| Should this have been a red card? 11:03 - Jan 26 with 6641 views | Keno |
|  |
| |  |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:09 - Jan 26 with 4600 views | _clive_baker_ |
No, it’s about as yellow as a yellow card can be IMO. Late, a bit high, but I don’t really want to see red cards given for that. |  | | |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:11 - Jan 26 with 4567 views | CaptainAhab |
Absolutely atrocious decision, not sure what on earth the ref was thinking. Be fuming if that was against us |  | | |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:12 - Jan 26 with 4565 views | homer_123 |
No. Yellow and sin bin for 10 mins.
I know that isn't a rule but it's pre-meditated, a professional foul and cynical. |  |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:22 - Jan 26 with 4484 views | ArchiRob |
The biggest disappointment for me has been how poorly and badly VAR has or hasn't been applied. They quickly gloss over the refs incorrect descions and then spend an eternity over an offside descion which is often clear to the naked eye. Still bitter by the way we were robbed against Leicester. |  |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:23 - Jan 26 with 4476 views | BrentwoodBlagger2 |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:12 - Jan 26 by homer_123 |
No. Yellow and sin bin for 10 mins.
I know that isn't a rule but it's pre-meditated, a professional foul and cynical. |
I thought it was a red - a lunge, studs up, raking the side of the ankle and Achilles area and was a potential ankle breaker as the Wolves player was in full flight. I have no doubt it was deliberate and dangerous. It was serious foul play. Skelly was trying to pick fights with our entire team a few weeks ago. Have a 3 game ban you little...... | | | |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:37 - Jan 26 with 4380 views | trncbluearmy |
Stright red and well deserved |  | | |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:41 - Jan 26 with 4356 views | EastTownBlue |
From that it looks like a cynical trip and no more.
This is probably what Oliver has seen:
Contact above the ankle is not automatically a red card but the question would be if there was excessive force. | | | |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:50 - Jan 26 with 4293 views | rattram |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:37 - Jan 26 by trncbluearmy |
Stright red and well deserved |
Watching the TV and Tim Sherwood was going mad at this decision.
Ex ref Mike Dean explained that it was a good decision because the foot deliberately raked the Wolves player well above the ankle. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:52 - Jan 26 with 4277 views | Plums |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:41 - Jan 26 by EastTownBlue |
From that it looks like a cynical trip and no more.
This is probably what Oliver has seen:
Contact above the ankle is not automatically a red card but the question would be if there was excessive force. |
The ball is also long gone so it's not a 'tackle'. I was surprised it was a red but can also see how it was justified. The unbalanced howling from the so called experts on MOTD is pathetic.
The simple fact is - if you don't want to risk it, don't commit the foul.
He's cheated and paid the price. [Post edited 26 Jan 11:53]
|  |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:53 - Jan 26 with 4261 views | RamRob |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:41 - Jan 26 by EastTownBlue |
From that it looks like a cynical trip and no more.
This is probably what Oliver has seen:
Contact above the ankle is not automatically a red card but the question would be if there was excessive force. |
That still makes it look extremely reckless/dangerous, cynical trip would be contact with top/side of boot not studs. If the ref has spotted that in real time fair play to him...
In real time from afar it does just look like a trip [Post edited 26 Jan 11:54]
|  |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:55 - Jan 26 with 4225 views | Trequartista |
If you want my opinion regardless of the latest rules its a yellow.
If you want my opinion based on the latest interpretation of the rules then I have no idea. |  |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:56 - Jan 26 with 4230 views | WinchBlue |
In terms of consistency with cards given throughout the season it's a yellow.
It would be better if it (and all others) was red then the game would be quicker & better.
We need consistency though. |  | | |
| Should this have been a red card? on 12:03 - Jan 26 with 4180 views | southnorfolkblue |
No, but I hate those cynical tackles when the ball is in a different postcode so I don’t have much sympathy for him tbh.
As someone else has said earlier this is exactly the sort of tackle that the proposed sin bin rule would address | |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 12:04 - Jan 26 with 4160 views | southnorfolkblue |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:09 - Jan 26 by _clive_baker_ |
No, it’s about as yellow as a yellow card can be IMO. Late, a bit high, but I don’t really want to see red cards given for that. |
Late is a bit of an understatement | |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 12:09 - Jan 26 with 4113 views | RamRob |
| Should this have been a red card? on 12:03 - Jan 26 by southnorfolkblue |
No, but I hate those cynical tackles when the ball is in a different postcode so I don’t have much sympathy for him tbh.
