Stevosevic Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Ian Stringer@StringerSport #lcfc will NOT appeal the Neil Danns' red card picked up against Hull City so a 4 game ban. Andy King will be in the squad @10_kingy
adam1 Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Ian Stringer@StringerSport #lcfc will NOT appeal the Neil Danns' red card picked up against Hull City so a 4 game ban. Andy King will be in the squad @10_kingy At least we have another midfielder back. It was a red. Danns had both feet off the ground when going into the tackle. It is irrelevant as to whether he took the ball or not.
Larry_LCFC Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 4 game ban? Thought a straight red was 3? Edit: Forgot about his previous red.
StanSP Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 4 game ban? Thought a straight red was 3? Second red of the season.
dannyjpage Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 At least we have another midfielder back. It was a red. Danns had both feet off the ground when going into the tackle. It is irrelevant as to whether he took the ball or not. The hull player had both feet off the ground and did not get the ball (which is irrelevant) What action do you think should have been taken against him?
adam1 Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 The hull player had both feet off the ground and did not get the ball (which is irrelevant) What action do you think should have been taken against him? Danns went into him and not the other way around.
dannyjpage Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Danns went into him and not the other way around. The photos contained in this thread do show the Hull player lunging into the challenge?? Fair play though, everyones opinions are different.
dannyjpage Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Look at where the referee is stood in this photo and the view he had
cc_star Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Look at where the referee is stood in this photo and the view he had Can clearly see Danns going over the ball leading with his studs, whereas the Hull player has his foot sideways and much lower Not sure what people's problem is, it's obvious a red for Danns whereas the situation with the Hull player is open to interpretation a bit more, but doesn't actually look reckless to me
adam1 Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 The photos contained in this thread do show the Hull player lunging into the challenge?? Fair play though, everyones opinions are different. I agree that everyone has their own opinions. But that picture doesn't show the full challenge. The video clearly shows Danns going into the player. Its the direction of the two players as they go into and also the height. The Hull player is low. Danns is high and goes down into him.
dannyjpage Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 I agree that everyone has their own opinions. But that picture doesn't show the full challenge. The video clearly shows Danns going into the player. Its the direction of the two players as they go into and also the height. The Hull player is low. Danns is high and goes down into him. I can see your point and i shall put my hands up and agree with you. The angle and height is clear in the video.
Haydos Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Can clearly see Danns going over the ball leading with his studs, whereas the Hull player has his foot sideways and much lower Not sure what people's problem is, it's obvious a red for Danns whereas the situation with the Hull player is open to interpretation a bit more, but doesn't actually look reckless to me This. Although after those newer images the Hull player's challenge looks more dangerous that I first though. Danns' is still 2 footed though so again, by the law, has to go.
topharry123 Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 ha I came on here to see if we would be appealing as from what I had heard it was harsh, but looking at the video it's clear as day! The Hull man got away with it though !
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Look at where the referee is stood in this photo and the view he had I think that's as clear as it gets, the Hull player is at ball level, studs going towards the ground and foot is side on. Nothing wrong whatsoever. Danns is higher than the ball, studs up flying in towards the player. Fair play to the ref, he got it spot on.
StanSP Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Looking at that conclusive still, Danns could have even done himself a fair bit of damage, given that he's only just touched the ball. The main point being 'could have'. Challenges like this have all sort of potentialities, for both individuals. I know it's 2 days after and I should probably get over it, but I'm still annoyed the Hull player got away scot-free.
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 I think the "could have" remark above is fairly salient because Danns makes no contact with the player (both of his legs end up planted between the opponent's legs), so it does bring into question the idea of 'potential harm'. I don't think this is a two-footed challenge in any case, because like I said before his right leg doesn't join his left leg till fairly late on once his left foot is pretty much on the ground, meaning by the time it looks 'two-footed' some of his momentum has gone; he does not go in with all of his body weight behind two legs.
Guest Col city fan Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Unsurprisingly not appealing, 4 match ban No surprise whatsoever..
Jordan Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 It looks to me that Danns tried to pull back at the very end, but by then, he was already over the ball and it was too late to avoid flying into the tackle the way he did. I don't think there was that much malice in that tackle, but it was still reckless and dangerous--and as such, deserving of a red card and a ban.
Larry_LCFC Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 I dont understand why this discussion is still going on. Danns was reckless and got a deserved red. The hull player didnt. We are not appealing. End of. Move on!
davieG Posted 26 March 2012 Author Posted 26 March 2012 I dont understand why this discussion is still going on. Danns was reckless and got a deserved red. The hull player didnt. We are not appealing. End of. Move on! So stop posting in the topic and inviting comments. Ooops! I've done it know
Larry_LCFC Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 So stop posting in the topic and inviting comments. Ooops! I've done it know I cant help it! Some people just wont let go!
Thracian Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 A bit tasty! http://smg.photobuck...rrent=danns.mp4 If only we could have had him and Tiatto together for a season...we'd have had a high risk team as well as high risk fans!
Raj Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Ref got some awful abuse from L1ers but looking at the replay he had to go it was almost GBH!!! Although the ref could have given a yellow or red to a few Hull challenges a few minutes earlier,think thats he got mullered!
Foxhateram Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Still stand by the fact both men went over the ball and both should have been booked. Danns' one did look worse though and I guess on that evidence the ref picked the one that looked worse. Which I suppose is fair enough. Just a shame, as Danns was really coming into form.
Legend_in_blue Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 The photos contained in this thread do show the Hull player lunging into the challenge?? Fair play though, everyones opinions are different. Looking at this I still stand by what I said before. Danns is coming at the ball and is more likely to go over it as he challenges. The other guy is coming from the opposite direction to catch up with the ball, so his challenge is low. Both are reckless. Both are red cards. Ref got it wrong.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.