Haydos Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 Most refs would have given a booking at most. I recall several games this season where our players have been the victims of deliberate and full-blown assaults (Birmingham and Brighton away come to mind) and the perpetrators have got away with yellow cards. That's just not true. It's the law that he got sent off. It wouldn't be going that far to say 100% of refs would have given him a red.
leicesterisme Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 50/50 tackle, didn't really get the ball but the player got straight back up so I think there was no need sending him off, yellow at the most but hull players pressured him! After seeing that though we won't appeal i think Why should it matter if the other player gets straight back up? So it takes someone to put another player on a stretcher for them to get sent off?
ScouseFox Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 You're all stupid. (Not you Haydos, you carry on being right)
Haydos Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 You're all stupid. (Not you Haydos, you carry on being right) I've given up
acooling08 Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 a) his studs are the things flying towards their players shins They aren't.. his feet are underneath his body. If he went in that that speed double footed studs showing then yes it's a red, but he tries to pull out. Watch it again and you'll see his feet are underneath his body.
Babylon Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 Both lunged in, and I've seen much worse. From the DG video his legs wrapped under him pretty quick. Would need to see the full screen version really.
Jimmy Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 They aren't.. his feet are underneath his body. If he went in that that speed double footed studs showing then yes it's a red, but he tries to pull out. Watch it again and you'll see his feet are underneath his body. the problem with your argument is that the ball is under his feet as well so his studs are up
Haydos Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 They aren't.. his feet are underneath his body. If he went in that that speed double footed studs showing then yes it's a red, but he tries to pull out. Watch it again and you'll see his feet are underneath his body. I don't usually like stills but some people just aren't getting it. Take note.... Hull player: One foot supporting, one foot tackling, on the ground. In control of body weight and tackle, tackle is also on the ground and to top it he wins the ball. Danns: Greater speed, jumps, two footed, late, studs planted towards Hull players shins. No control of body weight or tackle, reckless, dangerous, stupid. I can't make this any clearer.
ScouseFox Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 Hahahahaha. Great still. Such a blatant red at the time, in the replays, in slow motion, in a still. Couldn't be more obvious.
Babylon Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 I don't usually like stills but some people just aren't getting it. Big fuzzy pic shows bugger all... nice.
Haydos Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 Big fuzzy pic shows bugger all... nice. It shows that Danns is late. It shows that Danns is high. It shows that their man got there first. It shows that Danns has gone in 2 footed. It shows that their man went in 1 footed. It shows that Danns has jumped in.
Kitchandro Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 If you're going to go in for a loose ball, don't do it two footed. It's been a no-no for a LONG time now. Yep, it's simple, can't understand why players aren't grasping it. They know it's not allowed yet they still protest and say 'I won the ball'.
Jimmy Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 Big fuzzy pic shows bugger all... nice. except 1 player going in with a full blooded 1 footed slide tack and another jumping in with both feet (just) grazing the top of the ball, people on here need to take the blue tinged glasses off
Kitchandro Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 Rosenior's challenge on Cunningham last year was much, much worse than Danns' lunge today. He made hardly any contact with him at all. It was just clumsy and ill-timed, no malice in it whatseover. You'd be no good watching Sunday football, that's for sure. Actually, completely the opposite is true. It was very unlucky that Cunningham broke his leg. The tackle wasn't two footed and he didn't fly in through the air. It was a slight lunge but all committed tackles are. Had Cunningham not won the ball Rosenior would have connected with it at a perfectly fine height, and nothing would have happened. But because Cunningham is running at an angle which is getting nearer to Rosenior, when he gets there first he essentially runs into his tackle resulting in him catching him on the ankle. In contrast, Danns was very fortunate not to break the bloke's leg, it was two-feet off the floor and two feet making contact.
Jace Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 You're all stupid. (Not you Haydos, you carry on being right)
Jace Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 It's no wonder their is a shortage of referees in football
crisp packet Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 Was a big 50/50 BIG!! Watched it many times STILL don't think was a straight red as both players was going in over zealous but Dannzy was on a yellow already !! hence there players chasing down the ref . There was a good few BIG challenges in the game a couple on dyer , one by beckford , one also by peltier . Blood and thunder PASSSSSHUUUUN...!!!! Shame though as dansy has been class lately.....
Babylon Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 It shows that Danns is late. It shows that Danns is high. It shows that their man got there first. It shows that Danns has gone in 2 footed. It shows that their man went in 1 footed. It shows that Danns has jumped in. No it shows one video still POST the tackle. AS I said, you would need to see the full video to decide properly. What's this one show?
Bugg Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 To be fair, Nigel Miller usually has a ****ing shocker against us. But he got this decision right.
potter3 Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 People are arguing against the sending off. Unbelievable.
Haydos Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 No it shows one video still POST the tackle. AS I said, you would need to see the full video to decide properly. What's this one show? That looks like a very similar frame so to the one i posted but more zoomed out. Soooo...the same.
Jace Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 That looks like a very similar frame so to the one i posted but more zoomed out. Soooo...the same. Except I would say it looks even more reckless now
FoxyLouby Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 From where I was sat 5 rows from the front in C1, I knew he was going off. I couldn't see if it was studs up as we were watching from behind but from the sheer momentum that he went in and as the Hull player went down like a sack of spuds, my heart just sank. Really gutted he's out for the next few games.
Corky Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 He noticed the tackle which was fair enough. Didn't notice the Hull basketball team in the first half though. Such a crap ref that bloke.
Babylon Posted 24 March 2012 Posted 24 March 2012 That looks like a very similar frame so to the one i posted but more zoomed out. Soooo...the same. No, it's one frame before yours from the same video, and it just shows a tangle. You can't get sent off because of what your leg does post contact. I'm using that to highlight one frame does not prove anything. I've not said that it is or it isn't a sending off. Just that I would need to see a better video to decide. Seeing the DG recorded vid isn't conclusive for me. Although it looks much worse than the angle I saw it at to be fair. But how many times have we seen vids from different angles that don't look as bad?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.