| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays 15:13 - Dec 7 with 35711 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 Hope we have the card rescinded.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 13:43 - Dec 8 with 1462 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:33 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
Thought as much, so basically any desicion made by a ref where he's 'used his discretion' is 'un-appealable' as they would always have to back the ref.
I get your point about the handball not being factored and actually think that you may be correct on this, however I fail to see how this could be justified by a review panel. Whether intentional or not, there was clearly a handball and this then resulted in Fabianski having to adjust his run/body position at the last possible moment, causing the collision, (It could be 'interpreted' that Sakho denied Fabianski a goal saving opportunity.) They simply cannot justify that this would of happened without the infringement by Sakho, yet he goes 'unpunished' and we suffer a red card and ban. Common sense dictates that this is unjust and should surely be overturned?(Not that I think it will mind!) [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 13:38]
|
Like i said on the previous page, its like a striker getting taken out though on goal and then the keeper getting sent off - yet later seems like he was a yard offside. You cant appeal on those grounds.
The appeal panel may well recognise that the foul wouldn't have been committed if the offside (or hand ball in this case) was given prior to the red card offence - but the fact is, it wasn't. They cannot go back and correct those not given decisions. So the only thing they will be looking at is "did fabianski's foul prevent Sakho from a chance on goal".
The fact the ref waved the play dead due to the foul not allowing him his shot into the empty net clearly suggests fabianskis foul absolutely denied him the chance to score from that play. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:44 - Dec 8 with 1461 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:36 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Yes he did. The foul resulted in the play stopping when he was through on goal with an empty net, therefor that foul denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. Straight forward case. |
But he still had a clear goalscoring opportunity, he just fluffed it... so surely not denied one?! Yellow card? |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:49 - Dec 8 with 1450 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:42 - Dec 8 by londonlisa2001 |
no it didn't but you continue to desperately look for reasons why the Swans should be punished.
I've seen more sensible and less one sided responses to all of this from Cardiff fans. Have a think about that. |
What is desperate about applying the laws of the game lisa? Or should i throw them out of the window and complain when they are not held up just because it affects the team i support? If you dont want the laws of the game applied to your own team then how can you ever complain about a decision ever again justified or not?
1) Did the ref blow the whistle to stop pay when fabianski fouled Sakho? Yes.
2) As a result did Sakho lose the chance to shoot into an empty net? Yes.
You have been accused of being over emotional, ridiculously biased and needing to get over yourself by others yesterday. Your responses in this thread certainly suggest this may be the case.
Have a think about that. [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 13:49]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:50 - Dec 8 with 1443 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:43 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Like i said on the previous page, its like a striker getting taken out though on goal and then the keeper getting sent off - yet later seems like he was a yard offside. You cant appeal on those grounds.
The appeal panel may well recognise that the foul wouldn't have been committed if the offside (or hand ball in this case) was given prior to the red card offence - but the fact is, it wasn't. They cannot go back and correct those not given decisions. So the only thing they will be looking at is "did fabianski's foul prevent Sakho from a chance on goal".
The fact the ref waved the play dead due to the foul not allowing him his shot into the empty net clearly suggests fabianskis foul absolutely denied him the chance to score from that play. |
Yeah but it's a question of timing, there is no possible way of Fabianski getting out of the way of the player. If the striker being offside is the immediate cause of the keeper fouling him, than yes, I feel you could appeal successfully. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:50 - Dec 8 with 1443 views | AnotherJohn |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:31 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
It makes no difference. Anything after the whistle is completely irrelevant, due to the play being stopped as a result of fabianskis foul, it denied sakho with a goalscoring opportunity, the offence is then deemed worthy of a red card.
Where the ball went after and what actions the player took after make no difference what so ever, they dont come into it. And neither does the offence of handball missed by the ref in the led up to it.. It is a separate un reviewable offence. [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 13:33]
|
But the hand contact which sent the ball wide occurred before the whistle was blown. Your last sentence just repeats what you have been saying all along and takes no account of the fact that the handball itself affected the nature of the goal scoring chance (even before the whistle sounded). How did Fabs limit the goal scoring opportunity if the handball had already made the chance a difficult one?
