| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays 15:13 - Dec 7 with 35710 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 Hope we have the card rescinded.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 19:15 - Dec 7 with 1909 views | Darran |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:11 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
I don't think we will appeal, i think they will be advised tonight and make the decision not to tomorrow.
If we do appeal which i for one really hope we dont, then it goes without saying i hope we win and will be the first to come on here happily eating my humble pie.
Your lino is wrong. The handball will not come into it. It cannot be reviewed as it is a separate foul. Any review will be based on the events after the handball which is the foul on Sakho and whether the foul warranted a red. Of which it certainly did, certainly enough to go with the decision of the ref who made it.
Will the other side who have been far more offensive and insulting do the same? [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 19:13]
|
The backtracking has started.
Beep beep beep beep. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:21 - Dec 7 with 1878 views | Molliemick |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:16 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
You are explaining something ive never hinted at not comprehending.
A fantastic referee decision is different from a fantastic refereeing performance. By saying it was a fantastic decision also irradiates the handball as they are separate incidents and indeed separate fouls.
Yes i know you said betting was childish. We have established this. I responded that betting is strictly an adult activity and has been used to separate people genuine opinions from mere soundbites for centuries - you then decided to not do it and label it childish when in fact you were the one who initially said anyone who disagreed with your obviously sketchy opinion is anti swansea with an agenda.
You are more than welcome to call me in to bet for everything i am worth if you want and i can assure you i wont back down such is the obviousness of the situation. Quite a difference considering this is the only thing ive offered a bet on such was the conviction of your accusations.
Simple rule, if you dont want to be called out then dont be so silly and insulting. If me calling you out and watching you try and worm out of a bet is me needing to grow up then i will be needing to grow up for a very long time.
I notice you are still ignoring requests for an apology once it is proven you are emphatically wrong... Wonder why. |
Shouldn't irradiates read eradicates? Just asking ..... | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:22 - Dec 7 with 1865 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:15 - Dec 7 by Darran |
The backtracking has started.
Beep beep beep beep. |
Where have i backtracked?
By saying i will be humble enough to admit im wrong surely shows my absolute confidence in my convictions to stand by my words?
By saying "if im right im right" and "if you are right then you are a rubbish fan as a result" is the backtracking surely?
Odd opinion that one Dazza, i can only assume you have not thought that one through. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:22 - Dec 7 with 1860 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:21 - Dec 7 by Molliemick |
Shouldn't irradiates read eradicates? Just asking ..... |
What do you reckon? | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:26 - Dec 7 with 1838 views | ScoobyWho |
Just seen the incident, west ham player handballs it to gain an advantage. Had he not done that they wouldn't have got the penalty. Rescinded every day of the week. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:26 - Dec 7 with 1832 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:06 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Nothing to be desperate for lisa. We are entering into discourse based on you (opening) with an opinion and thus stating anyone else must have an agenda. Such an opinion was challenged by me heavily weighted by the laws of the game and your retorts have been:-
"Im a better fan than you"
"You have an agenda" (of which you still have not clarified)
"You are a crap fan"
"You are childish"
"You are a neanderthal " (?) etc etc
To top it all off you fall in a bucket of irony by claiming i am then being patronising for asking you to be a good girl and stop your pointless attacks.
I have offered to apologise if im wrong, you have said if im correct then im a crap fan - work that out.
Maybe you need to match the way i have approached this in a very inoffensive and grown up manner as you have dug yourself so deep you are closer to Australia than I am. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 19:07]
|
not at all.
I have stated very clearly that I (a) believe the red card to be incorrect (b) I believe we will appeal and (c) that I believe we will win an appeal.
The reason that I believe your opinion to be so wrong is this. In the face of ever increasing evidence to the contrary, you appear to be searching (increasingly desperately) for reasons to uphold the Fabianski red card. In the match day thread you called it a 'perfect refereeing decision' (actually because you thought he had played advantage which he had not) then you said that the handball had happened due to a Fabianski foul (which you can now see it did not). You then, again, stated on this thread that it was a 'fantastic refereeing decision'.
