| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays 15:13 - Dec 7 with 36231 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 Hope we have the card rescinded.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 16:05 - Dec 7 with 2384 views | union_jack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:51 - Dec 7 by QuakerJack |
Do you honestly think that? He had a look to see if he scored. He'd have given it and sent him off. |
Well yes because Foy blew before he kicked the ball so he couldn't have given it. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:07 - Dec 7 with 2376 views | max936 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:01 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
on what basis would you have sent him off?
Irrespective of the obvious handball, there is no obligation whatsoever on a player to get out of the way if a player just runs into him which is what happened.
Fabianski didn't put his hands out, he didn't jump into him - he went out and blocked the angle which he is perfectly entitled to do. Sakho ran into him (actually with a slight push from Williams). The only reason it looked like a foul was the handball. The only possible foul was against Ash for the push - possible yellow card. The decision was incorrect.
We'll appeal that and it will get overturned, again! And we'll still have lost a chance at a point because of it.
Dear God - that was up there with the most biased commentary and match build up I have ever seen (including the BT coverage of the Man Utd match) and even they thought it wasn't a sending off, and yet we have so called Swans fans falling over themselves to justify another shocking decision because it fits with some sort of warped agenda. |
Great post. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:08 - Dec 7 with 2371 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:01 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
on what basis would you have sent him off?
Irrespective of the obvious handball, there is no obligation whatsoever on a player to get out of the way if a player just runs into him which is what happened.
Fabianski didn't put his hands out, he didn't jump into him - he went out and blocked the angle which he is perfectly entitled to do. Sakho ran into him (actually with a slight push from Williams). The only reason it looked like a foul was the handball. The only possible foul was against Ash for the push - possible yellow card. The decision was incorrect.
We'll appeal that and it will get overturned, again! And we'll still have lost a chance at a point because of it.
Dear God - that was up there with the most biased commentary and match build up I have ever seen (including the BT coverage of the Man Utd match) and even they thought it wasn't a sending off, and yet we have so called Swans fans falling over themselves to justify another shocking decision because it fits with some sort of warped agenda. |
On the basis he impeded Sakho when through on goal. The handball (once missed) doesnt even come into it.
Its not a matter of "moving out of the way", he was not stationary, he was running toward Sakho.
It will never be appealed i can assure you, and if we are so silly to do so then we will never win it in a million years and I will place any bet you wish on that. Anything.
(And what warped agenda would I have to simply state the obvious?) [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 16:09]
|  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:08 - Dec 7 with 2370 views | monmouth |
I would love it to be overturned. LOVE IT. But I'd still be astonished - and ecstatic - if we appealed and they hung Foy out to dry on this one. Unless they can actually account for the push and handball that actually allowed the player to run into Fab after handling the ball past him. Where's Matt the Jack when you need him? |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:08 - Dec 7 with 2364 views | 3swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:01 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
on what basis would you have sent him off?
Irrespective of the obvious handball, there is no obligation whatsoever on a player to get out of the way if a player just runs into him which is what happened.
Fabianski didn't put his hands out, he didn't jump into him - he went out and blocked the angle which he is perfectly entitled to do. Sakho ran into him (actually with a slight push from Williams). The only reason it looked like a foul was the handball. The only possible foul was against Ash for the push - possible yellow card. The decision was incorrect.
We'll appeal that and it will get overturned, again! And we'll still have lost a chance at a point because of it.
Dear God - that was up there with the most biased commentary and match build up I have ever seen (including the BT coverage of the Man Utd match) and even they thought it wasn't a sending off, and yet we have so called Swans fans falling over themselves to justify another shocking decision because it fits with some sort of warped agenda. |
Handball or not I still think no sending off as I agree that players can't just disappear into thin air.
Also think Williams had a big part to play in it as he slowed his run for a second before the collision | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:08 - Dec 7 with 2362 views | jack247 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:01 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
on what basis would you have sent him off?
Irrespective of the obvious handball, there is no obligation whatsoever on a player to get out of the way if a player just runs into him which is what happened.
Fabianski didn't put his hands out, he didn't jump into him - he went out and blocked the angle which he is perfectly entitled to do. Sakho ran into him (actually with a slight push from Williams). The only reason it looked like a foul was the handball. The only possible foul was against Ash for the push - possible yellow card. The decision was incorrect.