In any event the club has today made a formal appeal - so clearly not everybody shares your view. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:51 - Dec 8 with 1449 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:44 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
But he still had a clear goalscoring opportunity, he just fluffed it... so surely not denied one?! Yellow card? |
No he didnt, the ref blew the whistle immediately (within a second) and certainly before Sakho shot. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:55 - Dec 8 with 1438 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:50 - Dec 8 by AnotherJohn |
But the hand contact which sent the ball wide occurred before the whistle was blown. Your last sentence just repeats what you have been saying all along and takes no account of the fact that the handball itself affected the nature of the goal scoring chance (even before the whistle sounded). How did Fabs limit the goal scoring opportunity if the handball had already made the chance a difficult one?
In any event the club has today made a formal appeal - so clearly not everybody shares your view. |
I cant say it makes no difference any other way I'm afraid. The hand ball is irrelevant.
Dont be concerned that not everybody shares my view, its not my goal to get everybody to agree with me. I just hoped that there would be some sensible voices within the club, suggesting an appeal could do more harm than good, it seems there is more hope than sense out there. [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 13:55]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:55 - Dec 8 with 1435 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:51 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
No he didnt, the ref blew the whistle immediately (within a second) and certainly before Sakho shot. |
So Fab got sent off because Foy blew too early then? I'm sure I saw Sakho hit the post immediately after the challenge, pretty good going seeing has he had no goal scoring opportunity. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:55 - Dec 8 with 1433 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:49 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
What is desperate about applying the laws of the game lisa? Or should i throw them out of the window and complain when they are not held up just because it affects the team i support? If you dont want the laws of the game applied to your own team then how can you ever complain about a decision ever again justified or not?
1) Did the ref blow the whistle to stop pay when fabianski fouled Sakho? Yes.
2) As a result did Sakho lose the chance to shoot into an empty net? Yes.
You have been accused of being over emotional, ridiculously biased and needing to get over yourself by others yesterday. Your responses in this thread certainly suggest this may be the case.
Have a think about that. [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 13:49]
|
There is nothing desperate about applying the rules of the game, but you are ignoring any and all evidence that the rules have not been correctly applied.
It is obvious to all and sundry that the referee cocked up, big time, and yet you are more concerned with your own ego trip than you are with supporting the team.
You should be ashamed. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:58 - Dec 8 with 1420 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:55 - Dec 8 by londonlisa2001 |
There is nothing desperate about applying the rules of the game, but you are ignoring any and all evidence that the rules have not been correctly applied.
It is obvious to all and sundry that the referee cocked up, big time, and yet you are more concerned with your own ego trip than you are with supporting the team.
You should be ashamed. |
The evidence applied cannot be applied during a review. The referee cocked up by not giving the handball but he was unsighted. The red card was for fabianskis foul however, which considering the result stopped sakho shooting into an empty net is entirely correct.
Yes you keep saying you are a better fan, i should be ashamed etc. but i do not subscribe to bias, never have and hopefully never will. Once sense prevails i wonder if you will be woman enough to take back your over emotional bile you have poured in my direction by simply stating the laws of the game.
I wonder. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:59 - Dec 8 with 1414 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:55 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
So Fab got sent off because Foy blew too early then? I'm sure I saw Sakho hit the post immediately after the challenge, pretty good going seeing has he had no goal scoring opportunity. |
The ref is well within his rights to blow whenever he sees an offence. It is good practice to allow a few seconds of advantage but not a necessity. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:59 - Dec 8 with 1413 views | skippyjack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:44 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
But he still had a clear goalscoring opportunity, he just fluffed it... so surely not denied one?! Yellow card? |
Yes but Foy blew up.. you've got to go on the refs stupid interpretation.. he made two f*ck ups.. the actual reality of it was...
Sakho had handled it to gain an advantage
And he actually had an opportunity at goal
Which Foy should've played advantage
And given Fabianski a yellow card
Foys version
Sakho didn't handle it to gain an advantage (which he didn't see)
He did deny Sakho an opportunity at goal (which is bollocks)
So he has no option but to send him off..
Common sense says rescinded.. stupidity says extend his ban. |  |
| 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 14:03 - Dec 8 with 1398 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:59 - Dec 8 by skippyjack |
Yes but Foy blew up.. you've got to go on the refs stupid interpretation.. he made two f*ck ups.. the actual reality of it was...