Because I then stated that anyone with such a view (not of the decision itself necessarily) but of the praise of that decision (which at best was a 50:50) as being 'perfect' or 'fantastic' is an incredibly weird position for someone to take if they are a Swans supporter, you then offered to 'bet me'. You then spent 4 or 5 posts reckoning I was 'backtracking' or 'worming my way out of a bet' simply because I pointed out that betting on a message board was pathetic and childish.
I have subsequently said that I believe that anyone hoping that the Swans fail in an appeal (which you must do if you are so adamant about betting on it, unless you are now saying that you hope you lose all your bets?) is, in my view, a poor fan and that I have never hoped for a decision against the Swans in my life.
And you know damn well that you were being (or trying to be) patronising.
Now let me explain why on the handball you are incorrect.
You are right to say that a handball incident on its own is not able to be reviewed (eg. the Henry goal). However, in a dismissal, the events surrounding the dismissal are reviewed in full and the handball will in this case be seen as a part of the dismissal rather than an incident on its own. The example given earlier about a push in the back causing a player to fall into another player and bring them down is a good one.
Your reluctance to listen to views on this, even from professional referees, is so extreme as to bear out my view that you have an agenda here. You are desperate to be proved right, even at the expense of the team you purport to support.
Even if the appeal was denied, it wouldn't change the fact that you want us to fail in an appeal - it is that, rather than a view on whether it is a red card or not, that makes you a crap fan. If you said, I think it was red, but I hope that we win an appeal, rather than 'it's correct, it's perfect, an appeal is frivolous' offering to bet anyone that disagrees etc etc, then that would be different, but you didn't. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:28 - Dec 7 with 1817 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:26 - Dec 7 by ScoobyWho |
Just seen the incident, west ham player handballs it to gain an advantage. Had he not done that they wouldn't have got the penalty. Rescinded every day of the week. |
You cannot review a "not given handball" (repeat #1001).
The review will decide on two things:-
1) did Fabianski foul Sakho
2) did that foul warrant a red card
Simple as that. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:29 - Dec 7 with 1813 views | skippyjack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:22 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Where have i backtracked?
By saying i will be humble enough to admit im wrong surely shows my absolute confidence in my convictions to stand by my words?
By saying "if im right im right" and "if you are right then you are a rubbish fan as a result" is the backtracking surely?
Odd opinion that one Dazza, i can only assume you have not thought that one through. |
Nah in all fairness to Parlay.. it's still not 100% it'll be overturned.. it's still 50/50 if it will.. I think Parlay isn't as confident as he was.. considering the hand ball is actually 'relevant' in our case.. but it still isn't 100% it'll be overturned.. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:32 - Dec 7 with 1789 views | sully49 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:42 - Dec 7 by scottishjack |
I might be wrong here, but if it is a red card incident, shouldn't the ref stop lay immediately? You can play advantage on a yellow card, but not a red? Any refs on here? |
Having not seeing the incident this is what the laws of the game say. Advantage should not be applied involving SERIOUS foul play UNLESS there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal.
If the player went on to score a goal there must not be a red card.
Denying a goal scoring opportunity the referee should consider the likelihood of the player keeping or regaining control of the ball, the direction and the distance between the offence and the goal.
 |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:33 - Dec 7 with 1786 views | C_jack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:28 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
You cannot review a "not given handball" (repeat #1001).
The review will decide on two things:-
1) did Fabianski foul Sakho
2) did that foul warrant a red card
Simple as that. |
How do you know that then?
or are you just making shite up, again. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:47 - Dec 7 with 1703 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:26 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
not at all.
I have stated very clearly that I (a) believe the red card to be incorrect (b) I believe we will appeal and (c) that I believe we will win an appeal.
The reason that I believe your opinion to be so wrong is this. In the face of ever increasing evidence to the contrary, you appear to be searching (increasingly desperately) for reasons to uphold the Fabianski red card. In the match day thread you called it a 'perfect refereeing decision' (actually because you thought he had played advantage which he had not) then you said that the handball had happened due to a Fabianski foul (which you can now see it did not). You then, again, stated on this thread that it was a 'fantastic refereeing decision'.
