| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays 15:13 - Dec 7 with 36316 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 Hope we have the card rescinded.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 14:35 - Dec 8 with 1354 views | skippyjack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:33 - Dec 8 by union_jack |
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 ...........!! |
(Incoming post.. I don't want an appeal because it 'could' result in an 'extended' 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 14:36 - Dec 8 with 1350 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:33 - Dec 8 by union_jack |
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 ...........!! |
I have already answered that.
1) it costs to appeal, if you fail you dont get it back. I have no doubt we will fail. I would rather see costs given back to the fans than thrown away while ticket prices remain so high for example.
2) if deemed frivolous, i havent seen the wording of the appeal so cant comment, then the ban can increase.
This also wont look to good on us in terms if credibility after recent public events. It seems like we are now so used to crying foul justifiably that we now are appealing obviously correct calls. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:39 - Dec 8 with 1331 views | skippyjack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:36 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
I have already answered that.
1) it costs to appeal, if you fail you dont get it back. I have no doubt we will fail. I would rather see costs given back to the fans than thrown away while ticket prices remain so high for example.
2) if deemed frivolous, i havent seen the wording of the appeal so cant comment, then the ban can increase.
This also wont look to good on us in terms if credibility after recent public events. It seems like we are now so used to crying foul justifiably that we now are appealing obviously correct calls. |
 | |
| 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 14:39 - Dec 8 with 1324 views | union_jack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:36 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
I have already answered that.
1) it costs to appeal, if you fail you dont get it back. I have no doubt we will fail. I would rather see costs given back to the fans than thrown away while ticket prices remain so high for example.
2) if deemed frivolous, i havent seen the wording of the appeal so cant comment, then the ban can increase.
This also wont look to good on us in terms if credibility after recent public events. It seems like we are now so used to crying foul justifiably that we now are appealing obviously correct calls. |
Here you go again - "obvious correct calls". Nothing bloody obvious about it at all hence why there are split opinions on this.
Try and be less dogmatic fcol!! |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:40 - Dec 8 with 1320 views | Musical_Swan |
| 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? |
Let me just double check this, your saying in your second paragraph that Fab made the foul causing the ref to whistle and that brought the game to a stop, therefore denying Sakho a goal scoring opportunity. Red card Fabianski!
I look forward to seeing plenty more red cards for innocuous fouls, 'just in case they could've had a shot after like.' |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:48 - Dec 8 with 1300 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:40 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
Let me just double check this, your saying in your second paragraph that Fab made the foul causing the ref to whistle and that brought the game to a stop, therefore denying Sakho a goal scoring opportunity. Red card Fabianski!
I look forward to seeing plenty more red cards for innocuous fouls, 'just in case they could've had a shot after like.' |
Nothing to do with "could have shot after like".
The foul was commited by the goalkeeper 25 yards from goal, it was an empty net. Be sensible now, innocuous it was certainly not. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:54 - Dec 8 with 1278 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 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? |
no, no lying.
Yesterday you were adamant that the ref played advantage (perfect decision). Oops - no he didn't.
Then you were adamant that the handball occurred as a result of Fabianski contact. Oops - no, it was the other way round.
Then you have been adamant that the handball cannot be considered. Oops - Halsey said that there is a precedent for it being considered (and actually gave details of the game and the incident where that precedent occurred).
Now you are saying that Fabianski definitely stopped Sakho from having a clear goal scoring opportunity into an empty net. Well that's not the case either is it. What happened afterwards showed that any offence didn't stop the opportunity, it was the referee (who lest we forget, got this decision 'spot on', 'perfect refereeing' etc etc) who blew up too early that stopped it - the offence itself did not.
Now you are saying that you didn't say we wouldn't appeal. Let me make it easy for you to see what you said on this thread:
The foul that will be reviewed if appealed (we wont appeal) will be fabianskis on Sakho regardless of handball. And that was a foul and he did stop a clear goalscoring opportunity.
So that's you just being hopeful is it? You also stated on a number of occasions subsequent to this that we would 'in the cold light of day' realise we had nothing to appeal about and wouldn't do it.
I am gobsmacked that the club spoke to its advisors etc (quite a lot of whom are presumably quite well versed in the rules of the game) about whether it was worth while making an appeal and yet didn't speak to you.
The only one who is getting rattled and not taking it well is you. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:56 - Dec 8 with 1273 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:39 - Dec 8 by union_jack |
Here you go again - "obvious correct calls". Nothing bloody obvious about it at all hence why there are split opinions on this.
Try and be less dogmatic fcol!! |
It was an empty net, the foul stopped play, the stopped play resulted in sakho not having a run at an empty net. You dont get more obvious than that.
The reasons it is being debated are reasons that cannot be taken into consideration.
Dogmatic? Maybe and justifiably so.
Foolish? Absolutely not. [Post edited 8 Dec 2014 14:56]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:56 - Dec 8 with 1272 views | lidojack |
Purely out of curiosity can someone answer this for me:
A striker is running through on goal and the last defender comes in and slides in to tackle him. The defender doesn't get any of the ball but the striker jumps over him so there's no contact. Because of the striker having to jump over the defender he loses control of the ball and can only get a weak shot off.
