| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) 16:12 - May 29 with 4051 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
|  |
| |  |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:12 - May 29 with 2177 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
Because it wasn't a red. Not a chance. |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:13 - May 29 with 2171 views | pointofblue |
Really? If that was against us, I’d be fuming. Agreeing with Goodman on this one. |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:13 - May 29 with 2150 views | unstableblue |
I think to be fair he was trying to connect with the ball… so it wasn’t malicious… BUT he was out of control… so that’s why it was given |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:13 - May 29 with 2131 views | Steve_M |
Nope, it's an absolutely dreadful challenge.
Ref has let everything else go though, not even a yellow in this match so far I don't think which isn't in keeping with some of the Wednesday challenges. |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:13 - May 29 with 2114 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:12 - May 29 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Because it wasn't a red. Not a chance. |
It was horribly late and out of control. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:13 - May 29 with 2111 views | Ryorry |
Let's hope it turns out to be one of those occasions when 10 men play better than 11 ...  |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:14 - May 29 with 2090 views | WicklowBlue |
No way is that a red, rash tackle yes but he didn't make contact with his leading foot. It was his trailing foot that went into the player. |  | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:14 - May 29 with 2058 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:13 - May 29 by Steve_M |
Nope, it's an absolutely dreadful challenge.
Ref has let everything else go though, not even a yellow in this match so far I don't think which isn't in keeping with some of the Wednesday challenges. |
He didn't connect. Wednesday have made the most of that. The reaction has got him sent off, nothing else. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:14 - May 29 with 2054 views | Powrigan |
Just turned it off. Another game ruined by a stupid decision. [Post edited 29 May 2023 16:15]
|  | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:15 - May 29 with 2037 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:13 - May 29 by pointofblue |
Really? If that was against us, I’d be fuming. Agreeing with Goodman on this one. |
I think if a player had done that challenge against us and it had been yellow we would be furious. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:15 - May 29 with 2031 views | gainsboroughblue |
Not a good couple of minutes for Barnsley. |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:15 - May 29 with 1989 views | dezb |
Ludicrous challenge to make in that manner in this big a game! Fortunate he doesn't make a lot of contact with way he leads with the right foot. For me that's the only way it might have been downgraded to yellow but never going to overturned once ref gave it on field | | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:15 - May 29 with 1978 views | JDB23 |
I think it was harsh but can see why the ref gave it on the field, his feet didn’t really make contact though. Stonewall pen also not given to Barnsley, Wendies actually think the EFL are against them. [Post edited 29 May 2023 16:16]
| | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:16 - May 29 with 1969 views | cooperd5 |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:12 - May 29 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Because it wasn't a red. Not a chance. |
No way a red card, so much for VAR! Rash challenge but hardly dangerous play |  | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:16 - May 29 with 1962 views | WickhamsLeftBoot |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:13 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
It was horribly late and out of control. |
Hardly ‘horribly late’ was it? Milliseconds at best, leading foot didn’t connect with the player, poor decision from the ref and VAR. |  | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:16 - May 29 with 1947 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:12 - May 29 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Because it wasn't a red. Not a chance. |
RIP football. |  | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:16 - May 29 with 1949 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:14 - May 29 by Cheltenham_Blue |
He didn't connect. Wednesday have made the most of that. The reaction has got him sent off, nothing else. |
I agree the Wednesday reaction was ott but I think VAR would have got the ref to take a look had he not given red. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:16 - May 29 with 1946 views | Steve_M |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:14 - May 29 by Cheltenham_Blue |
He didn't connect. Wednesday have made the most of that. The reaction has got him sent off, nothing else. |
Agree on the reaction but it's still a bad challenge; goes through the player and nowhere near the ball. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:16 - May 29 with 1946 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:13 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
It was horribly late and out of control. |
Are we watching the same match? Firstly it wasn't late, and Gregorys' stretch was equally out of control. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:16 - May 29 with 1941 views | pointofblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:15 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I think if a player had done that challenge against us and it had been yellow we would be furious. |
Not on replay. Yellow card, maybe, but not a red - even if against us. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:17 - May 29 with 1911 views | Powrigan |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:12 - May 29 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Because it wasn't a red. Not a chance. |
Thought the whole point of VAR was to stop ridiculous decisions like that!! | | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:17 - May 29 with 1896 views | Vegtablue |
Was it dangerously bout of control?
If the action was a foot closer to the player I would agree but the guy is clearing out empty space. | | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:18 - May 29 with 1867 views | iamatractorboy |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:13 - May 29 by unstableblue |
I think to be fair he was trying to connect with the ball… so it wasn’t malicious… BUT he was out of control… so that’s why it was given |
Spot on, a lot of force behind his right foot and basically completely off the ground, so not in control at all. Ironically it was the left that caught Gregory. I do feel for the Barnsley player as it wasn't a deliberately dirty tackle but intent doesn't come into the decision to send him off. | | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:18 - May 29 with 1870 views | RegencyBlue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:12 - May 29 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Because it wasn't a red. Not a chance. |
I assume the argument is that he was out of control diving in.
By today’s standards probably is a red but unfortunate for Barnsley. |  | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:18 - May 29 with 1856 views | cooperd5 |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:15 - May 29 by JDB23 |
I think it was harsh but can see why the ref gave it on the field, his feet didn’t really make contact though. Stonewall pen also not given to Barnsley, Wendies actually think the EFL are against them. [Post edited 29 May 2023 16:16]
|
Yep a def penalty too, given the ref was looking right at it I don't understand not giving it. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
