andog Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 As we all know Konch was sent off last night after the ref bought back play after seeing whether or not they had an advantage. Once it was established they had no advantage the ref blew up and (rightfully in my opinion) sent Konch off. Now if they went on and created an opportunity or even scored, does the ref still send Konch off? I'm thinking yes. Now if this is the case, why wasn't Darlow sent off after we scored our first goal? See the image below, which clearly shows Darlow hacking down Vardy from behind when Vardy has a clear goalscoring opportunity (obviously, as he scored). Does Darlow see red if Vardy doesn't score? Something I was wandering whether or not many of you agree with me because I think it's a clear red. He didn't even get booked. It probably would've benefited us more if Vardy missed that opportunity and they get their number 1 sent off whilst we still have 60+ minutes to play in the game. They're moaning about Wes not getting sent off, well this for me would've changed everything yet it seems to have gone unnoticed. On the result and performance, I would've took a draw before a ball had been kicked tonight. Cracking season from our lads and you won't hear a slight moan from me regarding our lot this season. Surely now even we can't muck this up!?
potter3 Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 If he had properly played the advantage, he couldn't have retrospectively shown Konchesky a red.
Guest MattP Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 But considering Vardy has got the shot off has the goalscoring chance been denied? It's an interesting point though and certainly correct in that if the ref deemed it was then we would have bizarrly benefitted from missing the chance. So many rules in football need clearing up and setting in stone, they are all worded and rounded now to ensure they can pretty much cover the officials decision whatever he does. the handball rules are incredible when you read them, basically it's worded so if it's not deliberate then it's not handball, but the ref can also use common sense for the situation if it denies a clear advantage, so any decision can be defended.
Harry - LCFC Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 Had they scored and Konchesky been sent off we'd have every right to be outraged. The ref made a mistake there that didn't mean anything in the end,
StanSP Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 As we all know Konch was sent off last night after the ref bought back play after seeing whether or not they had an advantage. Once it was established they had no advantage the ref blew up and (rightfully in my opinion) sent Konch off. Now if they went on and created an opportunity or even scored, does the ref still send Konch off? I'm thinking yes. Now if this is the case, why wasn't Darlow sent off after we scored our first goal? See the image below, which clearly shows Darlow hacking down Vardy from behind when Vardy has a clear goalscoring opportunity (obviously, as he scored). Does Darlow see red if Vardy doesn't score? Something I was wandering whether or not many of you agree with me because I think it's a clear red. He didn't even get booked. It probably would've benefited us more if Vardy missed that opportunity and they get their number 1 sent off whilst we still have 60+ minutes to play in the game. They're moaning about Wes not getting sent off, well this for me would've changed everything yet it seems to have gone unnoticed. On the result and performance, I would've took a draw before a ball had been kicked tonight. Cracking season from our lads and you won't hear a slight moan from me regarding our lot this season. Surely now even we can't muck this up! Very much disagree. I'd take a goal every time. Pressure's on to score and take advantage of 10-men. If you score a goal, you have the goal. There's no guarantee you'll score against 10 men (Forest didn't yesterday).
Guest MattP Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 Very much disagree. I'd take a goal every time. Pressure's on to score and take advantage of 10-men. If you score a goal, you have the goal. There's no guarantee you'll score against 10 men (Forest didn't yesterday). But you won't be 2-1 down by half time if you are playing against ten (and a keeper sent off it also far more trouble than an outfield player) I'd rather play against ten for an hour than have a goal. Reason Forest didnt kill us off after us going down to ten is because we are better than them.
elangLCFC Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 Darlow didn't deny a goalscoring opportunity as Vardy still scored, meaning the opportunity was still there. Interesting point though.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 This is a bit like those times when a player slides in recklessly and the player leaps out of the way. A foul was intended (or at very least incoming), but avoidable. I've always thought in these instances a card should be issued. Just because it was a crap foul, shouldn't let them get away with it. I've never seen it happen though.
The Doctor Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 This is a bit like those times when a player slides in recklessly and the player leaps out of the way. A foul was intended (or at very least incoming), but avoidable. I've always thought in these instances a card should be issued. Just because it was a crap foul, shouldn't let them get away with it. I've never seen it happen though. Spot on, what he's trying to do is a professional foul, deliberately foul Vardy to stop the goal. You shouldn't be able to get away with that just because you're too shit to execute it properly. For all the poison dwarfs whining, Forest should probably have lost Darlow for that, and definitely should have seen Reid wobbling down the tunnel after our equaliser.
andog Posted 20 February 2014 Author Posted 20 February 2014 I personally think we would've benefited more if Vardy had missed/ref had stopped play and Darlow was sent walking.
Guest ttfn Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 Spot on, what he's trying to do is a professional foul, deliberately foul Vardy to stop the goal. You shouldn't be able to get away with that just because you're too shit to execute it properly. For all the poison dwarfs whining, Forest should probably have lost Darlow for that, and definitely should have seen Reid wobbling down the tunnel after our equaliser. There was no DOGSO though as we scored. It would have been different had it been a hack but it wasn't exactly a dangerous challenge.
The Doctor Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 There was no DOGSO though as we scored. It would have been different had it been a hack but it wasn't exactly a dangerous challenge. True, but the intent is clearly to foul Jamie so he doesn't score - I'd say that him failing shouldn't make it fine
red5 Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 Off course he should have had a red, but the fa and refs are shit, that's why football is such fun.
Hollism Posted 20 February 2014 Posted 20 February 2014 What if the ref wants to send Koncheskey off but plays the advantage, then Konch runs back and clears it off the line 15 seconds later? Similar thing happened with Barton for QPR lady year, where an advantage was played in the middle of the pitch and he then got sent off.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.