Would the defender be red carded for denying an obvious scoring opportunity? |  | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:57 - Dec 8 with 1264 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:56 - Dec 8 by lidojack |
Purely out of curiosity can someone answer this for me:
A striker is running through on goal and the last defender comes in and slides in to tackle him. The defender doesn't get any of the ball but the striker jumps over him so there's no contact. Because of the striker having to jump over the defender he loses control of the ball and can only get a weak shot off.
Would the defender be red carded for denying an obvious scoring opportunity? |
No, attempting a sliding tackle is not a foul. Only if contact is made would the ref then decide on an appropriate course of acrion. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:58 - Dec 8 with 1262 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:48 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Nothing to do with "could have shot after like".
The foul was commited by the goalkeeper 25 yards from goal, it was an empty net. Be sensible now, innocuous it was certainly not. |
Yes, and despite Fabianski's challenge he still went on and had a clear opportunity at goal, hitting the post, regardless of whether the Ref blew or not. So 'denying a goal scoring opportunity'? Hmmm.
Still, guess it's down to interpretation though... | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:59 - Dec 8 with 1253 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:58 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
Yes, and despite Fabianski's challenge he still went on and had a clear opportunity at goal, hitting the post, regardless of whether the Ref blew or not. So 'denying a goal scoring opportunity'? Hmmm.
Still, guess it's down to interpretation though... |
No he didn't. There is no chance if the play is dead.
The play was ruled dead because of fabianskis foul, and due to that sakho was denied a clear goalscoring chance. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:01 - Dec 8 with 1246 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:59 - Dec 8 by union_jack |
I didn't call you foolish, it is an abbreviation for 'for crying out loud'
However........!  |
I dont do lol's and lmfao's and certainly dont do fcol's.
Forgive me. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:02 - Dec 8 with 1238 views | lidojack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:57 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
No, attempting a sliding tackle is not a foul. Only if contact is made would the ref then decide on an appropriate course of acrion. |
But referees can give fouls and even yellow cards for intentional tackles. And in this scenario the defender has made it infinitely harder by sliding in. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:03 - Dec 8 with 1233 views | union_jack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:01 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
I dont do lol's and lmfao's and certainly dont do fcol's.
Forgive me. |
You've got to get down with the kids Parlay, NQAT!!!
Took me some time to capitulate I must say! | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:03 - Dec 8 with 1230 views | perchrockjack |
anyway, PARLAY ,where were you when I was getting pelters as regards my comments about yesterday. Some chum you turned out to be     | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:04 - Dec 8 with 1226 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:02 - Dec 8 by lidojack |
But referees can give fouls and even yellow cards for intentional tackles. And in this scenario the defender has made it infinitely harder by sliding in. |
Ive never seen someone yellow carded for attempting and missing a slide tackle. If you are talking dangerous play, two footed or head height then maybe. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:06 - Dec 8 with 1216 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:03 - Dec 8 by perchrockjack |
anyway, PARLAY ,where were you when I was getting pelters as regards my comments about yesterday. Some chum you turned out to be |
Not read it. What did you say?
Unfortunately my reputation on here is down to me being completely honest in my views holding no bias what so ever whether that be to the club or fellow posters. Its something i stand for on here.
Will happily back you up should i agree though  | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:09 - Dec 8 with 1204 views | Musical_Swan |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 14:59 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
No he didn't. There is no chance if the play is dead.
The play was ruled dead because of fabianskis foul, and due to that sakho was denied a clear goalscoring chance. |
The play was dead because the referee chose not to play advantage, if he had Sakho would of gone on to get his clear opportuntiy at goal, doesn't say anything in the rules about him having to score it though.
The fact is, and it is fact because there is video evidence, that Sakho went on to have a shot at goal, therefore nullyfying any argument that this was prevented by Fabianski and not Foy. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:09 - Dec 8 with 1184 views | lidojack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:04 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
Ive never seen someone yellow carded for attempting and missing a slide tackle. If you are talking dangerous play, two footed or head height then maybe. |
Law 12
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:11 - Dec 8 with 1179 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:09 - Dec 8 by lidojack |
Law 12
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent |
You said attempted a sliding tackle not attempting to kick or trip an opponent. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:12 - Dec 8 with 1173 views | perchrockjack |
I was commenting on my perception of our fans (generally ) on here when Williams is held to be a bottler which to me is disgusting.
HOWEVER ,being perch, it transends into age, how long I been living away, how many games I see live and of course my mental capacity- which is fine. I can see over sized egos from 200 miles away.
God help anyone livin 12000 miles away,its bad enough being 177 ,as it would seem we re proper fans to comment.
We re doing fine, yesterday was bad, it was the same players who ve done fine for us so to see them hammered as bottlers kinda riled me.
yep, its internet innit | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:13 - Dec 8 with 1173 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:09 - Dec 8 by Musical_Swan |
The play was dead because the referee chose not to play advantage, if he had Sakho would of gone on to get his clear opportuntiy at goal, doesn't say anything in the rules about him having to score it though.
The fact is, and it is fact because there is video evidence, that Sakho went on to have a shot at goal, therefore nullyfying any argument that this was prevented by Fabianski and not Foy. |
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. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:17 - Dec 8 with 1158 views | lidojack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:11 - Dec 8 by Parlay |
You said attempted a sliding tackle not attempting to kick or trip an opponent. |
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? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