Sakho had handled it to gain an advantage
And he actually had an opportunity at goal
Which Foy should've played advantage
And given Fabianski a yellow card
Foys version
Sakho didn't handle it to gain an advantage (which he didn't see)
He did deny Sakho an opportunity at goal (which is bollocks)
So he has no option but to send him off..
Common sense says rescinded.. stupidity says extend his ban. |
Appeals can only be submitted by written word and video, i would love to see the submitted written document.
The wording of that document will determine what grounds they are looking for an appeal and essentially as far as I'm concerned decide whether it will be simply rejected or the ban extended. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:07 - Dec 8 with 1381 views | union_jack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 20:38 - Dec 7 by exiledclaseboy |
I haven't read all of this thread by any means but isn't the relevant question whether the ref would have pulled play back and disallowed the goal had Sakho's shot gone in? If the answer is no, then it's clear that no goalscoring opportunity was denied and the red card should be rescinded. If Foy says yes (which he will and Sky's enhanced audio showing him blowing the whistle before Sakho's attempt on goal will support him in that) then there are no grounds for appeal. If we appeal, which I think we will, we'll lose.
The handball is irrelevant. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 20:41]
|
Like you I have not the time, patience or inclination to read every post in this thread so apologies if this point has been made.
Let's look at this in a farcical situation. The ball is played as it was yesterday but just before Sakho makes contact with Fab he catches the ball, and uses his left hand to roll it past Fab, then clatter into him. As in yesterday's scenario, Foy misses this and only sees the foul. What would an appeals panel say! Not for one minute could they ignore it because it played an integral part in getting the ball past Fab.
The only appeal in football afaik is a straight red and surely then all relevant factors must be taken into account. The handling of the ball yesterday is extremely relevant.
No disputing in my mind that had he not handled it, the red would have been justified. But that is irrelevant IMO. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:07 - Dec 8 with 1381 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:59 - Dec 8 by skippyjack |
Yes but Foy blew up.. you've got to go on the refs stupid interpretation.. he made two f*ck ups.. the actual reality of it was...
Sakho had handled it to gain an advantage
And he actually had an opportunity at goal
Which Foy should've played advantage
And given Fabianski a yellow card
Foys version
Sakho didn't handle it to gain an advantage (which he didn't see)
He did deny Sakho an opportunity at goal (which is bollocks)
So he has no option but to send him off..
Common sense says rescinded.. stupidity says extend his ban. |
Which is exactly my point, handball or denying a clear goal scoring opportunity.
If we were to follow the rules to the letter then it's obviously not a sending off, but allowing the rules to be 'interperated' by individuals just means they can make them up to suit their agenda, whether that's covering up a mistake or a bigger conspiracy against an individual team. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:16 - Dec 8 with 1360 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:58 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
The evidence applied cannot be applied during a review. The referee cocked up by not giving the handball but he was unsighted. The red card was for fabianskis foul however, which considering the result stopped sakho shooting into an empty net is entirely correct.
Yes you keep saying you are a better fan, i should be ashamed etc. but i do not subscribe to bias, never have and hopefully never will. Once sense prevails i wonder if you will be woman enough to take back your over emotional bile you have poured in my direction by simply stating the laws of the game.
I wonder. |
You are not simply stating the laws though are you. You are repeating (to a point of insanity) your interpretation of those laws. You are not a referee in the Premier League are you? So why do you believe that your interpretation (which in the course of ten minutes changed three time yesterday) is correct?
In exactly what universe did Fabianski's 'foul' (and I don't believe that was of itself actually clear cut) stop Sakho shooting towards an empty net. The ten seconds following the 'foul' showed clearly that was not the case (since he did carry on and shoot at an empty net).
Btw - you were also wrong earlier on your interpretation of what is asked to a TMO in rugby as well. You don't seem to be aware that in addition to asking the TMO to judge whether a specific offence has been committed, the referee is also able to ask the question 'is there any reason why I should not award the try' (for example) in which case any and every incident leading up to that try can be considered. So that's another sport you know nothing about.
And as I've said before, irrespective of the result of the appeal (which you were adamant yesterday would not happen, so that's one thing you're wrong about already), it won't change the fact that your attitude is a disgrace. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:19 - Dec 8 with 1351 views | AnotherJohn |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:55 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
I cant say it makes no difference any other way I'm afraid. The hand ball is irrelevant.
