| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays 15:13 - Dec 7 with 38184 views | Plazex |
Actually looks as if Sakho took fabianski down. Hope we have the card rescinded. And bloody hell 3-1 crap. | |
| |  |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 23:14 - Dec 7 with 2320 views | MrSwan |
Imagine if when red cards are overturned the result of the game also changes to even the result as to what is should be we would have gathered a lot of points. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 23:15 - Dec 7 with 2320 views | dameedna |
30 yards off side not a clatter through
Like Roy of the Rovers and Billy The Fish | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 23:42 - Dec 7 with 2266 views | karnataka |
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. The red card would have been for denying a goal scoring opportunity but if Sakho had put the ball into the net instead of hitting the post how can the ref think the opportunity had been denied if Sakho had scored from the opportunity? | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 00:37 - Dec 8 with 2212 views | sully49 |
The referee had already made his mind up as soon as Fabianski committed himself, and then stopped, anything after that is totally irrelevant. If he hadn't and Sakho actually scored, Fabianski could not be sent off and would probably only recieved a yellow card. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 03:01 - Dec 8 with 2173 views | Spratti |
Bluddy ell Parlay not just the titanic meglomania is it? | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 03:51 - Dec 8 with 2157 views | Parlay |
Not sure that makes complete sense but yes, if you like. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 07:33 - Dec 8 with 2124 views | Brynmill_Jack |
Fabianski looked like he was desperately trying to avoid contact on the replays shown on MOTD. Anyway, here's what Sam Allardyce on what Mike Dean told him.......
http://www.swansea.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=379243
(Sorry if already posted) | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 08:32 - Dec 8 with 2093 views | Morfa_Same |
Fabianski positioned himself to challenge Sakho, who knocked the ball past him in a way he could have not done without cheating, leaving Fabianski no longer in the correct position to challenge for the ball.
Surely it's got to be overturned. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 09:03 - Dec 8 with 2045 views | swan65split |
Once he handled the ball, everything leading to, and in the incident changed , so yes it should be overturned. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 09:06 - Dec 8 with 2036 views | Shaky |
Graham Poll has spoken. I got it absolutely right:
Where do I pick up my winnings?
Lukasz Fabianski was correctly sent off
By Graham Poll for the Daily Mail
. . .Replays, however, showed Foy had blown his whistle immediately after the collision. Fabianski would have been dismissed even if Sakho had ‘scored’ and that goal wouldn’t have stood.
I would have preferred Foy to have played advantage, but I can’t agree with the TV analysts who questioned the red card.
It was absolutely correct and any handball by Sakho in the lead-up was accidental and only caused by the physical attention of Ashley Williams .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2864426/Lukasz-Fabianski-corre | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 09:14 - Dec 8 with 2019 views | Shaky |
Have you been leaving comments on the Graham Poll article?
"Sakho used his hand though. Should have been a free kick to Swansea and booking to Sakho."
 | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 09:22 - Dec 8 with 2003 views | Shaky |
On a serious note, in my view what is causing this stream of nonsense about this sending off from the faithful, is the subconscious realisation that unless the red card is rescinded it is a huge blow to our defense over the next 3 critical games.
And that is undoubtedly something to be genuinely concerned about. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 09:36 - Dec 8 with 1987 views | Darran |
Apart from the fact it's not three games of course. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 09:53 - Dec 8 with 1959 views | Shaky |
Actually thinking about this further, if Graham Poll is right you are wrong, I'm sorry to say. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 10:26 - Dec 8 with 1925 views | ItchySphincter |
Brilliant link. To legitimise a red card given for denying a goal scoring opportunity a goal scored from said denied opportunity would be disallowed by the ref. Brilliant. No wonder everything's f*cked. 
 | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 10:32 - Dec 8 with 1918 views | NeathJack |
It's one match, not three. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:21 - Dec 8 with 1871 views | Parlay |
At least there is some sense flowing back to the thread now. It has been stunning fair play. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:22 - Dec 8 with 1870 views | Shaky |
Is this conjecture or are you stating it as a fact. And if so what is your source?
The crux of the matter is that it would be a 1 match ban if the red card was given for denying a goal scoring opportunity.
However, as I read it that doesn't seem to be Poll's interpretation, in which case a 3 match ban becomes the default. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:27 - Dec 8 with 1860 views | NeathJack |
It was given for denying a goalscoring opportunity. That is a one match ban.
What else could it possibly have been given for? | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:29 - Dec 8 with 1855 views | Parlay |
If the appeal fails, the panel can also increase the ban by a further game. After Monks criticial outburst of the refs and decision making in recent weeks (rightly so), this incredibly sketchy appeal is perfect fodder for some punitive action. If we appeal, then someone there better concoct a bloody good and specific case that is based on something you can actually appeal otherwise this whole thing is absolute nonsense.
As an aside Graham Poll was my favourite ref along with Uriah Rennie. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:31 - Dec 8 with 1844 views | Shaky |
OK, so it is clearly conjecture, in which case you should preface "It was given for denying a goalscoring opportunity" with "it seems to me" or "I believe"; something along those lines. Clear?
As for what it could have been given for, the other possibilities are violent conduct which seems unlikely, and serious foul play which has to be a possibility. [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 11:32]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:35 - Dec 8 with 1830 views | NeathJack |
Oh ffs it was clearly given for denying a goalscoring opportunity. How an earth can there even be a discussion about that?
It's no wonder I don't post much on here anymore. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:38 - Dec 8 with 1823 views | Shaky |
If it really is a 3 game ban I would be tempted to appeal.
The risk reward profile says get off completely no matter how small the probability, versus Fab additionally out for Liverpool at Anfield where we are unlikely to get anything anyway. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 11:43 - Dec 8 with 1805 views | Shaky |
Fab comes sprinting off his line and body checks the guy miles outside the area.
He made no attempt to play the ball whatsoever. Of course serious foul play is a possibility. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
