| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) 16:12 - May 29 with 4609 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
|  |
| |  |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:18 - May 29 with 1055 views | bluestandard |
You can make a good case for either yellow or red. The ball was there to be won, but the follow through looked a bit reckless. |  | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:18 - May 29 with 1056 views | LankHenners |
Thought it was worse initially than it looked on the replays. Goes in late but it’s more his trailing leg that goes into him so think Barnsley have a case for that being harsh. Their pen shout just before was very much in ‘seem them given’ territory as well. |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:19 - May 29 with 1057 views | wellsy700 |
It was a silly and reckless challenge but he's gone for the ball and only made contact with his trailing leg. Yellow for me |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:19 - May 29 with 1049 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| 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]
|
I think the penalty would not have been overturned had it been given. However, I think the ref would have been asked to look again had he not given the red.
Good to see Barnsley having the best of it despite going down to ten. The Wednesday players are not as young so might struggle on the big pitch even against 10 men. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:20 - May 29 with 1032 views | Ryorry |
| 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. |
Yep, just seen it in slo-mo.
Blatant ham acting by the Wednesday player, just shameful cheating. I'd be furious if they win on the back of that, god knows how the Tykes must be feeling. |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:20 - May 29 with 1020 views | ReusersTown |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:16 - May 29 by Steve_M |
Agree on the reaction but it's still a bad challenge; goes through the player and nowhere near the ball. |
I'm sorry to inform you that you don't actually know what "going through the player" is | | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:24 - May 29 with 988 views | PhilTWTD |
Looked a racing incident, Wednesday player may have got the ball but he caught the Barnsley player well up his shin as well. But for all the rolling around and banging the turf I doubt it would have been seen as anything particularly noteworthy.
Also Barnsley should have been awarded a penalty!
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:25 - May 29 with 964 views | SitfcB |
Because it wasn’t a red. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:26 - May 29 with 948 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:24 - May 29 by PhilTWTD |
Looked a racing incident, Wednesday player may have got the ball but he caught the Barnsley player well up his shin as well. But for all the rolling around and banging the turf I doubt it would have been seen as anything particularly noteworthy.
Also Barnsley should have been awarded a penalty!
This post has been edited by an administrator |
You are surprised VAR didn't get it looked at, then? | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:26 - May 29 with 949 views | SitfcB |
| 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. |
Think you should give up watching football if you think that. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:28 - May 29 with 930 views | Tokey |
Such a strange divergence of views. On the replay I instantly agreed with a red. Regardless of the fact he didn’t connect with the players leg, if he had of done it would have surely been a nasty break. It was miles over the ball, high-energy and out of control.
That’s what I think, not that it means anything! [Post edited 29 May 2023 16:30]
| | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:31 - May 29 with 900 views | PhilTWTD |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:26 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
You are surprised VAR didn't get it looked at, then? |
VAR has again been terrible, or rather those behind the desk. Can't see for the life of me how the penalty wasn't given. Just looks like they've wanted to back the referee on the pitch. | | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:32 - May 29 with 890 views | Herbivore |
Thought it was a yellow personally and that Barnsley should probably have had a penalty. Two decisions that Wednesday have very much come out on the right side of. |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:35 - May 29 with 851 views | unstableblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:28 - May 29 by Tokey |
Such a strange divergence of views. On the replay I instantly agreed with a red. Regardless of the fact he didn’t connect with the players leg, if he had of done it would have surely been a nasty break. It was miles over the ball, high-energy and out of control.
That’s what I think, not that it means anything! [Post edited 29 May 2023 16:30]
|
There are no wrong answers here Tokey (wibble)
I think it’s a red because he was off the ground, BUT, if the ref had watched the replay he’d have seen that all intent was for the ball, which he basically missed |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:36 - May 29 with 854 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:31 - May 29 by PhilTWTD |
VAR has again been terrible, or rather those behind the desk. Can't see for the life of me how the penalty wasn't given. Just looks like they've wanted to back the referee on the pitch. |
That's fair enough. It does seem to take a clear error to get them involved. I agree a penalty given on the pitch would not have been looked at.
