phildw Posted 9 December 2014 Posted 9 December 2014 Referee was poor in the way he handled to incident, should of been a yellow for both, clark did follow through a bit on ulloa but on balance didn`t deserve anymore than vardy got for his tackle on westwood Yes but Clark didn't get booked did he? In fact the ref didn't even give a foul and I can clearly remember him mouthing 'no foul'.
sylofox Posted 9 December 2014 Posted 9 December 2014 Reading this shaking my head in disbelief and nearly ashamed to be a city fan. How the fvck could anyone want one of our players banned. How the fvck when we only have one to cover. I really do wonder if some members on here are city fans at all. Grow up you fvcking morons. Justice done I am one that is very happy.
biggs Posted 9 December 2014 Posted 9 December 2014 Yeah, it would seem fairly clear our team overall needs some help but the players we have right now is all we have to work with. Wanting all our defenders out is ridiculous when we have who to replace them with. Konch/Morgan/De laet are constantly being called not good enough but who do we have that is? I'm glad the decision was overturned as we have few replacements and maybe this Jan we will see some new and improved players to challenge for the positions we need major help with.
Spicer Posted 9 December 2014 Posted 9 December 2014 Navas is shite anyway. Better than everybody at Leicester though.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 9 December 2014 Posted 9 December 2014 Good news and about right Shame that **** Hutton won't get banned for 3 games for the head butt
buzzy Posted 9 December 2014 Posted 9 December 2014 Schlupp to stay at left mid then... It has to be a bad decision for them to overturn it. prickhead Reading this shaking my head in disbelief and nearly ashamed to be a city fan. How the fvck could anyone want one of our players banned. How the fvck when we only have one to cover. I really do wonder if some members on here are city fans at all. Grow up you fvcking morons. Justice done I am one that is very happy. well said
skmanuk Posted 9 December 2014 Posted 9 December 2014 The Ref needs looking at now, he deserves a ban from the Premier league..... It never ceases to amaze me the stupid things people say.
Corky Posted 9 December 2014 Posted 9 December 2014 prickhead What the hell is this all about? What did Rowlatts say to warrant this reply?
inckley fox Posted 9 December 2014 Posted 9 December 2014 Reading this shaking my head in disbelief and nearly ashamed to be a city fan. How the fvck could anyone want one of our players banned. How the fvck when we only have one to cover. I really do wonder if some members on here are city fans at all. Grow up you fvcking morons. Justice done I am one that is very happy. That's an incredibly simplistic way of looking at things. In 1994 Speedie was sent off in a play-off semi-final. Our manager described it as 'the best thing that could possibly have happened at the time'. Why? Because he needed an excuse to bring Walsh back into the side. What happened? Walsh scored two goals, we won our first ever game at Wembley and got promoted. Nobody wishes Konchesky any ill. They just believe the suspension of an under-performing player could open the door to someone who might represent an improvement. And it wouldn't be the first time that has happened. It's a case of people wanting what they believe to be best for us. If, in spite of thinking Konchesky wasn't up to scratch, they wished for his prolonged presence in the side then that would be a case of them supporting Paul Konchesky at the expense of Leicester City. You might quite sensibly think they're wrong in wanting him out of the side, but you have to see that we're not talking about an injury, nor a morale-crushing unforced removal from the line-up, we're talking about possibly the most hassle-free way of making a change.
biggs Posted 9 December 2014 Posted 9 December 2014 That's an incredibly simplistic way of looking at things. In 1994 Speedie was sent off in a play-off semi-final. Our manager described it as 'the best thing that could possibly have happened at the time'. Why? Because he needed an excuse to bring Walsh back into the side. What happened? Walsh scored two goals, we won our first ever game at Wembley and got promoted. Nobody wishes Konchesky any ill. They just believe the suspension of an under-performing player could open the door to someone who might represent an improvement. And it wouldn't be the first time that has happened. It's a case of people wanting what they believe to be best for us. If, in spite of thinking Konchesky wasn't up to scratch, they wished for his prolonged presence in the side then that would be a case of them supporting Paul Konchesky at the expense of Leicester City. You might quite sensibly think they're wrong in wanting him out of the side, but you have to see that we're not talking about an injury, nor a morale-crushing unforced removal from the line-up, we're talking about possibly the most hassle-free way of making a change. Are you kidding here? Any manager so weak to wait for an event like this to try alternatives is not a manager worth keeping. The change of player here would be out of necessity and if the new player became a permanent replacement it sure was nothing to do with giving the manager a reason to change. He should have the balls to make a change at any time and the players should work their asses off to be the managers player of choice. Hurting his feelings, morale....seriously. These players know they have competition and what your suggesting, No, I cannot believe any manager thinks this way.
inckley fox Posted 9 December 2014 Posted 9 December 2014 Are you kidding here? Any manager so weak to wait for an event like this to try alternatives is not a manager worth keeping. The change of player here would be out of necessity and if the new player became a permanent replacement it sure was nothing to do with giving the manager a reason to change. He should have the balls to make a change at any time and the players should work their asses off to be the managers player of choice. Hurting his feelings, morale....seriously. These players know they have competition and what your suggesting, No, I cannot believe any manager thinks this way. They're not my words, they're Brian Little's. He was glad of Speedie's suspension, and it helped us to be promoted. And who's to say that, if Speedie had been dropped instead of suspended (and it's hard to imagine he would have been) that the repercussions wouldn't have impacted on team morale? So yeah, I'm afraid some managers clearly do think this way. And at least one of our more successful ones. For the record, I doubt O'Neill was too disappointed with the injury to Iwan Roberts which let Heskey into the side. Nobody wants that sort of thing to happen, but there's no doubt that it can turn out to be better for the club. And in Konchesky's case this isn't an injury and wouldn't have led to the manager having to grab the bull by the horns and do what you'd prefer , i.e. dropping a popular player who has been an established figure in the side for over three seasons. It would, should he have wished to get Konchesky out of the side, given him that same perfect excuse that Little had been so grateful of twenty years ago.
AyewJoking Posted 10 December 2014 Posted 10 December 2014 It was arguably a yellow for the challenge, and possibly a further yellow if the referee heard what Konch said and it amounted to unsporting behaviour or whatever, so two yellows in one incident equals a red. However, I'm pretty sure the original challenge didn't merit a yellow, and the ref didn't know what Konch said, so I don't think he should have got one yellow, never mind a red. Hutton's shove was a clear a red card as is even possible. So the ref has got three decisions wrong in one incident. Shambolic doesn't even begin to cover it. is it a wrong decision not to hear what someone says?
The Doctor Posted 10 December 2014 Posted 10 December 2014 is it a wrong decision not to hear what someone says? No, but if you don't know what was said, you can't punish someone for it - so if you do punish someone without actually having a reason why, then that is a wrong decision.
stingray Posted 10 December 2014 Posted 10 December 2014 Not happy, the sooner that that Konch the carthorse leaves the club the better. By fair means or foul
ADK Posted 20 December 2014 Posted 20 December 2014 Do you think if we ask nicely, they will reinstate the ban?
KFS Posted 20 December 2014 Posted 20 December 2014 Do you think if we ask nicely, they will reinstate the ban? he had a stinker today.
nlukka Posted 20 December 2014 Posted 20 December 2014 In all fairness I thought he had a great game today - he was West Ham's best player before he got substituted!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.