Dont be concerned that not everybody shares my view, its not my goal to get everybody to agree with me. I just hoped that there would be some sensible voices within the club, suggesting an appeal could do more harm than good, it seems there is more hope than sense out there. [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 13:55]
|
One last try... I agree that a prior offence probably makes no difference. However, a hand that takes the ball just inside the white line at the side of the penalty box about eight yards out (look at the MoTD 2 replay) means that, before any contact was made between Sakho and Fabs, there was never an easy chance to put the ball into an empty net. Several of us think this means that no 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' (in the jargon) was lost. The contact had no influence on where the ball went or the quality of the chance. From that perspective (not as a prior offence, but as a matter of basic physics) the handball cannot be ignored. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:23 - Dec 8 with 1340 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:19 - Dec 8 by AnotherJohn |
One last try... I agree that a prior offence probably makes no difference. However, a hand that takes the ball just inside the white line at the side of the penalty box about eight yards out (look at the MoTD 2 replay) means that, before any contact was made between Sakho and Fabs, there was never an easy chance to put the ball into an empty net. Several of us think this means that no 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' (in the jargon) was lost. The contact had no influence on where the ball went or the quality of the chance. From that perspective (not as a prior offence, but as a matter of basic physics) the handball cannot be ignored. |
The handball CAN and WILL be ignored...
By Parlay!  | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:25 - Dec 8 with 1336 views | union_jack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:16 - Dec 8 by londonlisa2001 |
You are not simply stating the laws though are you. You are repeating (to a point of insanity) your interpretation of those laws. You are not a referee in the Premier League are you? So why do you believe that your interpretation (which in the course of ten minutes changed three time yesterday) is correct?
In exactly what universe did Fabianski's 'foul' (and I don't believe that was of itself actually clear cut) stop Sakho shooting towards an empty net. The ten seconds following the 'foul' showed clearly that was not the case (since he did carry on and shoot at an empty net).
Btw - you were also wrong earlier on your interpretation of what is asked to a TMO in rugby as well. You don't seem to be aware that in addition to asking the TMO to judge whether a specific offence has been committed, the referee is also able to ask the question 'is there any reason why I should not award the try' (for example) in which case any and every incident leading up to that try can be considered. So that's another sport you know nothing about.
And as I've said before, irrespective of the result of the appeal (which you were adamant yesterday would not happen, so that's one thing you're wrong about already), it won't change the fact that your attitude is a disgrace. |
With you on almost everything Lisa. Parlay just likes the sound of his fingers on keyboard and I don't believe has the knowledge he thinks he has. GE may of course be right in the end but that will be down to luck not a thorough understanding if the laws.
See my post 5 minutes ago for my interpretation. My view is that if there was no infringement by Sakho - which of course there was- then the red was probably justified. But the infringement must be taken into account as everything should have stopped at that point which the appeal should confirm. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:25 - Dec 8 with 1334 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:16 - Dec 8 by londonlisa2001 |
You are not simply stating the laws though are you. You are repeating (to a point of insanity) your interpretation of those laws. You are not a referee in the Premier League are you? So why do you believe that your interpretation (which in the course of ten minutes changed three time yesterday) is correct?
In exactly what universe did Fabianski's 'foul' (and I don't believe that was of itself actually clear cut) stop Sakho shooting towards an empty net. The ten seconds following the 'foul' showed clearly that was not the case (since he did carry on and shoot at an empty net).
Btw - you were also wrong earlier on your interpretation of what is asked to a TMO in rugby as well. You don't seem to be aware that in addition to asking the TMO to judge whether a specific offence has been committed, the referee is also able to ask the question 'is there any reason why I should not award the try' (for example) in which case any and every incident leading up to that try can be considered. So that's another sport you know nothing about.
And as I've said before, irrespective of the result of the appeal (which you were adamant yesterday would not happen, so that's one thing you're wrong about already), it won't change the fact that your attitude is a disgrace. |
Are you now resorting yo lying Lisa? Is there no end to your ego stoking that you cannot stand the fact that after setting your stall out so early someone dare say you are wrong. You have no taken it well have you. My view NEVER changed, let alone 10 times. In the matchday thread immediately before the replays i assumed (like everyone else) that he had allowed an advantage and due to the difficulty of the chance brought it back. That didnt happen as we now now. Either option is perfectly acceptable, understand that before you go on id suggest.
