Incognito

I'm not saying we should quote Gerrards tackle as a basis for our appeal,however Gerrards lunge was reckless as it was directed at Carrick whereas Tiote's was at nothing but the ball. I don't believe the FA will overturn it anyhow,but they most certainly should.

Gerrard lunged at the player,Tiote didn't.Simples.

Dippers doing quite well here.

I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. No they don't In the last 5 metes they are virtually side by side. Tiote gets to the ball and is in the process of hooking the ball back with his heel as the Stevenage falls over the back of his legs. Watch it again then. Because Tiote runs AT him, they're never side by side. They'd only be side by side if Tiote was running from behind or in front - he comes from the other side of the pitch. NO. http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/3002/tiote.jpg Not side by side have some have said, but he does NOT run or lunge at the player. But as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't really matter if he was lunging at the player or not. I don't think anyone so far has argued that Tiote went in to smash the lad or anything. However, what he did do was lunge recklessly into a 50/50 situation. Reckless = red. It isn't 50-50 though. Why did Tiote make a tackle at all then, if there was little or no chance of the other player beating him to the ball? How stupid is that? If he'd have just ran for the ball and not lunged at the ball,it would have been 50-50 for him getting there first,but the lunge,at the ball and not the player which I think is crucial here,gets him there before the Stevenage player.Hence the lunge gives him a better chance of making the ball first.

I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. No they don't In the last 5 metes they are virtually side by side. Tiote gets to the ball and is in the process of hooking the ball back with his heel as the Stevenage falls over the back of his legs. Watch it again then. Because Tiote runs AT him, they're never side by side. They'd only be side by side if Tiote was running from behind or in front - he comes from the other side of the pitch. NO. http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/3002/tiote.jpg Not side by side have some have said, but he does NOT run or lunge at the player. But as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't really matter if he was lunging at the player or not. I don't think anyone so far has argued that Tiote went in to smash the lad or anything. However, what he did do was lunge recklessly into a 50/50 situation. Reckless = red. It isn't 50-50 though.

I suppose he'd save them commissioning a statue of him.

Thats the first picture of Laurel and Hardy rolled into one person.

He's off the ground! He doesn't walk up to the bloke and tap him on the shoulder, a couple of yards away he lifts his feet off the ground towards the ball/player - that's a 'lunge' in my books. Ball-yes Player-no.

Look at this. http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1803/fuckinglaughable.jpg Is lunging at thin air a red card offence? With a player nearby, yes. Because it's potentially putting him in danger. It's not like the player was on the other side of the stadium Surely the wind Tiote's lunge creates isn't as powerful as Hurricane Katrina?

How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you?

I'm a fan of the big willi but today was his worst display in a black and white shirt. Fair do's people having a pop. I still think he's a calmer influence than Taylor but he looked absolutely fucked today and in need a spell out of the limelight. His last 2 starts have been his worst two games.Doesn't like a physical opponent by the looks of things.

Nah...Christmas has gone now mate.

But not towards the opponent,he was running in virtually the same direction which takes the malice out of the challenged as he "karate kicked" towards fresh air.

It was Lee Harvey Oswald that done it.

I didn't even think it was a foul personally,ok his studs were raised,but not at the player,who was approaching from the same vicinty.No intent to hurt the opponent whatsoever.

And I think we are mainly blaming the players,but the manager had options to play square pegs in square holes.He has to be apportioned some blame too.His all round performance from team selection to tactics to substitutions was frankly disgraceful.Hope he learns from it sharpish.

Elliotman,its all about balance,and having no lefties left us totally unbalanced and predictable to defend against.Poor management,especially with Ferguson and Kadar available.

To pick a side with no left footers in it save Ovenchips is shocking tbh.To bring on Tiote was asking for trouble.Some blame can be laid at the manager's door tbh.

If it'd have been Gary Neville it would be overturned for sure.

I think you can add Steven Taylor to the list of must be fits,Williamson again looked awful.

Be ironic if they overturned the red to a yellow and he misses the game anyhow.

We'll have to see if any appeal succeeds before considering this game tbh.

Complete lack of desire,urgency and professionalism by all from the manager down to the players. If Pardew doesn't have the brain capacity to know how we love our Cup history and our hatred to the cunts that we played,I fear the worst for next week.

Tiote being banned for the derby is the end of the world.

Guaranteed if Sky4 club appealled against that it would be overturned,but I'm not sure we will.