have been one.

 

[rippleman]

For me, given the current interpretation of the rules, it was certainly a red. Stephens challenge was off the ground and out of control. A moment of sheer stupidity that probably cost us three points.

Disappointed in a way that CH publicly took the referee to task over the winning goal but not Stephens for what was, after all, a totally needless challenge that left us to play the majority of the game with 10 men.

 

[SeagullDubai]

FWIW (nothing) I'd say it was at the least reckless, and thus at least deserving of a yellow. Given that Stephens ought have already been on a yellow anyway, from the really ill-advised lunge on the edge of our box, we honestly can have no complaints that he went off.

About all we can possibly feel aggrieved about is that he's banned for three games when possibly it should have been one.

I'm not agrieved

Sent from my MI 6 using Tapatalk