| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays 15:13 - Dec 7 with 36303 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 Hope we have the card rescinded.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 17:31 - Dec 7 with 1700 views | ItchySphincter |
Been away Newp? |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:31 - Dec 7 with 1700 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:29 - Dec 7 by Drizzy |
The frustration arises from the fact that Sakho got away with the handball. To be fair it was nearly impossible to spot in real time.
After the handball (which is now irrelevant as the referee hasn't given a foul for it) the act of sending Fabianski off is entirely justified. It was a clear obstruction, the fact that he fell on his arse after collision doesn't matter. Of course he is entitled to charge out to close down the angle and/or attempt to win the ball but he did neither. The silly push by Ash did make it seem worse but viewing that in real time it's quite an obvious decision.
It was unfortunate and probably killed our chances of getting back in the game but the fact remains we were beaten by the better side on the day. West Ham and Allardyce have our number and we've got to get better at coping with physical hard-working sides. We've shown signs of progress (in the form of a fantastic goal that sliced them apart) from last season's horror show in the same fixture but we're still sloppy at defending set pieces which cost us today.
On to the next game. |
Spot.
On. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:31 - Dec 7 with 1698 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 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. |
really? You said - What is your point now, do you even know yourself? I was explaining it clearly in order to be helpful.
And I didn't say that betting was childish - I said that saying to someone who you disagree with 'I'll bet you' is childish - it is. And I haven't tried to worm out of a bet have I ? The only one trying to bet with all and sundry is you.
And I also didn't call anyone anti Swansea. i pointed out the ridiculous situation that we had a biased Sky team saying a decision was incorrect and 'so called Swans fans' falling over themselves to justify it. It's genuinely pathetic but it's obviously touched a nerve with you hasn't it.
I'll tell you what is even more laughable. You will now be hoping against hope that (a) we don't appeal and (b) if we do we'll lose. Have a think about that for a short while you fantastic fan you. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:36 - Dec 7 with 1672 views | Drizzy |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:31 - Dec 7 by ItchySphincter |
Been away Newp? |
University, sunsh. Can't find much time for PS in between work and getting f*cked.  |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:36 - Dec 7 with 1660 views | Dyfnant |
How many games does he miss as it stands? |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:39 - Dec 7 with 1637 views | skippyjack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:36 - Dec 7 by Drizzy |
University, sunsh. Can't find much time for PS in between work and getting f*cked. |
Shame you won't be getting any further in your studies. |  |
| 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 17:40 - Dec 7 with 1630 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:36 - Dec 7 by Dyfnant |
How many games does he miss as it stands? |
one I believe - think 3 is for violent or dangerous play but could be wrong. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:42 - Dec 7 with 1623 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:31 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
really? You said - What is your point now, do you even know yourself? I was explaining it clearly in order to be helpful.
And I didn't say that betting was childish - I said that saying to someone who you disagree with 'I'll bet you' is childish - it is. And I haven't tried to worm out of a bet have I ? The only one trying to bet with all and sundry is you.
And I also didn't call anyone anti Swansea. i pointed out the ridiculous situation that we had a biased Sky team saying a decision was incorrect and 'so called Swans fans' falling over themselves to justify it. It's genuinely pathetic but it's obviously touched a nerve with you hasn't it.
I'll tell you what is even more laughable. You will now be hoping against hope that (a) we don't appeal and (b) if we do we'll lose. Have a think about that for a short while you fantastic fan you. |
We went from discussing an overturning of the red card to suddenly talking about the handball - which as i explained was irrelevant to our debate. At that juncture it seemed you weren't entirely sure the path you wanted to continue down.
So what do you think betting is then Lisa? How would i ever bet with you if nobody asked? Im afraid you argument is letting you down on all fronts. Im not trying to bet with all and sundry, you were very forthright to the point you said anyone who disagreed had an agenda. I called you out in the fact that if you genuinely felt that way then we can have a bet assuming that is something most people 100% sure of something may want to do. You decided against it.
Absolutely it has touched a nerve, you said I had an agenda because i stated the obvious nature of the situation. Just as me asking you to actually put your money where your mouth has has touched a considerably big nerve with you. The difference is im completely willing to face the consequences of what im saying where as you wont even commit to an apology. Speaks volumes.
