| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays 15:13 - Dec 7 with 35318 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 Hope we have the card rescinded.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 15:19 - Dec 8 with 1351 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:17 - Dec 8 by lidojack |
Slide tackling usually trips and opponent, and in that case it would probably go down to the referees view of it.
But the problem I have with the scenario is that his actions have denied a clear goalscoring opportunity yet most people would consider it not a foul. Does the line get drawn at contact? If so doesn't that encourage players to find to contact rather than keep going? |
Id say the overwhelming majority of sliding tackles do not end up in a kick or a trip.
Im not sure how anybody can make a case it wasnt a foul, it was a clear case of a body check that you are ever likely to see. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:24 - Dec 8 with 1342 views | lidojack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:19 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Id say the overwhelming majority of sliding tackles do not end up in a kick or a trip.
Im not sure how anybody can make a case it wasnt a foul, it was a clear case of a body check that you are ever likely to see. |
I'm not making a case for or against the red card and haven't mentioned it. The situation involving Fabianski had me wondering whether the offence was to deny a goal scoring opportunity or to make it harder and I came up with my own scenario to gauge opinion.
Like I said I'm asking purely out of curiosity. |  | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:26 - Dec 8 with 1337 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:24 - Dec 8 by lidojack |
I'm not making a case for or against the red card and haven't mentioned it. The situation involving Fabianski had me wondering whether the offence was to deny a goal scoring opportunity or to make it harder and I came up with my own scenario to gauge opinion.
Like I said I'm asking purely out of curiosity. |
Yes i know that im just saying that in the case you put forward then no action would have been taken as it is not an offence to attempt to tackle. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:26 - Dec 8 with 1332 views | Gowerjack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:27 - Dec 8 by Darran |
One thing you can be sure of is if this card is overturned Parlay will continue to argue about it from a different angle.
As Brynnie touched yesterday there's clearly something not quite right in the fellas head. |
I almost miss DYSS....
Do I bollocks! |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:31 - Dec 8 with 1315 views | lidojack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:26 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Yes i know that im just saying that in the case you put forward then no action would have been taken as it is not an offence to attempt to tackle. |
Which is why I asked if the line is drawn at contact. It's probably a bit off topic but I've been asking other people and they don't really have an answer. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:32 - Dec 8 with 1308 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:31 - Dec 8 by lidojack |
Which is why I asked if the line is drawn at contact. It's probably a bit off topic but I've been asking other people and they don't really have an answer. |
Every situation is different, if you swing a punch and miss then it will be punished, if you attempt to win the ball and miss the player and ball then nothing will be done. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:34 - Dec 8 with 1304 views | monmouth |
So anyway, to save me reading numerous posts about why we will or won't appeal, are we going to appeal it?
Scrub that, just been told BBC say we are doing.
I'll be back to find out the result. TKO to Lisa or Shaky...oops sorry Parlay....Shakes is already on the canvas. More exciting than yesterday's surrender for shewer. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:35 - Dec 8 with 1298 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:13 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
The ref doesnt have to play advantage and is well within his rights to blow whenever he sees an offence.
It makes no difference whether he went on to have a shot on goal after the whistle, none at all. |
But how can the ref claim Fabianski stopped a clear goal scoring opportunity though. If the play had stopped when he'd blown then he'd have a case to argue, but it didn't.
So, looking at it from the viewpoint of the panel, which as you stated are non-interpretational, the cold hard facts show that a clear goalscoring opportunity was not denied by Fabianski but in fact Foy by not allowing advantage to be played.
Had the ball not bounced back out after hitting the post and the goal been disallowed because Foy had already blown I BET you the WH fans would of been criticising the desicion.
Foy should of played advantage, he didn't and that resulted in Sakho shot on target not being counted. Was it a free kick, if we ignore the handball, yes. Denying of a goal scoring opportunity as a DIRECT result of Fabianskis actions, no. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:36 - Dec 8 with 1287 views | lidojack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:32 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Every situation is different, if you swing a punch and miss then it will be punished, if you attempt to win the ball and miss the player and ball then nothing will be done. |
I agree that if the defender went flying to the slide of the striker and in no way impeded his progress then there should be no action. But surely in situations such as this where the striker has made every effort to stay on his feet (you could even argue this in cases where there is slight contact) but has lost out due to his honesty there should be a foul?
Maybe this is a debate for another time as it seems a bit off topic for now. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:38 - Dec 8 with 1270 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:35 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
But how can the ref claim Fabianski stopped a clear goal scoring opportunity though. If the play had stopped when he'd blown then he'd have a case to argue, but it didn't.
