Wba

[mistaram]

Highlights on the DCFC site. Look at 7:10 to 7:20. Half way through you get a view "down the wing". If that isn't a movement towards the guy's testes I need new glasses.............. and I don't need them.

MA but one pair get second half price at Specsavers at the moment 😂😂

[Andy_Faber]

Highlights on the DCFC site. Look at 7:10 to 7:20. Half way through you get a view "down the wing". If that isn't a movement towards the guy's testes I need new glasses.............. and I don't need them.

yes i saw that on the night MA - the fact that he attempted to kick the guy in the loblocks shows a suspect temperament, and the fact that he missed shows even more suspect ability

The fact that the card has been rescinded doesn't change what I see

[MadAmster]

yes i saw that on the night MA - the fact that he attempted to kick the guy in the loblocks shows a suspect temperament, and the fact that he missed shows even more suspect ability

The fact that the card has been rescinded doesn't change what I see

Thanks for the backup Andy. We can give Specsavers a miss..... I've made appointments for the rest.

Seems the EFL may have decided there was no intent.

[Ram59]

Looking at the refs' decisions and VAR support in the Premier league tonight, it doesn't seem to be any better than the championship.

All 3 matches having easily incorrect decisions backed up by VAR.

[mistaram]

Thanks for the backup Andy. We can give Specsavers a miss..... I've made appointments for the rest.


Seems the EFL may have decided there was no intent.

There was no intent because there was no kick World of difference between struggling to release your trapped foot and actually kicking someone MA think you should tell the wife you got it wrong 😇

[ramAnag]

yes i saw that on the night MA - the fact that he attempted to kick the guy in the loblocks shows a suspect temperament, and the fact that he missed shows even more suspect ability

The fact that the card has been rescinded doesn't change what I see

Hmmm...so the majority on here thought it was a ridiculous decision. The Sky panel thought it was a ridiculous decision. Cocu thought it was a ridiculous decision. The FA have said it was an incorrect decision and the guy on the ground clutched his knee...but you and MA still say otherwise!
Sorry guys...you two usually talk loads of sense, but not this time.

[Ram59]

I must admit that I was surprised that it was over turned. I think that his forward movement of his foot shows an element of doubt as to whether he was being a tad aggressive in removing his foot. So it wasn't a clear and obvious error in my opinion.

Maybe, WBA, when realising that he'd be suspended against 2 of their rivals, put in their report, saying they disagreed with the decision.

[Andy_Faber]

Hmmm...so the majority on here thought it was a ridiculous decision. The Sky panel thought it was a ridiculous decision. Cocu thought it was a ridiculous decision. The FA have said it was an incorrect decision and the guy on the ground clutched his knee...but you and MA still say otherwise!
Sorry guys...you two usually talk loads of sense, but not this time.

You’ve stood alone on many issues over the years so you’ll understand that I may be in the minority but that doesn’t meant I’m not right

[MadAmster]

Hmmm...so the majority on here thought it was a ridiculous decision. The Sky panel thought it was a ridiculous decision. Cocu thought it was a ridiculous decision. The FA have said it was an incorrect decision and the guy on the ground clutched his knee...but you and MA still say otherwise!
Sorry guys...you two usually talk loads of sense, but not this time.

Not like you to miss context. Look at post #45.

If the ref saw forward movement, and there was and the video shows it, that would PROBABLY justify the red. Probably used to qualify the word justify. My initial reaction was he could get a red for that. The slow mo showed, albeit slight, forward motion. That is probably what made the ref's mind up, as it did mine. At the time I could accept the decision. It seems the FA has decided there was no intent and Sibs was merely trying to get his foot out of the leg lock it had been in for way too long. I can accept that too. I am not "standing my ground/ being stubborn", or similar, as you seem to imply, merely being open and honest about what I saw, what the video shows, how that PROBABLY influenced the ref's decision, as it did mine and therefore not being surprised at the decision. That you and the FA decided that there was no intent is fine. It goes to show how difficult decision making can be and no ref gets them all right. I can understand how this decision occurred and would, PROBABLY, have made the same decision, had I been the ref. It's like I tell teams pre match (I've posted this elsewhere on here previously), the only guarantee is that I will make mistakes, all of them honest ones BUT I will make far less than any player on the park....... also, I have posted nowhere that O'Shea DIDN'T clutch his knee. All I said was "PROBABLY JUSTIFIED" and I can understand it.

On the ref's overall performance, I still understand his reaction to the Sibley incident. However, he was absolutely shocking as I have described earlier in this thread.

Looking at this another way, if the roles had been reversed we'd all have been screaming for O'Shea to get his marching orders......

[mistaram]

I must admit that I was surprised that it was over turned. I think that his forward movement of his foot shows an element of doubt as to whether he was being a tad aggressive in removing his foot. So it wasn't a clear and obvious error in my opinion.

Maybe, WBA, when realising that he'd be suspended against 2 of their rivals, put in their report, saying they disagreed with the decision.

Well if WBA disagreed with the decision What are they going to do about the dying swan impression of their player ,who deliberately convinced the ref it was a red card