We'll appeal that and it will get overturned, again! And we'll still have lost a chance at a point because of it.
Dear God - that was up there with the most biased commentary and match build up I have ever seen (including the BT coverage of the Man Utd match) and even they thought it wasn't a sending off, and yet we have so called Swans fans falling over themselves to justify another shocking decision because it fits with some sort of warped agenda. |
Looks to me like Fab body checked him. You don't have to get out of someone's way, but you can't deliberately run into their path. First angle looks worse than the second.
http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/07/west-ham-united-striker-diafra-sakho-illegally-han
I hope I'm wrong. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:12 - Dec 7 with 2334 views | Parlay |
What is this "no obligation to get out of the way" nonsense coming from? He was not stationary and was 25 yards from his goaline, he actively moved into the runners path and body checked him.
A penalty was given in last nights match for almost the same thing.
Im astonished so many are complaining about what was essentially a fantastic ref decision. I think some have become so used to blaming refs then any decision against us is disagreed with even if we have to invent what actually happened to suit our side of the story.
It was a foul and we would be screaming blue murder if it were Bony through and body-checked by the opposing keeper. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:13 - Dec 7 with 2326 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:08 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
On the basis he impeded Sakho when through on goal. The handball (once missed) doesnt even come into it.
Its not a matter of "moving out of the way", he was not stationary, he was running toward Sakho.
It will never be appealed i can assure you, and if we are so silly to do so then we will never win it in a million years and I will place any bet you wish on that. Anything.
(And what warped agenda would I have to simply state the obvious?) [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 16:09]
|
where did he impede him?
Sakho jumped (or was pushed) into him, bounced off him (Fabianski had stopped - look at the replays - his feet are planted), and shot at goal. The ref cocked up by blowing before he should have done, cocked up by not spotting the hand ball and cocked up by sending Fabianski off.
And given that I'm not 8 years old, you'll forgive me if I don't take up the offer of a 'bet' on it. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:18 - Dec 7 with 2291 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:13 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
where did he impede him?
Sakho jumped (or was pushed) into him, bounced off him (Fabianski had stopped - look at the replays - his feet are planted), and shot at goal. The ref cocked up by blowing before he should have done, cocked up by not spotting the hand ball and cocked up by sending Fabianski off.
And given that I'm not 8 years old, you'll forgive me if I don't take up the offer of a 'bet' on it. |
See many 8 year olds with a betting slip? Its an adult activity that has gone on for centuries. But if you are now not confident in your opinion then fair enough. I am confident in mine to the point i have no concerns about any personal loss.
Maybe when we dont appeal you will then maybe apologise for suggesting the people quoting the rules must have an agenda against Swansea. Id expect better from you. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:18 - Dec 7 with 2289 views | ItchySphincter |
Can't see this being appealed or rescinded. Take the handball incident out of it and referee would've penalised the keeper every time in that situation. It was a foul by the keeper but was it a clear goalscoring opportunity? I'd argue it wasn't and maybe he could have given a yellow but to blow up for the foul is the correct decision. The handball is irrelevant. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:18 - Dec 7 with 2287 views | Lohengrin |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:13 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
where did he impede him?
Sakho jumped (or was pushed) into him, bounced off him (Fabianski had stopped - look at the replays - his feet are planted), and shot at goal. The ref cocked up by blowing before he should have done, cocked up by not spotting the hand ball and cocked up by sending Fabianski off.
And given that I'm not 8 years old, you'll forgive me if I don't take up the offer of a 'bet' on it. |
You should do, love. An easy few bob there for you.  |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:21 - Dec 7 with 2257 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:18 - Dec 7 by ItchySphincter |
Can't see this being appealed or rescinded. Take the handball incident out of it and referee would've penalised the keeper every time in that situation. It was a foul by the keeper but was it a clear goalscoring opportunity? I'd argue it wasn't and maybe he could have given a yellow but to blow up for the foul is the correct decision. The handball is irrelevant. |
Spot on.
If they rescind that on the basis "it could have been a yellow... Possibly" then it undermines referees the league over.
There is about as much chance of that being over turned as there is of Bony signing for Accy Stanley in January. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:22 - Dec 7 with 2239 views | Jackfath |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:21 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Spot on.
If they rescind that on the basis "it could have been a yellow... Possibly" then it undermines referees the league over.
