| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays 15:13 - Dec 7 with 38183 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 Hope we have the card rescinded.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 20:46 - Dec 7 with 1963 views | Parlay |
Please read the last line of ECB's well written post, its the line ive repeated countless times and is amazingly the one that keeps getting overlooked.
1) Sakhos foul was not seen, it now cannot be reviewed.
2) Fabianskis foul was seen, as it resulted in a red it CAN be reviewed.
If your reasoning for the reversing of decision 2 is the handball, then please re-read number 1.
As for your last comment, he didnt get Fabianski to foul him, he still didnt have to do it. And yes you can foul another to foul you. People often niggle at barton to get him to react. If he does then hes off regardless what the other player did first. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 20:48]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 20:53 - Dec 7 with 1931 views | C_jack |
A contributes to B. The whole passage of play should/hopefully will be reviewed, of which Mark Halsey has already alluded to. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 20:56 - Dec 7 with 1909 views | monmouth |
I have no idea what will or should happen but, given that he did go on and clearly did have a goalscoring opportunity (before Foy chose to blow up) then how in the name of all that's holy can a goalscoring opportunity have been denied? (the laws don't say a BETTER goalscoring opportunity do they?
I think we will appeal, and I don't think that it's clear cut either way. Halsey says we'll win, Dean says we'll lose. I think we'll roll the dice. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:00 - Dec 7 with 1877 views | Parlay |
Mark Halsey is incorrect, it will not be taken into account what so ever. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:03 - Dec 7 with 1861 views | LeonisGod |
Is this still rumbling on? I suspect you are correct. If they review the incident and see that Foy mistakenly thought Sahko has legitimately nicked the ball past Fab, then we do stand a chance of a successful appeal. If he doesn't do that then the whole situation is different. But none of us know how this will go (or even if we'll appeal) so we'll just have to wait and see. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:07 - Dec 7 with 1838 views | Brynmill_Jack |
Why are people still arguing with him? People, he's taking the f*cking p*ss! Step back from your keyboards and put the kettle on FFS ! | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:08 - Dec 7 with 1834 views | Darran |
 | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:09 - Dec 7 with 1833 views | C_jack |
In whatever footage they use to make their decision, it's there, in plain bloomin sight, I fail to see how they can ignore it, when it's the catalyst for everything that happens in the following events.
Can someone please phone Matt the Jack. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 21:18]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:13 - Dec 7 with 1804 views | Parlay |
Because people like to try and challenge people who are traditionally right. I cannot help i am traditionally right and thus cannot help peoples need to engage. Amazing talent though to read messages from people you claim to ignore and also more amazing is you want to talk about someone you have actively restricted yourself from noticing.
Very odd.
You still cant review a not given hand ball though. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:13 - Dec 7 with 1803 views | Brynmill_Jack |
I'm grateful I haven't seem either the game OR this poxy incident! | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:15 - Dec 7 with 1789 views | Parlay |
Thought you were a fan? | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:19 - Dec 7 with 1764 views | NeathJack |
This is what the Americans would call a "bang bang play". The two incidents are so close together and inextricably linked to each other I would be amazed if the handball wasn't taken into consideration.
I have seen no evidence or link to suggest it wouldn't be. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:20 - Dec 7 with 1761 views | waynekerr55 |
I was going to post something similar. We 'should' have a strong case, whether we do or not is debatable. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:20 - Dec 7 with 1760 views | LeonisGod |
Sahko stayed on his feet and had a free shot at an open goal, which the ref then denied by blowing up. I'd have loved to see Sahko's shot go in - the place would have gone nuts when they found out it didn't count. A bizarre time to blow up when you think about it. Too late for an immediate foul, but then once Sahko rode the tackle Foy had to let that advantage play through. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:24 - Dec 7 with 1736 views | LeonisGod |
What?! You mean he's NOT better informed, experienced or qualified than Mark Halsey. Damn, I thought we had a genius in our midst  | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:28 - Dec 7 with 1720 views | Parlay |
Thats an odd opinion. I always find it strange when people take that cheap route out of a debate. Doesnt anyone who disagrees with me then think they know more than Phil Dowd and the current Premier League ref that made the decision?
If Jose Mourinho likes Torres and Alex Ferguson doesn't rate him... Yet i also have the opinion he isn't very good. Does that mean i am claiming i know more about football than mourinho? What about the people that rate him? Does that mean they think they know more than Sir Alex? Or does that mean because we are not employed in the industry even though some of us have 50 years experience our opinions count for nothing?
Ah well close the board down now, we are doomed.
(P.s. When i get shown to be correct, can i then claim i am a genius and know more than Halsey?) [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 21:31]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:30 - Dec 7 with 1713 views | Parlay |
Its not related at all. You are of course referring to the NFL which has completely different rules of the game not to mention review criteria.
The handball is irrelevant, i cannot stress this enough. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:33 - Dec 7 with 1700 views | jack_lord |
I was thinking that at the time. I wondered why the commentators didn't once mention it. If anything, Ash shouldered him into Fab who was under no obligation to get out of his way? | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:34 - Dec 7 with 1693 views | ScoobyWho |
Parlay, I thought it was the other way round - If a foul was not seen it CAN be reviewed, if it was seen it cannot be. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:35 - Dec 7 with 1690 views | londonlisa2001 |
bloody hell - 50 plus?? I assumed to be honest that you were a teenager - 50 plus and you're wanting to 'bet' with everyone.
Good God alive - what chance have we got. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:36 - Dec 7 with 1686 views | somersetsimon |
The referee may say that he saw the handball and reckoned it was accidental. In which case, we forget that part in the appeal.
If the referee would have called that as handball, if he'd seen it, I can't see why it should be considered irrelevant because it hadn't been spotted. Imagine a different case where a defender comes in to make a fair tackle. The attacker moves the ball out of the way with his hand (unseen by the referee). This causes the defender to kick the player instead of the ball and is sent off. How can an unseen offence which contributes to the penalized offence be ignored.
In any case, I think the better appeal is on the grounds that Sakho was so wide (even without the contact), that it wasn't a clear opportunity. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:38 - Dec 7 with 1677 views | Parlay |
I didn't say i had 50 years experience. I said some of us do. But nice of you to enter with another irony laced playground rant when of course you refused to answer probing on topic questions and points which made your opinion look silly.
This is the only issue with females on the board whether its time of the month (dont know if you have had them or they are long gone) or just hormones in general. You have gone from someone who seemed quite sensible to an absolute foaming at the mouth buffoon.
No offence intended but take a step back here, take a look at your posts and above all... calm down.
(By the way what is it with you and betting? The average punter is a grown man by definition. Have a think) [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 21:41]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:43 - Dec 7 with 1645 views | ScoobyWho |
In the case of a red card, if the ref thought an incident happened and it turns out later it didn't the red card can be rescinded. We are over complicating matters here. What seems to be misunderstood is the ruling whereby a ref if he see's something and deals with it then it cant be dealt with later. In the case of a red this doesn't apply. It doesn't matter if he saw it or not when a red card appeal is underway.
That rule is for things that go unpunished during the game, not for things that have already been punished and that are under appeal. It's different. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:45 - Dec 7 with 1642 views | LeonisGod |
You're not the poster aka Dwight by any chance are you? The similarities are uncanny. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:46 - Dec 7 with 1633 views | londonlisa2001 |
ha ha ha.
So you have an issue with females. I can't say I'm surprised - I can't imagine you've had much experience with them in real life.
Nothing with me and betting - I just didn't want to bet with you. Largely to be completely honest, because nothing you could bet would give me the slightest interest in whether I won the bet or not. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
