| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) 16:12 - May 29 with 4612 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
|  |
| |  |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:54 - May 29 with 1020 views | grow_our_own |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:32 - May 29 by 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. |
And this on the back of a semi, when Weds were given nine mins of added time to score their equaliser of the alloted seven. Then having gone behind again in ET, they dragged back the Posh striker when through on goal: textbook pro-foul and red card. Nothing given. The powers that be really want Weds in the Championship. It's BS. [Post edited 29 May 2023 16:58]
|  | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:59 - May 29 with 984 views | Herbivore |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:54 - May 29 by grow_our_own |
And this on the back of a semi, when Weds were given nine mins of added time to score their equaliser of the alloted seven. Then having gone behind again in ET, they dragged back the Posh striker when through on goal: textbook pro-foul and red card. Nothing given. The powers that be really want Weds in the Championship. It's BS. [Post edited 29 May 2023 16:58]
|
They've had the rub of the green with a lot of decisions this season. Lest we forget the performance of the ref and lino at Hillsborough when we played them there. |  |
| |
| All 3 Sky pundits thought penalty and no red (n/t) on 17:02 - May 29 with 968 views | unstableblue |
|  |
| |
| All 3 Sky pundits thought penalty and no red (n/t) on 17:05 - May 29 with 960 views | Ryorry |
| All 3 Sky pundits thought penalty and no red (n/t) on 17:02 - May 29 by unstableblue |
|
The two TalkSport comms thought so too (so for once not talking shoite ...) |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 17:06 - May 29 with 953 views | Vegtablue |
| 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]
|
Yeah I can definitely see why it's split opinion. Jeff Stelling says yellow at worst!
That type of lunge as a tackle is a straightforward red card. Where it gets murkier is if it's viewed as a clearance, which IMO it definitely was. Then it's whether it was dangerous. I think the Wednesday player has lunged a long way for it himself and would have needed 6ft legs for there to have been risk of serious injury. The Barnsley player attacks the unoccupied space aggressively and his movement is upwards into where the ball would have ended up, not where in my view the Wednesday player could have ended up. | | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 17:07 - May 29 with 943 views | pointofblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:54 - May 29 by grow_our_own |
And this on the back of a semi, when Weds were given nine mins of added time to score their equaliser of the alloted seven. Then having gone behind again in ET, they dragged back the Posh striker when through on goal: textbook pro-foul and red card. Nothing given. The powers that be really want Weds in the Championship. It's BS. [Post edited 29 May 2023 16:58]
|
In fairness, Peterborough brought on the additional extra time themselves. The time wasting was excessive. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 17:13 - May 29 with 914 views | PhilTWTD |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 16:49 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
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. |
Got you. Yes, shocking decision, particularly having been given two goes at it. |  | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 17:21 - May 29 with 874 views | Ryorry |
| 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 |
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 17:40 - May 29 with 848 views | grow_our_own |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 17:21 - May 29 by Ryorry |
|
Playoff win to two referees. | | | |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 17:42 - May 29 with 840 views | Ryorry |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 17:40 - May 29 by grow_our_own |
Playoff win to two referees. |
... with the assistance of a VAR chef. | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 18:24 - May 29 with 800 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 17:42 - May 29 by Ryorry |
... with the assistance of a VAR chef. |
Delia Smith? | |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 18:25 - May 29 with 800 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 17:42 - May 29 by Ryorry |
... with the assistance of a VAR chef. |
He probably didn't have a proper look at it...Had to get back to the stove before the omelettes got over done. |  |
| |
| I can't see how they are arguing against that being red! (n/t) on 21:28 - May 29 with 753 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
I have just watched the replay of the sending off again and I can see now why VAR should have called for it to be overturned. The angle I saw before suggested he was well after the ball had gone, both feet off the ground completely out of control. Watching the replays more carefully, I can see his initial challenge was for the ball and he got there fractionally after Gregory. His momentum carried him into Gregory and no way should it have been a red card. It seems strange VAR did not call the referee to look at it again. A yellow would have more than sufficed and might even have been a bit harsh. All too late for Barnsley, though. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
