Stay Positive Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 All the pundits are congratulating the referee for his performance and decisions. I thought he was shocking. You could tell he was going to make a pivotal "big" decision the way he came on at half time.
Stueyt74 Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 I thought it was a definite pen. King got nothing of the ball and made contact with Beausejour. You can also not deny that Mills was idiotic and deserved to be sent off.
Matt Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=77026
ousefox Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 All the pundits are congratulating the referee for his performance and decisions. I thought he was shocking. You could tell he was going to make a pivotal "big" decision the way he came on at half time. I'm sure an angle showed that he got the ball. Although the more i saw it, the more it did look like a pen.
DJMadness29 Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 It was a pen, From the other angle you could see King didnt touch the ball. And the sending off WAS a sending off. The ref got both those decisions spot on
Fox 4 Life Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Bottom line is the ref can only give what he sees, it LOOKED like a pen for sure. King did get the ball but it was borderline
Stay Positive Posted 16 October 2011 Author Posted 16 October 2011 I thought it was a definite pen. King got nothing of the ball and made contact with Beausejour. You can also not deny that Mills was idiotic and deserved to be sent off. I'm not denying the red card. It's uncontestable. I don't think it was any more of a pen than King's was. Plus Beausojoir should have had a second yellow before they scored. That said, we didn't deserve anything from the game so I'm not going to point the finger solely at the ref.
Yojoe36 Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 It was a pen, From the other angle you could see King didnt touch the ball. What! He did touch the ball. Hence, the ball moved the way King kicked it
buzzy Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 alan young is know talking crap im a fan but he is wrong about both incidents and ross on the phone shut up
Dr The Singh Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Ref got both decisions right IMO!! Andy King has been off the boil for quite a while, although I don't think we should begrudge fro the peno
jamesmilner Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 too many people with blue tinted glasses ! we lost the game ,it wasnt won . it was a pen , it was a sending off ! stop talking shit !
Al-aLondon-Foxile Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 If it was th other way you'd say it was a pen! It was a pen.
Stay Positive Posted 16 October 2011 Author Posted 16 October 2011 too many people with blue tinted glasses ! we lost the game ,it wasnt won . it was a pen , it was a sending off ! stop talking shit ! Blue tinted glasses? I've acknowledged that the red card was correct and that we didn't deserve anything from the game. I don't think that's blue tinted.
The Doctor Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 one of the angles looked like he got the ball, did make contact with the man - very, very soft to give.
Fox92 Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 It was a penalty. King with a bad touch and then fouled.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Wasnt a pen, King actually got the ball. Wasnt a sending off either, shit referee, did he bollocks get both pivotal decisions right
Guest DavidJCW Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Nope, you're not the only one. The more I see one angle, the more I see that King clearly got a foot on the ball and Beausejour made an absolute meal of it. No pen for me. Should have been a pen to us late on too as King was clearly backed into by Ridgewell who had no intention of playing the ball but to cut off King who was going through... Ref in the second half was rubbish.
Freeman's Wharfer Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 I thought the penalty could have been given either way. King was stupid in trying to make that tackle there anyway when there was a high chance that what happened could happen. Beausejour was ready to go over as soon as he made it though. With the Mills one the problem I have is consistency. If Beausejour can go through the back of Peltier as he's on his way towards there box and not get a yellow then what's the standard that's been set? Mills was an idiot for going in the way he did however I think when he arrived into the tackle he was on the floor and tackling with one foot. He won the ball and the Birmingham player came out of the tackle fine. Yellow card for what could have been a reckless challenge and let's get on with the game. With the precedent that had been set through the Beausejour challenge on Peltier all we want is a little consistency and by that standard the Mills one should have been a yellow.
Guest Bilo Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 If he gave theirs, which looked soft to say the least, he simply had to give ours for that shocking obstruction. Similarly, if he sent Mills off for going in with both feet, he had to send off Beausejour for a similar challenge on Peltier. He was infuriatingly inconsistent but we were negative beyond belief. We could, and should, have gone in winning at half-time.
tickler28 Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 All the pundits are congratulating the referee for his performance and decisions. I thought he was shocking. You could tell he was going to make a pivotal "big" decision the way he came on at half time. It was definitely a penalty and sending off.....what you are going on about I'm not entirely sure. I'm as passionate a fox as they get but second half referee didn't get anything wrong I'm afraid.......Sven however.....
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 I thought the penalty could have been given either way. King was stupid in trying to make that tackle there anyway when there was a high chance that what happened could happen. Beausejour was ready to go over as soon as he made it though. With the Mills one the problem I have is consistency. If Beausejour can go through the back of Peltier as he's on his way towards there box and not get a yellow then what's the standard that's been set? Mills was an idiot for going in the way he did however I think when he arrived into the tackle he was on the floor and tackling with one foot. He won the ball and the Birmingham player came out of the tackle fine. Yellow card for what could have been a reckless challenge and let's get on with the game. With the precedent that had been set through the Beausejour challenge on Peltier all we want is a little consistency and by that standard the Mills one should have been a yellow. THIS
The Year Of The Fox Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 RRegardless of whether he was right, he was bloody wrong to not give one to us.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 If he gave theirs, which looked soft to say the least, he simply had to give ours for that shocking obstruction. Similarly, if he sent Mills off for going in with both feet, he had to send off Beausejour for a similar challenge on Peltier. He was infuriatingly inconsistent but we were negative beyond belief. We could, and should, have gone in winning at half-time. THIS, the ref was a cvnt
Kitchandro Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Sorry but it was a definite penalty. He stood on his foot. We could have had one, though I can understand why it wasn't given. By far the worst decision was not giving a second yellow to Beausejour when he fouled Peltier shortly after the penalty. That would have been 10 against 11 but in the phase of play that followed our player got sent off instead. Had he sent off Beausejour it could have been very different. Lets not use it as an excuse though, we got what we deserved for showing no ambition and not passing the ball well enough.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.