Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Legion on December 28, 2014, 06:46:26 PM
-
Yellow.
-
Sorry, but i think that's a red.
Even if you take a more lenient view of it and don't see it as a red, there's an argument that that's the sort of tackle which gets perceived as a red these days.
It was a shit tackle and he didn't chop him down at the ankle, he stood on his foot, but it was late and dangerous.
-
That's a red. Stamp down the ankle and on to the foot.
-
Its red for me, it was a lunge and was after the ball had been played. No excuse.
-
I honestly think it should have been a yellow. But can also see why it was given as a red and no way will it be rescinded.
And he deserved a red just for the fucking stupidity of the challenge anyway. Benteke, Richardson, Delph, all have cost us with sheer fucking fuckwittery.
-
Red. Dumb tackle, in hard, no ball contact and caught vulnerable part of player.
-
Red.
Glaring reason why he'll end up at the Spurs/Evertons/Liverpools of this world rather than any higher.
-
Red. Pure stupidity.
-
Its red for me, it was a lunge and was after the ball had been played. No excuse.
Behave. He got there a fraction of a second after the ball had gone.
It was a genuine attempt to play the ball and he just missed it. 9 times out of 10 that would be a yellow.
-
I honestly think it should have been a yellow. But can also see why it was given as a red and no way will it be rescinded.
And he deserved a red just for the fucking stupidity of the challenge anyway. Benteke, Richardson, Delph, all have cost us with sheer fucking fuckwittery.
Couldn't have put it better myself, on all counts.
-
Another vote for red here. Nine times out of ten a player will go for a challenge like that.
-
At the time I was convinced it should have been yellow.
-
Yellow at most, for me.
Seen a lot worse go unpunished.
Mind you, given some of the Villa reds this season he should be banned for life!!
-
If it should have been a yellow it will get rescinded.
It wont.
-
if someone can put up the Konchesky red then you'll see they are both the same. Konchesky got nothing for his in the end but it should have been yellow. In my opinion Delph's challenge is no different in that it is equally wreckless, and unlike Konchesky he didn't follow up on the victim by taunting him.
-
Deserved, no excuse.
-
I suppose the conspiracy theorists will be convinced he did it on purpose so he wouldn't be injured before his big move ;)
-
As I said in the match thread, a definite red. Nowhere near the ball, and studs straight into the bloke's ankle. Not malicious, but still a red.
-
Looks a red to me.
To be honest, it was no surprise he got sent off today. He looked well off his game today.
I said at half time he looked like he'd a row with him missus, because he seemed to be playing 'angry' with misplaced passes and shouting at team mates.
I hope big time charlie syndrome isn't starting to kick him with him.
-
It's red. It's so clumsy and mistimed it looks like he's not tried to play the ball.
-
Red forever.
-
I was surprised when he got a red....only because I've seen Delph lung in countless times and always get a yellow.
Today was his first premier league sending off, I'm amazed he hasn't gone off before as he's always been a liability tackling so inevitable a ref wouldn't take a lenient view of it.
-
if someone can put up the Konchesky red then you'll see they are both the same. Konchesky got nothing for his in the end but it should have been yellow. In my opinion Delph's challenge is no different in that it is equally wreckless, and unlike Konchesky he didn't follow up on the victim by taunting him.
They were not the same, in the Konchesky / Hutton melee there was forehead to forehead stuff, taunting (as you said) and general argy bargy. You can't just pretend that didn't happen, because it did.
not to mention running to the ref from both sides and general outbreaks of pushing and shoving. Those shouldn't affect the ref's decision, but they do, you can't just pretend they didn't happen.
-
Red. Late, nasty lunge that he shouldn't have even attempted.
-
It's orange, some refs will send you off for that but others won't. It often depends upon who you play for, and our recent track record of players being sent off probably didn't help.