As someone else has said earlier this is exactly the sort of tackle that the proposed sin bin rule would address |
They should've just said it's Red for unsporting behaviour. Blatant cheating, no intention of playing the ball, overstretching just to stop the player
Cynical fouls like that would soon stop [Post edited 26 Jan 12:10]
| |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 12:26 - Jan 26 with 3989 views | SE1blue |
| Should this have been a red card? on 12:09 - Jan 26 by RamRob |
They should've just said it's Red for unsporting behaviour. Blatant cheating, no intention of playing the ball, overstretching just to stop the player
Cynical fouls like that would soon stop [Post edited 26 Jan 12:10]
|
Totally agree.
I hate it when commentators excuse it by saying it’ll was a ‘cynical foul’ or ‘he’s taken one for the team there’. No, he’s cheated and from any bias or perspective it ruins the game.
Chiellini’s ‘cynical’ foul on Saka deserved a much stricter punishment. |  |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 12:34 - Jan 26 with 3938 views | berkstractorboy |
I would argue that Enciso challenge endangered the opponent more just like Pedro on Walton.
Real time looked like a trip and a yellow, that still shared does show the danger but actually how many of those could be seen every week if people really analysed slo-mo footage. I am not sure there was excessive force from MLS, I didn't think he was moving at any great speed. | | | |
| Should this have been a red card? on 13:04 - Jan 26 with 3803 views | Radlett_blue |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:50 - Jan 26 by rattram |
Watching the TV and Tim Sherwood was going mad at this decision.
Ex ref Mike Dean explained that it was a good decision because the foot deliberately raked the Wolves player well above the ankle. |
Dean simply defending a fellow ref's poor decision. If one of our players had got a red card for that, we'd have been up in arms about bias etc. Under the current laws, no way is that "serious foul play". |  |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 13:11 - Jan 26 with 3760 views | BlueBoots |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:41 - Jan 26 by EastTownBlue |
From that it looks like a cynical trip and no more.
This is probably what Oliver has seen:
Contact above the ankle is not automatically a red card but the question would be if there was excessive force. |
Photo looks pretty conclusive to me...catches him with the studs above the ankle (if he'd tripped him using the top of the boot, that's a yellow all day long) |  |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 13:15 - Jan 26 with 3713 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:11 - Jan 26 by CaptainAhab |
Absolutely atrocious decision, not sure what on earth the ref was thinking. Be fuming if that was against us |
It was Michael Oliver, so that explains what went on there. He’s consistently involved in controversial decisions. |  |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 13:16 - Jan 26 with 3708 views | WD19 |
He ‘took one for the team.’ Maybe next time he will think twice.
As others have said, it wasn’t a tackle it was so late as to be off the ball. Basically just assault.
An unusual red card for sure, but if it opens up a conversation about ‘tackles’ that are just a premeditated act of cheating then I am not going to complain. |  | | |
| Should this have been a red card? on 13:22 - Jan 26 with 3674 views | benrhyddingblue |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:12 - Jan 26 by homer_123 |
No. Yellow and sin bin for 10 mins.
I know that isn't a rule but it's pre-meditated, a professional foul and cynical. |
I agree. And it’s stopping a breakaway. See players doing this far too often knowing they will just get a yellow. | | | |
| Should this have been a red card? on 13:22 - Jan 26 with 3672 views | Achane |
| Should this have been a red card? on 11:23 - Jan 26 by BrentwoodBlagger2 |
I thought it was a red - a lunge, studs up, raking the side of the ankle and Achilles area and was a potential ankle breaker as the Wolves player was in full flight. I have no doubt it was deliberate and dangerous. It was serious foul play. Skelly was trying to pick fights with our entire team a few weeks ago. Have a 3 game ban you little...... |
What replay are you watching?, he clearly only flicks out a foot to simply trip the wolves player, you virtually see one of those in pretty much every game yet never before have I seen a red where is this lunge in the video? | | | |
| Should this have been a red card? on 13:33 - Jan 26 with 3610 views | Radlett_blue |
| Should this have been a red card? on 13:22 - Jan 26 by benrhyddingblue |
I agree. And it’s stopping a breakaway. See players doing this far too often knowing they will just get a yellow. |
Yes, but there needs to be rule change as there is nothing in the laws that says this cynical type of foul - which happens regularly - is punishable by a red card. Oliver simply decided he didn't like the foul & wanted to give a red, so perverted the laws of the game by deeming it "serious foul play". If it was the latter, you'd get several red cards in every game. | |
| |
| Should this have been a red card? on 13:43 - Jan 26 with 3558 views | RamRob |
| Should this have been a red card? on 13:33 - Jan 26 by Radlett_blue |
Yes, but there needs to be rule change as there is nothing in the laws that says this cynical type of foul - which happens regularly - is punishable by a red card. Oliver simply decided he didn't like the foul & wanted to give a red, so perverted the laws of the game by deeming it "serious foul play". If it was the latter, you'd get several red cards in every game. |
Why does serious foul play have to be a dangerous tackle? Surely cheating is serious foul play by definition? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