There is about as much chance of that being over turned as there is of Bony signing for Accy Stanley in January. |
Accrington Stanley? Who are they? |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:23 - Dec 7 with 2235 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:18 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
See many 8 year olds with a betting slip? Its an adult activity that has gone on for centuries. But if you are now not confident in your opinion then fair enough. I am confident in mine to the point i have no concerns about any personal loss.
Maybe when we dont appeal you will then maybe apologise for suggesting the people quoting the rules must have an agenda against Swansea. Id expect better from you. |
saying if you disagree with someone 'I'll bet you' is pretty childish don't you think?
And I am perfectly confident in my opinion.
It was a bad decision. Interesting that the rules surrounding punching a ball past 2 players aren't important to you though. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:26 - Dec 7 with 2204 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:23 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
saying if you disagree with someone 'I'll bet you' is pretty childish don't you think?
And I am perfectly confident in my opinion.
It was a bad decision. Interesting that the rules surrounding punching a ball past 2 players aren't important to you though. |
Absolutely not, far more reasonable than "if you don't agree then you have an anti swansea agenda". Im offering you the chance for personal financial gain from your opinion you think is so obviously correct, you are just offering misplaced personal barbs.
How many more times can it be explained that the handball is irrelevant, it is not a reviewable decision. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:27 - Dec 7 with 2159 views | skippyjack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:26 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Absolutely not, far more reasonable than "if you don't agree then you have an anti swansea agenda". Im offering you the chance for personal financial gain from your opinion you think is so obviously correct, you are just offering misplaced personal barbs.
How many more times can it be explained that the handball is irrelevant, it is not a reviewable decision. |
Do you agree with the refs decision? |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:29 - Dec 7 with 2152 views | Darran |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:26 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Absolutely not, far more reasonable than "if you don't agree then you have an anti swansea agenda". Im offering you the chance for personal financial gain from your opinion you think is so obviously correct, you are just offering misplaced personal barbs.
How many more times can it be explained that the handball is irrelevant, it is not a reviewable decision. |
I'll have fifty with you. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:29 - Dec 7 with 2150 views | Shaky |
Once the keeper leaves the area he becomes like a regular outfield player. In this instance he is the last man and takes out the attacker -- boom, he's gone.
As for that handball, I have looked at it at least 20 times, and if you put the 2 available angles together it looks probable it is the direct result of the push in the arm and back by Ash. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:29 - Dec 7 with 2141 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:26 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Absolutely not, far more reasonable than "if you don't agree then you have an anti swansea agenda". Im offering you the chance for personal financial gain from your opinion you think is so obviously correct, you are just offering misplaced personal barbs.
How many more times can it be explained that the handball is irrelevant, it is not a reviewable decision. |
I'm not particularly interested in personal financial gain.
And I haven't said that the handball is reviewable. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:31 - Dec 7 with 2124 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:29 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
I'm not particularly interested in personal financial gain.
And I haven't said that the handball is reviewable. |
So why are you bringing that up when we are discussing appeals and overturning of the red? If you are not interested in personal financial gain may i ask you address any surplus cash from your pay-check to me. Thanks. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:32 - Dec 7 with 2113 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:27 - Dec 7 by skippyjack |
Do you agree with the refs decision? |
yes he does - he said it was a fantastic decision.
He is ignoring the fractionally earlier utterly s**tty decision to ignore the handball though. Seemingly because that is not 'reviewable'. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:32 - Dec 7 with 2112 views | Dyfnant |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:26 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Absolutely not, far more reasonable than "if you don't agree then you have an anti swansea agenda". Im offering you the chance for personal financial gain from your opinion you think is so obviously correct, you are just offering misplaced personal barbs.
How many more times can it be explained that the handball is irrelevant, it is not a reviewable decision. |
The two of you should scrap it out   |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:33 - Dec 7 with 2101 views | Darran |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:32 - Dec 7 by Dyfnant |
The two of you should scrap it out |
Topless wrestling. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:34 - Dec 7 with 2098 views | 3swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:29 - Dec 7 by Darran |
I'll have fifty with you. |
Is Rodney your middle name | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:36 - Dec 7 with 2078 views | Darran |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:34 - Dec 7 by 3swan |
Is Rodney your middle name |
Yes Mickey. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