-
They were not the same, in the Konchesky / Hutton melee there was forehead to forehead stuff, taunting (as you said) and general argy bargy. You can't just pretend that didn't happen, because it did.
It did, but that's not the offence that Konchesky was sent off for.
He was sent off for the foul and Hutton was booked for his reaction.
-
Ref should never have happened btw as what lead to the throw in was Delph messing up what was a simply ball down the line to N'zogbia and he just kicked it out of play so that added to the frustration.
-
They were not the same, in the Konchesky / Hutton melee there was forehead to forehead stuff, taunting (as you said) and general argy bargy. You can't just pretend that didn't happen, because it did.
It did, but that's not the offence that Konchesky was sent off for.
He was sent off for the foul and Hutton was booked for his reaction.
I know, but the thing i was getting at was that you can't just say "take it away" and pretend it didn't happen. It did, there was inflammation of tempers, generalised pushing and shoving, all things which will influence the referee one way or the other.
The referee in his notes will have said Konchesky was sent off for the foul, but there was enough extra nonsense going on to influence him, and today there wasn't
-
I'm sorry I watched it live and ive seen it numerous times its never a red. You can usually tell a bad tackle by the reaction of the players and there is no reaction except for disbelief from Villa players.
-
They were not the same, in the Konchesky / Hutton melee there was forehead to forehead stuff, taunting (as you said) and general argy bargy. You can't just pretend that didn't happen, because it did.
It did, but that's not the offence that Konchesky was sent off for.
He was sent off for the foul and Hutton was booked for his reaction.
Hutton deliberately made a meal of the challenge which was what angered Koncheskey (apparently they have history). The Koncheskey challenge was no where near as dangerous. I don't believe there was any intent by Delph it was just wreckless.
" A tackle with the shoe studs up are almost always considered grave foul play".
I know, but the thing i was getting at was that you can't just say "take it away" and pretend it didn't happen. It did, there was inflammation of tempers, generalised pushing and shoving, all things which will influence the referee one way or the other.
The referee in his notes will have said Konchesky was sent off for the foul, but there was enough extra nonsense going on to influence him, and today there wasn't
-
If an opposition player did that to one of our boys we'd all be demanding a red card. Delph's always been a red card waiting to happen with his clumsy and aggressive lunges.
-
If an opposition player did that to one of our boys we'd all be demanding a red card. Delph's always been a red card waiting to happen with his clumsy and aggressive lunges.
I guess that what makes it more annoying is that when we're on the receiving end of similar tackles (Verthongen and Chadli against Spurs being the obvious ones) then we haven't seen the same results.
-
Clear Red.
-
if someone can put up the Konchesky red then you'll see they are both the same. Konchesky got nothing for his in the end but it should have been yellow. In my opinion Delph's challenge is no different in that it is equally wreckless, and unlike Konchesky he didn't follow up on the victim by taunting him.
They were not the same, in the Konchesky / Hutton melee there was forehead to forehead stuff, taunting (as you said) and general argy bargy. You can't just pretend that didn't happen, because it did.
not to mention running to the ref from both sides and general outbreaks of pushing and shoving. Those shouldn't affect the ref's decision, but they do, you can't just pretend they didn't happen.
Konchesky got sent off for the foul. The afters didn't help in fact Hutton could have gone also for being stupid. My point very specifically was the challenge and it is the reason Konchesky was sent off.
On a different note, was Delph utterly stupid for going in like that? Well off course and he ran the risk that the ref's decision that followed was not going to be lenient.
-
Bad tackle for sure but surprised the ref went for the red card.
-
if someone can put up the Konchesky red then you'll see they are both the same. Konchesky got nothing for his in the end but it should have been yellow. In my opinion Delph's challenge is no different in that it is equally wreckless, and unlike Konchesky he didn't follow up on the victim by taunting him.