So, looking at it from the viewpoint of the panel, which as you stated are non-interpretational, the cold hard facts show that a clear goalscoring opportunity was not denied by Fabianski but in fact Foy by not allowing advantage to be played.
Had the ball not bounced back out after hitting the post and the goal been disallowed because Foy had already blown I BET you the WH fans would of been criticising the desicion.
Foy should of played advantage, he didn't and that resulted in Sakho shot on target not being counted. Was it a free kick, if we ignore the handball, yes. Denying of a goal scoring opportunity as a DIRECT result of Fabianskis actions, no. |
It doesnt matter if play physically stopped. In the eyes of the game the play did stop as the whistle was blown.
Foy does not have to wave advantage. So the facts are Fabianski's foul stopped Sakho from going on to have a clear chance at goal because the ref stopped play to penalise it.
Thats all there is too it. Anything else surrounding the above is completely irrelevant. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:47 - Dec 8 with 1247 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:36 - Dec 8 by lidojack |
I agree that if the defender went flying to the slide of the striker and in no way impeded his progress then there should be no action. But surely in situations such as this where the striker has made every effort to stay on his feet (you could even argue this in cases where there is slight contact) but has lost out due to his honesty there should be a foul?
Maybe this is a debate for another time as it seems a bit off topic for now. |
Not off topic at all, it's how the ref 'interprets' the challenge.
If he deems that it prevents the player on the ball from having a clear goal scoring opportunity then it's a red, but if that player goes on to still have a shot at an empty net, all be it maybe 5 yards wider than he would of liked, and said player then fluffs the shot and hits the post and doesn't score then the advantage has been played, and the referee may decide to go back when the ball next goes dead and book the defender if he felt there was enough intent. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:49 - Dec 8 with 1239 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:36 - Dec 8 by lidojack |
I agree that if the defender went flying to the slide of the striker and in no way impeded his progress then there should be no action. But surely in situations such as this where the striker has made every effort to stay on his feet (you could even argue this in cases where there is slight contact) but has lost out due to his honesty there should be a foul?
Maybe this is a debate for another time as it seems a bit off topic for now. |
It doesn't matter of he has made every effort to stay on his feet, no contact was made to stop him from staying on his feet. Any subsequent body movement would have been applied by the striker, you cannot blame a defender trying to tackle and not making contact with ball or player for that. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:50 - Dec 8 with 1237 views | monmouth |
Seriously, just seeing how heated and misogynistic the other thread is getting....why not just wait for the result of the confirmed appeal? All will be revealed I'm sure. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:50 - Dec 8 with 1235 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:47 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
Not off topic at all, it's how the ref 'interprets' the challenge.
If he deems that it prevents the player on the ball from having a clear goal scoring opportunity then it's a red, but if that player goes on to still have a shot at an empty net, all be it maybe 5 yards wider than he would of liked, and said player then fluffs the shot and hits the post and doesn't score then the advantage has been played, and the referee may decide to go back when the ball next goes dead and book the defender if he felt there was enough intent. |
There was no advantage. The referee blew for the foul immediately. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:51 - Dec 8 with 1234 views | lidojack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:49 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
It doesn't matter of he has made every effort to stay on his feet, no contact was made to stop him from staying on his feet. Any subsequent body movement would have been applied by the striker, you cannot blame a defender trying to tackle and not making contact with ball or player for that. |
But surely that encourages players to look for the contact rather than looking for ways to stay on their feet? | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:53 - Dec 8 with 1228 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:51 - Dec 8 by lidojack |
But surely that encourages players to look for the contact rather than looking for ways to stay on their feet? |
Id rather a goal, than a man sent off - as would most players id hazard a guess which is reason enough to try and avoid contact and score instead. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:54 - Dec 8 with 1227 views | lidojack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:50 - Dec 8 by monmouth |
Seriously, just seeing how heated and misogynistic the other thread is getting....why not just wait for the result of the confirmed appeal? All will be revealed I'm sure. |
I'm half glad we've appealed the decision just to get an answer we can stick in bold caps on page 38 of this thread and have no more arguments 
If you ignore the 'heated' parts of the debate it's a rather interesting discussion. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:57 - Dec 8 with 1218 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:54 - Dec 8 by lidojack |
I'm half glad we've appealed the decision just to get an answer we can stick in bold caps on page 38 of this thread and have no more arguments
If you ignore the 'heated' parts of the debate it's a rather interesting discussion. |
Id agree with this. Id say there is only one and maybe an influenced other that have resorted to such heated name calling.