Because I then stated that anyone with such a view (not of the decision itself necessarily) but of the praise of that decision (which at best was a 50:50) as being 'perfect' or 'fantastic' is an incredibly weird position for someone to take if they are a Swans supporter, you then offered to 'bet me'. You then spent 4 or 5 posts reckoning I was 'backtracking' or 'worming my way out of a bet' simply because I pointed out that betting on a message board was pathetic and childish.
I have subsequently said that I believe that anyone hoping that the Swans fail in an appeal (which you must do if you are so adamant about betting on it, unless you are now saying that you hope you lose all your bets?) is, in my view, a poor fan and that I have never hoped for a decision against the Swans in my life.
And you know damn well that you were being (or trying to be) patronising.
Now let me explain why on the handball you are incorrect.
You are right to say that a handball incident on its own is not able to be reviewed (eg. the Henry goal). However, in a dismissal, the events surrounding the dismissal are reviewed in full and the handball will in this case be seen as a part of the dismissal rather than an incident on its own. The example given earlier about a push in the back causing a player to fall into another player and bring them down is a good one.
Your reluctance to listen to views on this, even from professional referees, is so extreme as to bear out my view that you have an agenda here. You are desperate to be proved right, even at the expense of the team you purport to support.
Even if the appeal was denied, it wouldn't change the fact that you want us to fail in an appeal - it is that, rather than a view on whether it is a red card or not, that makes you a crap fan. If you said, I think it was red, but I hope that we win an appeal, rather than 'it's correct, it's perfect, an appeal is frivolous' offering to bet anyone that disagrees etc etc, then that would be different, but you didn't. |
So, where to start with this beauty...
1) yes, we know what your points are. What you also stated of course (and conveniently left out) is that anyone who disagreed has an ulterior motive (of which you never committed to). Not to mention become increasingly vile as your desperation grew,
2) by ever increasing evidence do you mean lots of people being misinformed about the appeals decision panel being able to take missed hand balls into consideration? If that is your ever increasing evidence then its as weak as your facade.
3) how on gods earth does me initially thinking in real time that he had waved advantage have ANY impact at all on the fact he actually blew for the foul at the time? He was well within his rights to wave advantage and bring it back and send off the keeper should the advantage not result in the goal immediately after. Either decision is perfect. Why? Because it is to the letter of the law.
4) in what way is the praise of a refereeing decision a weird position to be in, would me praising Andy Carrolls match winning performance also make me less of a fan? Because ive done that too, he was excellent. Your opinion seemed confused and continued to be so, which is regularly hidden by hostility, supposition and insults. You seem incredibly unsure of what your stance is let aline whether that stance is correct. My stance has not wavered and still has t and all my offers still stand as always.
5) so anybody confident enough we will lose an appeal that he would bet on it must want us to lose the appeal? That is stupidity at its finest and based on absolutely nothing other than a panicked stance and as a result willing to provoke a reaction. I have told you that i believe categorically we will not win an appeal. We lose money if we fail an appeal and they can as a result extend the ban - THIS is the reason i do not want to appeal not a stupid slanging match with someone who cannot debate without insulting and refuses to commit to admitting you were indeed incorrect should the occasion arise.
6) i was not being patronising, i was replying in the manner (but a far less offensive one) as the type you were aiming at me. Its a bit like a thief stealing thousands of pounds off you and calling you rotten for slapping them on the wrist. Sorry love but if you want to be spoken to with complete respect then you must give it first. I think ive been quite reserved and polite given your awful contribution.
7) absolutely incorrect, your understanding of the process is simply incorrect. The panel are there for obvious mistakes such as mistaken identity, wrongful dismissal with a direct mistake from the referee. A referee is allowed to miss a handball, it is not a mistake not see something, the angle blocked the view. The incident will be reviewed solely on the Fabiański foul on Sakho as ive explained many many times.
8) im listening to all views Lisa, not agreeing with them and not listening to them are vastly differing things. I could say you are not listening to me, or indeed the professional referee that made the decision.
9) where is this fact that i want us to lose the appeal then? I can point to me saying i hope we win it, can you do the opposite? It is a cheap way to not lose face and a very old forum trick for someone not confident in their opinion. I have bet on Reading to beat us in the Play off final, did the same for Barnsley too - are you telling me i wanted us to lose? Dont be so pathetic.