What a nonsense contribution from start to finish from yourself. You have just said that i have an agenda to agree with the obvious correct call and as a result am now not a fan because i will be hoping to be right? Jesus christ Lisa talk about "my opinion or no opinion". And all this because Sky pundits paid to discuss any decision make it a talking point?
You have said if I'm right then im not a fan (??) and if I'm wrong then I've got an agenda. Spot the nonsense in your opinion. I absolutely admit i don't want us to appeal. I amazed you want us to which will reflect badly on us just to prove your awful point - you super fan you. Have a think about that.
So for the 5th time, will you apologise for you utterly despicable Op when you are emphatically proved wrong?
Stop wriggling. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 17:51]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:45 - Dec 7 with 1605 views | Dyfnant |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:40 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
one I believe - think 3 is for violent or dangerous play but could be wrong. |
That's what I thought & if correct I don't think it's worth bothering with an appeal | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:47 - Dec 7 with 1588 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:45 - Dec 7 by Dyfnant |
That's what I thought & if correct I don't think it's worth bothering with an appeal |
Wonder what agenda Lisa is accusing you of now you have announced you hold that quite correct opinion. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:01 - Dec 7 with 1537 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:42 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
We went from discussing an overturning of the red card to suddenly talking about the handball - which as i explained was irrelevant to our debate. At that juncture it seemed you weren't entirely sure the path you wanted to continue down.
So what do you think betting is then Lisa? How would i ever bet with you if nobody asked? Im afraid you argument is letting you down on all fronts. Im not trying to bet with all and sundry, you were very forthright to the point you said anyone who disagreed had an agenda. I called you out in the fact that if you genuinely felt that way then we can have a bet assuming that is something most people 100% sure of something may want to do. You decided against it.
Absolutely it has touched a nerve, you said I had an agenda because i stated the obvious nature of the situation. Just as me asking you to actually put your money where your mouth has has touched a considerably big nerve with you. The difference is im completely willing to face the consequences of what im saying where as you wont even commit to an apology. Speaks volumes.
What a nonsense contribution from start to finish from yourself. You have just said that i have an agenda to agree with the obvious correct call and as a result am now not a fan because i will be hoping to be right? Jesus christ Lisa talk about "my opinion or no opinion". And all this because Sky pundits paid to discuss any decision make it a talking point?
You have said if I'm right then im not a fan (??) and if I'm wrong then I've got an agenda. Spot the nonsense in your opinion. I absolutely admit i don't want us to appeal. I amazed you want us to which will reflect badly on us just to prove your awful point - you super fan you. Have a think about that.
So for the 5th time, will you apologise for you utterly despicable Op when you are emphatically proved wrong?
Stop wriggling. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 17:51]
|
No - you called it a fantastic refereeing decision.
Now which part of it was fantastic? The blowing of the whistle too quickly?? (of course - you didn't realise that until Sky proved it). The missing of the handball? (no - that bit's not important is it).
The fact that the only reason Sakho went into Fabianski was because he jumped into him (aided by Williams).
Which part of it was 'fantastic'. Come on - tell us? And you wouldn't ever bet with me because I don't bet with people on a bloody message board, because i am not a child. The fact that I don't wish to bet with you doesn't mean I'm 'worming out of what I said' nor am I 'back tracking' nor 'going back on a bet'. I am simply not prepared to bet with you. And why on earth would that show that I'm not 100% sure of what I said? All it shows it that I 100% don't bet with people on a message board. that's not touching any nerve. You obviously can't deal with people not 'wanting a bet'.
And I was pointing out the irony of people that are supposed to be fans prepared to bet against us and jump all over a way to be 'proved right'. Now you may not like what i said, but in my opinion, people prepared to describe that as a 'fantastic refereeing decision' have a strange view of being a fan. I didn't say that if you're right you're not a fan. I said that if you hope you're right then you're not a fan.
