Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No chance of getting it appealed like, it’s one of those where it’s clear it should be a red when you imagine the shoe being on the other foot. More tackles should be reds though, just make the punishment fairer to suit.

 

The fact he ran around booting the fuck out of people minutes before probably won’t help his case either [emoji38]

 

 

Edited by Hanshithispantz

Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s absolutely zero chance an appeal would be successful. Just suck it up and use it as an opportunity to get other people some minutes. They’ll be playing out of their skins to prove themselves 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a stonewall red. I don't it was a malicious challenge, but it was definitely reckless and put his opponent at risk.

 

I'm gutted that we'll lose his control and creativity, particularly v Liverpool. Every cloud has a silver lining though, Joe will come back into midfield where he's more effective and it'll give one of more creative wingers an opportunity. With Gordon a newbie and Isak potentially out of action, I'll be surprised if it isn't ASM. If we play to his strengths he has the potential to have Coufal and TAA on toast. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bowlingcrofty said:

Knowing our luck we’d appeal and he’d get an extra game added on for a frivolous appeal.


I hate that an appeal is met with further punishment. Wtf is that stupidity? You don’t get to speak up or defend yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

It's a stonewall red. I don't it was a malicious challenge, but it was definitely reckless and put his opponent at risk.

 

 

 

So why didn't Salisu see red for nearly taking Miggy's head off? I don't think it (Salisu) was anything other than a foul, just pointing out that if you go on potential impact without intent then this was probably more dangerous in potential impact than Bruno's.

 

For me Bruno's was a red for a mistimed challenge above the ankle but its a crime worthy of a one match ban, not 3

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kanji said:


I hate that an appeal is met with further punishment. Wtf is that stupidity? You don’t get to speak up or defend yourself?

It is a bit stupid, but I think it’s designed to stop teams from appealing so they can play the next game which maybe a key game when there is a quick turnaround of fixtures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now somewhat ridiculously terrified that there's a royal death or horrific weather that leads to the postponement of one of our games :lol: 

 

The mackems will probably ring a bomb scare to SJP this weekend or something.

 

Not ideal he misses the 3 league games either, mind. Great chance to pick up at least 7 points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Why isn't he being banned for three games now then? 

 

Hiding behind the wording that says retrospective action for violent conduct in the process of challenging for the ball can only be made where the incident was not seen. 

 

Assuming VAR looked at it and said nothing doing then it was seen by the officials.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...