What do you mean?! Its amazing you have mentioned insanity while asking why Sakho couldnt score AFTER the whistle. If thats the case lets all stay after fill time and lash some balls into the net. Once the ref blew THE PLAY WAS DEAD. the play was whistled dead due to Fabianski's foul. As a result of the play being dead Sakho had no chance to convert did he? No.
What are you talking about with regards to rugby? The referee can ask whatever question he wants depending on his interpretation of the situation, so thats another thing you have got spectacularly wrong. If he thinks it was a try he will say "any reason not to" if he doesnt he will ask "try "yes" or "no" . In this case the referee adjudged fabianski denied sakho a scoring opportunity. Try and use your brain now Lisa.
I was not adamant an appeal wouldn't happen, i was hopeful it wouldn't happen, its not due to the laws of the game that results in someone appealing so that is entirely unpredictable. So you are saying if i am correct then me stating the reasons for me being correct prior to it being official makes me disgraceful?
You do understand how crazy that makes you sound? Right? | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:27 - Dec 8 with 1326 views | 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. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:28 - Dec 8 with 1326 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 13:59 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
The ref is well within his rights to blow whenever he sees an offence. It is good practice to allow a few seconds of advantage but not a necessity. |
But is he within his rights to say a clear goal scoring opportunity was prevented when it isn't? | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:29 - Dec 8 with 1322 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:25 - Dec 8 by union_jack |
With you on almost everything Lisa. Parlay just likes the sound of his fingers on keyboard and I don't believe has the knowledge he thinks he has. GE may of course be right in the end but that will be down to luck not a thorough understanding if the laws.
See my post 5 minutes ago for my interpretation. My view is that if there was no infringement by Sakho - which of course there was- then the red was probably justified. But the infringement must be taken into account as everything should have stopped at that point which the appeal should confirm. |
So if im wrong then i just like the sound of my keyboard and if im right then im lucky and still dont understand? Do you see the backtracking and inequality there.
I have said im so convinced by the obvious nature of the case i will happily hold my hands up on here should it be over turned. Admirable dont you think?
I have conducted my stance extremely well and very respectfully backed up with fact and the laws of the game. The response has been shambolic, irrelevant in large areas and down right personal and offensive.
On top of that the defence now says "even if you are right all along you are still wrong for stating them".
Id say that gives me the moral high-ground as well as the actual high ground. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:33 - Dec 8 with 1315 views | union_jack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:25 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Are you now resorting yo lying Lisa? Is there no end to your ego stoking that you cannot stand the fact that after setting your stall out so early someone dare say you are wrong. You have no taken it well have you. My view NEVER changed, let alone 10 times. In the matchday thread immediately before the replays i assumed (like everyone else) that he had allowed an advantage and due to the difficulty of the chance brought it back. That didnt happen as we now now. Either option is perfectly acceptable, understand that before you go on id suggest.
What do you mean?! Its amazing you have mentioned insanity while asking why Sakho couldnt score AFTER the whistle. If thats the case lets all stay after fill time and lash some balls into the net. Once the ref blew THE PLAY WAS DEAD. the play was whistled dead due to Fabianski's foul. As a result of the play being dead Sakho had no chance to convert did he? No.
What are you talking about with regards to rugby? The referee can ask whatever question he wants depending on his interpretation of the situation, so thats another thing you have got spectacularly wrong. If he thinks it was a try he will say "any reason not to" if he doesnt he will ask "try "yes" or "no" . In this case the referee adjudged fabianski denied sakho a scoring opportunity. Try and use your brain now Lisa.
I was not adamant an appeal wouldn't happen, i was hopeful it wouldn't happen, its not due to the laws of the game that results in someone appealing so that is entirely unpredictable. So you are saying if i am correct then me stating the reasons for me being correct prior to it being official makes me disgraceful?
You do understand how crazy that makes you sound? Right? |
Simple question: why on earth do you hope we don't appeal. Given the circumstances it could never be seen as frivolous so what have we got to lose? You do come across as being a bit if a ...........!! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.