10) So, are you going to apologise once you are proven incorrect and me correct then? You have still dodged this one.
10 points, do your best. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:47 - Dec 7 with 1699 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:33 - Dec 7 by C_jack |
How do you know that then?
or are you just making shite up, again. |
Because i understand the process.
I accept your apology in advance also. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:52 - Dec 7 with 1689 views | C_jack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:47 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Because i understand the process.
I accept your apology in advance also. |
And an ex premier league referee doesn't?
How do you understand the process then? been the man in the middle for one or two games in the A-league have you? | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:54 - Dec 7 with 1676 views | ItchySphincter |
That article whilst not being entirely accurate sums it up pretty well. The ref apparently didn't pull back play following the miss - he never played advantage in the first place and if you discard the unseen handball I still can't see how it was a red, even though I understand under those circumstances why the foul was given. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:54 - Dec 7 with 1673 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:47 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
So, where to start with this beauty...
1) yes, we know what your points are. What you also stated of course (and conveniently left out) is that anyone who disagreed has an ulterior motive (of which you never committed to). Not to mention become increasingly vile as your desperation grew,
2) by ever increasing evidence do you mean lots of people being misinformed about the appeals decision panel being able to take missed hand balls into consideration? If that is your ever increasing evidence then its as weak as your facade.
3) how on gods earth does me initially thinking in real time that he had waved advantage have ANY impact at all on the fact he actually blew for the foul at the time? He was well within his rights to wave advantage and bring it back and send off the keeper should the advantage not result in the goal immediately after. Either decision is perfect. Why? Because it is to the letter of the law.
4) in what way is the praise of a refereeing decision a weird position to be in, would me praising Andy Carrolls match winning performance also make me less of a fan? Because ive done that too, he was excellent. Your opinion seemed confused and continued to be so, which is regularly hidden by hostility, supposition and insults. You seem incredibly unsure of what your stance is let aline whether that stance is correct. My stance has not wavered and still has t and all my offers still stand as always.
5) so anybody confident enough we will lose an appeal that he would bet on it must want us to lose the appeal? That is stupidity at its finest and based on absolutely nothing other than a panicked stance and as a result willing to provoke a reaction. I have told you that i believe categorically we will not win an appeal. We lose money if we fail an appeal and they can as a result extend the ban - THIS is the reason i do not want to appeal not a stupid slanging match with someone who cannot debate without insulting and refuses to commit to admitting you were indeed incorrect should the occasion arise.
6) i was not being patronising, i was replying in the manner (but a far less offensive one) as the type you were aiming at me. Its a bit like a thief stealing thousands of pounds off you and calling you rotten for slapping them on the wrist. Sorry love but if you want to be spoken to with complete respect then you must give it first. I think ive been quite reserved and polite given your awful contribution.
7) absolutely incorrect, your understanding of the process is simply incorrect. The panel are there for obvious mistakes such as mistaken identity, wrongful dismissal with a direct mistake from the referee. A referee is allowed to miss a handball, it is not a mistake not see something, the angle blocked the view. The incident will be reviewed solely on the Fabiański foul on Sakho as ive explained many many times.
8) im listening to all views Lisa, not agreeing with them and not listening to them are vastly differing things. I could say you are not listening to me, or indeed the professional referee that made the decision.
9) where is this fact that i want us to lose the appeal then? I can point to me saying i hope we win it, can you do the opposite? It is a cheap way to not lose face and a very old forum trick for someone not confident in their opinion. I have bet on Reading to beat us in the Play off final, did the same for Barnsley too - are you telling me i wanted us to lose? Dont be so pathetic.
10) So, are you going to apologise once you are proven incorrect and me correct then? You have still dodged this one.
10 points, do your best. |
No - I'm not going to respond.
I've stated my opinion, very clearly, I am not confused by it, neither have I backtracked or wavered from it and I'm bored with your nonsense.
Everyone is wrong apart from you aren't they? All media, referees etc etc. But as I said, it's not being wrong so much as you do desperately wanting to be right, even at the expense of the team you supposedly support.
And good for you in betting on Reading in the play off - must have been exciting for you for a while in the second half hey? You must have thought there was a chance of you winning, until that block by Monk.