Ignore the idiots throwing insults and its a decent thread. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:59 - Dec 8 with 1212 views | lidojack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:53 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Id rather a goal, than a man sent off - as would most players id hazard a guess which is reason enough to try and avoid contact and score instead. |
It's all dependant on the game situation really. If my theoretical situation happened in the penalty area I'd wager that very few players would actually look to avoid the challenge, simply because they know that if they did they'd be less likely to score and would not get the foul. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:00 - Dec 8 with 1204 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:59 - Dec 8 by lidojack |
It's all dependant on the game situation really. If my theoretical situation happened in the penalty area I'd wager that very few players would actually look to avoid the challenge, simply because they know that if they did they'd be less likely to score and would not get the foul. |
Then that is just the game i guess and why players avoid diving in when in the penalty area. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:03 - Dec 8 with 1196 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:38 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
It doesnt matter if play physically stopped. In the eyes of the game the play did stop as the whistle was blown.
Foy does not have to wave advantage. So the facts are Fabianski's foul stopped Sakho from going on to have a clear chance at goal because the ref stopped play to penalise it.
Thats all there is too it. Anything else surrounding the above is completely irrelevant. |
No referee can possibly know what is going to happen after he's blown the whistle, it's why they're encouraged to play advantage.
This was highlighted when Sakho went on to hit the post. Foy chose not to play advantage, and as a result his desicion to award the red card has been proved wrong! Fabianski did not prevent him from having a clear goal scoring opportunity. As I said earlier, if he'd scored and it been disallowed the Spammers would be up in arms and Foy would've come under fire from all angles.
Blowing the whistle does not mean that the game has stopped an anything that happens after doesn't count either, that's just nonsense. Are you telling me that if someone fouls me and the refs blown for a free kick it's alright for me to get up and clock him one without repurcussion just because the whistle's gone?
Anyway, don't necessarily agree 100% with what I posted, but your blatant refuseal to accept anyone else's view on the subject prompted me to run with it, and have actually convinced myself that I have a point. Although it all hinges on whether they include the handball for me.
Been enjoying your posts recently but this is just bs mate. I'd give this one a rest now. I am.  | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:06 - Dec 8 with 1187 views | lidojack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:00 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Then that is just the game i guess and why players avoid diving in when in the penalty area. |
Maybe there'll be a similar abstract situation in a game next weekend and we'll be able to talk about it with a bit more evidence.
Hopefully not involving the Swans though  | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:08 - Dec 8 with 1179 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:03 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
No referee can possibly know what is going to happen after he's blown the whistle, it's why they're encouraged to play advantage.
This was highlighted when Sakho went on to hit the post. Foy chose not to play advantage, and as a result his desicion to award the red card has been proved wrong! Fabianski did not prevent him from having a clear goal scoring opportunity. As I said earlier, if he'd scored and it been disallowed the Spammers would be up in arms and Foy would've come under fire from all angles.
Blowing the whistle does not mean that the game has stopped an anything that happens after doesn't count either, that's just nonsense. Are you telling me that if someone fouls me and the refs blown for a free kick it's alright for me to get up and clock him one without repurcussion just because the whistle's gone?
Anyway, don't necessarily agree 100% with what I posted, but your blatant refuseal to accept anyone else's view on the subject prompted me to run with it, and have actually convinced myself that I have a point. Although it all hinges on whether they include the handball for me.
Been enjoying your posts recently but this is just bs mate. I'd give this one a rest now. I am. |
I don't understand your point at all.
The referees do not have to play advantage, encouraged to yes, but don't have to. Foy decided to award the free kick immediately and send Fabianski off. Perfectly within his rights.
The fact he exercised his right to give the free kick immediately for Fabianski's foul resulted in Sakho being denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. There are no "what ifs" regarding if play was allowed to continue, other than if it was allowed to continue would he have had a goalscoring chance - the answer is obviously yes.
So the Fabianski foul factually denied Sakho a clear goalscoring opportunity because the ref exercised his right to penalise the offence instantly.
But i do thank you for admitting that people regularly take on a point they don't necessarily agree with just to argue it. Id imagine there are many doing the same here. [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 16:12]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:13 - Dec 8 with 1162 views | Darran |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:57 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Id agree with this. Id say there is only one and maybe an influenced other that have resorted to such heated name calling.
Ignore the idiots throwing insults and its a decent thread. |
I don't mind a bit of name calling its the sneaky scum c*nt that sends nasty PMs that should be banned from here. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:14 - Dec 8 with 1152 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:13 - Dec 8 by Darran |
I don't mind a bit of name calling its the sneaky scum c*nt that sends nasty PMs that should be banned from here. |
Name calling in banter im all for. Name calling to mask an ailing opinion os just tedious.
Who has been sending you PM's then? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
