It means a three game ban.
Also they are trying to move him on as well. The ban doesn't help that either
Printable View
It means a three game ban.
Also they are trying to move him on as well. The ban doesn't help that either
I’m still in two minds whether it was a red or not.
And me thought he was just unfortunate where his foot ended upQuote:
Originally Posted by The Bob Banker Spanker
his foot rode over the ball but studs were up beforehand, 50/50 as to a straight red. could`ve gone either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bob Banker Spanker
The ref obviously viewed it as dangerous play but I wonder if he had the benefit of a replay he would’ve just gone with a yellow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philbccfc
Who cares ?
It will stand intent was there he was raising a foot which made contact with the players shin bit quicker and a serious injury takes place ,it was a rash tackle .
I doubt it helps Sunderland's case that Coleman said it was a tackle that gave the referee a decision to make. He said he'd seen reds given and not given for similar incidents. So after reviewing the footage the Sunderland manager basically agreed a red card was an option in that situation. Then they decide to appeal!
I can see how it was a straight red, but would not have been surprised if it was just a yellow. What causes a problem is when different referees make totally different judgements about very similar incidents. In the Steel City Derby on Friday Ross Wallace went very high on John Fleck (without the excuse of sliding off the top of the ball) and got away with a yellow. It was worse than the Ndong foul but all the same issues came into play - control, danger, recklessness, intent.
Can't believe that Kent had the cheek to complain he was bookedQuote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Agree, think that was a definite red for Wallace, probably more so than NdongQuote:
Originally Posted by jamieccfc
Can't see it being overturned. While I think it was harsh, I can't see a panel of refs overturning a decision that was open to interpretation.
You obviously cared enough to click on the post and contribute to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dml1954
This is a football message board, the red card was a major talking point of the game, if we can't discuss it on here then what's the point of having forums?
You can slide in no studs showing and be "unfortunate" when the timing of your tackle puts a player 5 foot in the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieccfc
His studs were showing.
Straight red. Excellent view of it from the front of the Canton. Foot up, studs in. Goodbye.Quote:
Originally Posted by dembethewarrior
These are the type of reds that never get overturned. It's probably harsh as you say but you can see why he's sent off and they want to stamp out these tackles.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCBlue
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa
In family stand myself Ian so wasn't able to make an opinion on it until I got on the train a bit later.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD
I don't think it's in doubt. Can't even say it's unlucky. Go in studs up, off you go. Simple!
Dermot Gallagher said it was definitely a red card. From the coverage this morning, it was an obvious red card.
Appeal rejected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42718714
No surprise there.
We've played them twice, i hope his appeal succeedsQuote:
Originally Posted by dml1954