And just carry on with your bets with whoever else it is that you are wanting to bet with - Darran, Skippy etc at the last count - but you won't be betting with me. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:01 - Dec 7 with 1537 views | somersetsimon |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 16:42 - Dec 7 by AnotherJohn |
Mr P didn't see it at the time - as you'll see if you review his comment on the match thread, and seems to miss the point that the handball took the ball around our keeper who would otherwise have been on the correct line to block it. |
It will be interesting to see the basis of any appeal. It could be
(1) The incident was too wide on the pitch to be considered a clear goal scoring opportunity. It doesn't look like the collision forced Sakho any wider that he would have been otherwise (he still had to bring the ball down from chest high)
(2) It looked like Fabianski could have taken the ball with his chest if Sakho hadn't nicked it away with his arm. |  | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:02 - Dec 7 with 1530 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 17:47 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Wonder what agenda Lisa is accusing you of now you have announced you hold that quite correct opinion. |
you didn't say that though did you? You didn't say - I think we won't appeal because it's one match - you said that we won't appeal because it was a fantastic refereeing decision.
That's quite a difference don't you think? | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:03 - Dec 7 with 1528 views | Daithejack |
Well they just interviewed Mark Halsey the premiere league referee on Talk Sport for his opinion and he said that Foy got it wrong it was never a sending off because of the deliberate hand ball and by the letter of the law it wasn't a clear cut goal scoring opportunity because of the position on the pitch and fact that defenders were getting back. He also went onto to say that we would appeal and the Red card will be rescinded, he then went on to say that a red card was overturned last season at Upton park after there was a deliberate hand ball in the lead up to another sending off and that set a president. So unless Parly knows more than an ex premiere league ref we may be in with a chance. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:05 - Dec 7 with 1517 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:01 - Dec 7 by somersetsimon |
It will be interesting to see the basis of any appeal. It could be
(1) The incident was too wide on the pitch to be considered a clear goal scoring opportunity. It doesn't look like the collision forced Sakho any wider that he would have been otherwise (he still had to bring the ball down from chest high)
(2) It looked like Fabianski could have taken the ball with his chest if Sakho hadn't nicked it away with his arm. |
Dont know what his point was, i never pretended to see it in real time - i dont think many people did, including our own players. How that impacts on the appeal i dont know.
The fact it has happened has NO BARING on the appeal. It cannot be taken into consideration as it is UNREVIEWABLE. Sorry for the caps but for any debate to continue on these lines to be accurate these two things must be understood.
If you are talking about the unjust handball the go for it, we nearly all missed it though.
If you are talking about the red or indeed the appeal - then any mention of the handball is pointless. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 18:06]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:05 - Dec 7 with 1513 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:03 - Dec 7 by Daithejack |
Well they just interviewed Mark Halsey the premiere league referee on Talk Sport for his opinion and he said that Foy got it wrong it was never a sending off because of the deliberate hand ball and by the letter of the law it wasn't a clear cut goal scoring opportunity because of the position on the pitch and fact that defenders were getting back. He also went onto to say that we would appeal and the Red card will be rescinded, he then went on to say that a red card was overturned last season at Upton park after there was a deliberate hand ball in the lead up to another sending off and that set a president. So unless Parly knows more than an ex premiere league ref we may be in with a chance. |
but, but, but - it was a fantastic decision....
wibble | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:06 - Dec 7 with 1512 views | skippyjack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:03 - Dec 7 by Daithejack |
Well they just interviewed Mark Halsey the premiere league referee on Talk Sport for his opinion and he said that Foy got it wrong it was never a sending off because of the deliberate hand ball and by the letter of the law it wasn't a clear cut goal scoring opportunity because of the position on the pitch and fact that defenders were getting back. He also went onto to say that we would appeal and the Red card will be rescinded, he then went on to say that a red card was overturned last season at Upton park after there was a deliberate hand ball in the lead up to another sending off and that set a president. So unless Parly knows more than an ex premiere league ref we may be in with a chance. |
Now then Dai.. we've got legs.. get that other Upton park sending off up.. let's see what happened. | |
| 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 18:07 - Dec 7 with 1503 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:05 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
but, but, but - it was a fantastic decision....
wibble |
But.. But.. But.. It most certainly was. Want to commit to an apology for your name calling for anyone holding what will be the correct stance when you have been proven wrong?