I look forward to seeing the red again as there is a lot of divided opinion from people who seem to know their stuff. It seemed to me at the time it was a horrible challenge. I was not surprised to see the red and was therefore unsurprised to see no VAR. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:37 - May 29 with 841 views | Ryorry |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:28 - May 29 by Tokey |
Such a strange divergence of views. On the replay I instantly agreed with a red. Regardless of the fact he didn’t connect with the players leg, if he had of done it would have surely been a nasty break. It was miles over the ball, high-energy and out of control.
That’s what I think, not that it means anything! [Post edited 29 May 2023 16:30]
|
😂 Well the ref didn't give a nailed on pen according to some on here - "if he had of done it would have surely" given Barnsley a very good chance of being a goal up & with 11 players still on the pitch! | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:41 - May 29 with 817 views | PhilTWTD |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:36 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
That's fair enough. It does seem to take a clear error to get them involved. I agree a penalty given on the pitch would not have been looked at.
I look forward to seeing the red again as there is a lot of divided opinion from people who seem to know their stuff. It seemed to me at the time it was a horrible challenge. I was not surprised to see the red and was therefore unsurprised to see no VAR. |
There was VAR on the red card. Didn't even occur to me it was a red in real time. | | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:42 - May 29 with 814 views | PhilTWTD |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:37 - May 29 by Ryorry |
😂 Well the ref didn't give a nailed on pen according to some on here - "if he had of done it would have surely" given Barnsley a very good chance of being a goal up & with 11 players still on the pitch! |
Not sure I blame the referee for not giving the penalty but VAR certainly should have given it. | | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:44 - May 29 with 804 views | unstableblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:31 - May 29 by PhilTWTD |
VAR has again been terrible, or rather those behind the desk. Can't see for the life of me how the penalty wasn't given. Just looks like they've wanted to back the referee on the pitch. |
They seem to have applied some bizarre logic of “he wasn’t looking at the man, he was trying to connect with the ball, so it wasn’t a penalty” but that’s meaningless - he kicked the guy straight in the leg in the penalty area… it doesn’t matter how it happened!! It a penalty | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:45 - May 29 with 797 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:41 - May 29 by PhilTWTD |
There was VAR on the red card. Didn't even occur to me it was a red in real time. |
The ref was asked to look at it again?
Or are you saying that VAR gave it? Wouldn't the ref have gone over to look at a replay if that was the case? | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:45 - May 29 with 795 views | pointofblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:44 - May 29 by unstableblue |
They seem to have applied some bizarre logic of “he wasn’t looking at the man, he was trying to connect with the ball, so it wasn’t a penalty” but that’s meaningless - he kicked the guy straight in the leg in the penalty area… it doesn’t matter how it happened!! It a penalty |
Agreed. Phillips wasn’t aiming for the man either and yet that was given as a foul. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:47 - May 29 with 780 views | PhilTWTD |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:45 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
The ref was asked to look at it again?
Or are you saying that VAR gave it? Wouldn't the ref have gone over to look at a replay if that was the case? |
VAR looked at it and backed up the ref's decision without calling the ref over to have another look. | | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:48 - May 29 with 751 views | Herbivore |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:44 - May 29 by unstableblue |
They seem to have applied some bizarre logic of “he wasn’t looking at the man, he was trying to connect with the ball, so it wasn’t a penalty” but that’s meaningless - he kicked the guy straight in the leg in the penalty area… it doesn’t matter how it happened!! It a penalty |
For me the penalty challenge and the red card challenge were pretty similar in terms of the type of challenge being made. The one for the red looked far worse and he's coming in at pace to challenge for it rather than standing, but both were essentially players looking to clear the ball and being beaten to it. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:49 - May 29 with 742 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:47 - May 29 by PhilTWTD |
VAR looked at it and backed up the ref's decision without calling the ref over to have another look. |
That's the point I was making. They didn't disagree with it so didn't ask the referee to look at it again.
What I meant by "no VAR" was it didn't get involved not it couldn't have done. I see how that could have been interpreted that way, though. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:53 - May 29 with 727 views | Ryorry |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:42 - May 29 by PhilTWTD |
Not sure I blame the referee for not giving the penalty but VAR certainly should have given it. |
Sure, I was just making the point that referees can't make decisions on the presupposition of ifs and buts - ie that something that didn't happen, might have happened, if the incident had happened slightly differently to how it actually did! [Post edited 29 May 2023 16:56]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