What a fan. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:58 - Dec 7 with 1653 views | skippyjack |
Actually No3 is wrong.. he'd have to give a yellow not a red.. because he didn't deny a goalscoring opportunity.. if advantage was played.. which it wasn't. | |
| 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 19:59 - Dec 7 with 1644 views | ItchySphincter |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:58 - Dec 7 by skippyjack |
Actually No3 is wrong.. he'd have to give a yellow not a red.. because he didn't deny a goalscoring opportunity.. if advantage was played.. which it wasn't. |
Which has kind of been what I have been thinking all afternoon. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 20:00 - Dec 7 with 1630 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:54 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
No - I'm not going to respond.
I've stated my opinion, very clearly, I am not confused by it, neither have I backtracked or wavered from it and I'm bored with your nonsense.
Everyone is wrong apart from you aren't they? All media, referees etc etc. But as I said, it's not being wrong so much as you do desperately wanting to be right, even at the expense of the team you supposedly support.
And good for you in betting on Reading in the play off - must have been exciting for you for a while in the second half hey? You must have thought there was a chance of you winning, until that block by Monk.
What a fan. |
Your repeated goads paint a thousand words. Your weak (but predicted) waving of the white flag still not committing to an apology if proved wrong also paints a final word.
And yes i was dying for Reading to beat us in the play-offs, i am dying for Fabianski to get banned, not just banned but an extra one added on, i was loving the fact we lost today too. (Does this help you feel better about things and your flagging opinion?).
Its bery odd you take one stance and never then apply that to your self. Yes of course i think those that oppose my opinion are wrong, otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion would it clever clogs? I like the fact you think i am the only one who holds this opinion by your deduction i think "everyone else" is wrong. By your definition when im correct i must be the most knowledgeable football brain on the planet right?
But no you prefer attacking fellow jacks because they disagree with your opinion that is based on hope and little fact,
What a fan. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 20:03 - Dec 7 with 1610 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:58 - Dec 7 by skippyjack |
Actually No3 is wrong.. he'd have to give a yellow not a red.. because he didn't deny a goalscoring opportunity.. if advantage was played.. which it wasn't. |
No, the goalscoring opportunity was denied as soon as he impeded him.
His goalscoring opportunity became less of an opportunity DUE to the foul which is why it can be brought back and the red given.
He had a secondary opportunity which is there purely to keep the game at 11v11. There was in fact an exact parallel with Caulkers (i think) sending off for cardiff last year. He committed a professional foul, the ref played advantage and the striker missed, it was brought back and e red was given.
Correct then and was widely praised, by myself also. Same applies here. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 20:06]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 20:04 - Dec 7 with 1609 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:52 - Dec 7 by C_jack |
And an ex premier league referee doesn't?
How do you understand the process then? been the man in the middle for one or two games in the A-league have you? |
He knows f*cking everything mate , don't even bother! |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 20:06 - Dec 7 with 1597 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 19:54 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
No - I'm not going to respond.
I've stated my opinion, very clearly, I am not confused by it, neither have I backtracked or wavered from it and I'm bored with your nonsense.
Everyone is wrong apart from you aren't they? All media, referees etc etc. But as I said, it's not being wrong so much as you do desperately wanting to be right, even at the expense of the team you supposedly support.
And good for you in betting on Reading in the play off - must have been exciting for you for a while in the second half hey? You must have thought there was a chance of you winning, until that block by Monk.
What a fan. |
The man clearly has mental health issues. Aspergers I'm guessing. He could argue with a hard boiled egg | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 20:06 - Dec 7 with 1594 views | perchrockjack |
Parlay.
That's some response.
Didn't read it all as I have a short attention sp.
Good posting .
No one poster is better than another | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 20:08 - Dec 7 with 1578 views | Parlay |
Oh brynnies back with his mental health nonsense. So strange considering im supposed to be on ignore after making him look a pleb - i told everyone i wasn't really on ignore yesterday and was used to spare his blushes as he can ignore my questions. Seems i was right. Shock horror. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 20:08 - Dec 7 with 1576 views | Darran |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 20:04 - Dec 7 by Brynmill_Jack |
He knows f*cking everything mate , don't even bother! |
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