Didnt think so. Wonder why?
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 18:08]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:11 - Dec 7 with 1489 views | skippyjack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:07 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
But.. But.. But.. It most certainly was. Want to commit to an apology for your name calling for anyone holding what will be the correct stance when you have been proven wrong?
Didnt think so. Wonder why?
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 18:08]
|
F*ck off.. if Dai is correct.. the panel overturned a decision because it made 'common sense'.. we've got to find that video and mention it.. but has Ashley Williams f*cked it up by the nudge. | |
| 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 18:11 - Dec 7 with 1489 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:06 - Dec 7 by skippyjack |
Now then Dai.. we've got legs.. get that other Upton park sending off up.. let's see what happened. |
Im not claiming to know more than him in general, but on this subject he is quite clearly wrong.
The fact that it was the goalkeeper making the challenge (which he has clearly not accounted for) suggests that IT IS a clear goalscoring opportunity as if fabianski didn't foul then Sakho would have a "keeper-less goal" which renders position on the field as almost irrelevant, and certainly not the over-ridding factor that it would be if it were a normal defender.
I extend my offer to Halsey and anyone else who feels confident or childish enough as the case may be. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:12 - Dec 7 with 1483 views | LeonisGod |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 15:55 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Nothing to disagree with, they are separate fouls and only one can be reviewed. That's just fact.
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. |
I didn't mention anything about reviewing the handball 'offense'. If we appeal, they will consider the whole passage of play. That's just fact. |  | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:16 - Dec 7 with 1469 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:07 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
But.. But.. But.. It most certainly was. Want to commit to an apology for your name calling for anyone holding what will be the correct stance when you have been proven wrong?
Didnt think so. Wonder why?
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 18:08]
|
oh right. So in your attempt to justify a bad decision you are now disagreeing with a biased Sky team, and a Prem League referee?
And you think I'm the one that is wrong for saying that it's pathetic that so called Swans fans are trying to justify it?
I'll tell you something for nothing, in all my years as a Swans fan, I have been perfectly happy to admit when we play badly, perfectly happy to admit when we have been outplayed, perfectly happy to take a loss without looking for scapegoats, perfectly happy to acknowledge that there are teams that are simply better than us. Never once have I been hoping against hope that a decision goes against us in order to justify my view of an incident. And that's what makes you less of a fan. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:19 - Dec 7 with 1459 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:11 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Im not claiming to know more than him in general, but on this subject he is quite clearly wrong.
The fact that it was the goalkeeper making the challenge (which he has clearly not accounted for) suggests that IT IS a clear goalscoring opportunity as if fabianski didn't foul then Sakho would have a "keeper-less goal" which renders position on the field as almost irrelevant, and certainly not the over-ridding factor that it would be if it were a normal defender.
I extend my offer to Halsey and anyone else who feels confident or childish enough as the case may be. |
what - you're now offering to bet Halsey as well are you?? | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:22 - Dec 7 with 1447 views | Darran |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:11 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Im not claiming to know more than him in general, but on this subject he is quite clearly wrong.
The fact that it was the goalkeeper making the challenge (which he has clearly not accounted for) suggests that IT IS a clear goalscoring opportunity as if fabianski didn't foul then Sakho would have a "keeper-less goal" which renders position on the field as almost irrelevant, and certainly not the over-ridding factor that it would be if it were a normal defender.
I extend my offer to Halsey and anyone else who feels confident or childish enough as the case may be. |
Honestly you never change.  |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:24 - Dec 7 with 1439 views | somersetsimon |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 18:11 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Im not claiming to know more than him in general, but on this subject he is quite clearly wrong.
The fact that it was the goalkeeper making the challenge (which he has clearly not accounted for) suggests that IT IS a clear goalscoring opportunity as if fabianski didn't foul then Sakho would have a "keeper-less goal" which renders position on the field as almost irrelevant, and certainly not the over-ridding factor that it would be if it were a normal defender.
I extend my offer to Halsey and anyone else who feels confident or childish enough as the case may be. |
I don't see it as a "keeper-less" goal. Even if Fab hadn't touched him, by the time the ball was under control, he would have been pretty wide and it was never going to be that easy. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