They were not the same, in the Konchesky / Hutton melee there was forehead to forehead stuff, taunting (as you said) and general argy bargy. You can't just pretend that didn't happen, because it did.
not to mention running to the ref from both sides and general outbreaks of pushing and shoving. Those shouldn't affect the ref's decision, but they do, you can't just pretend they didn't happen.
Konchesky got sent off for the foul. The afters didn't help in fact Hutton could have gone also for being stupid. My point very specifically was the challenge and it is the reason Konchesky was sent off.
On a different note, was Delph utterly stupid for going in like that? Well off course and he ran the risk that the ref's decision that followed was not going to be lenient.
The thing is, though, if you are talking about whether or not Konchesky should have been sent off, you can't just ignore all the other shite and focus on the challenge alone - it might have been in the ref's report that it was for the challenge, but the red card came out after the challenge, then the taunting, then the players from both sides laying into each other, and after the head to head between the two players concerned.
If you want to look at one tackle versus the other in terms of which was worse, then yes, you could do that - although to be honest, I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference as both those challenges were well within the area where a ref could go either way and a red can quite easily be shown - I just don't think you can focus on the issue of whether they really deserved reds based purely on the challenges alone, because it wasn't just the challenges which influenced the referee.
Konchesky got his rescinded.
Do you reckon Delph will? I don't.
Either way, it was a truly fucking brainless challenge. That's one of the things I hate most about this Villa side, the sheer fucking brainlessness in evidence, week after week.
-
Delph has always been a walking yellow / red card. It's why he won't make it in international or CL football, he'd be off every other game
-
Hopefully Delph can master the art of a forward pass whilst he's suspended.
-
Delph has always had this class of thing in his locker, to use pundit-speak, but he seemed to have it under control in the spell before his injury.
Today he was out of sorts and clearly frustrated about something.
-
If an opposition player did that to one of our boys we'd all be demanding a red card. Delph's always been a red card waiting to happen with his clumsy and aggressive lunges.
I don't think we would to be honest .The only way I would be asking a Red for that would be if we had just received a red for a terrible decision like that.
-
Didn't think it was a foul at the time. Then again, was concentrating on not spilling my Bovril and had only just got back to my seat so wasn't really concentrating.
Seeing it again, definite red.
We were unlucky with the Gabby dismissal but really need to stop the stupid sendings off now, getting beyond a joke.
-
Yellow tops.
-
Came up from the Holte bar 5mins late so missed this, seeing it now it's prob a soft red/harsh yellow. In all fairness I don't care, Delph is a fucking tool who thinks he is better than us in the same way Downing did. He will be a squad player at Liverpool/Spurs and will end up back at this level when he doesn't make it. We're not going down, I would rather send him packing in jan for 5m and recall Gary Gardner
-
that's a red for me. late and high
-
that's a red for me. late and high
High? At the point of contact Delph's heel is touching the floor.
It wasn't two footed, it wasnt from behind, it wasn't high, there was no malice. Yes he caught his ankle but it was a genuine challenge that he mistimed.
I think a few views are being affected by his refusal to sign a new contract.
-
I am with PWS. It deserves a red for uncontrolled brainlessness. These days with refs as precious and starstruck as they are you do not gamble.
-
Thought he was a bit rash at the time. Not a red.
Just watched it slow-mo - he's a bit late - not a red.
We see those type of tackles every game and they are routinely given a yellow.
Several posters have said the contact is "high" - Delph makes contact with the player's foot which is where the ball was half a second before. He's late. There is no "high" in the tackle/foul at all!
Just wish he wouldn't keep being so f**king stupid and getting (usually) yellow cards for "spiteful" tackles rather than malicious ones. He was pissed off because he'd made shite use of the ball and then overreacted - like he usually does!
-
I think a few views are being affected by his refusal to sign a new contract.
Personally, I'd have the same opinion as stated above had it been Sanchez, Hutton or Guzan doing the tackling.
-
that's a red for me. late and high
High? At the point of contact Delph's heel is touching the floor.
It wasn't two footed, it wasnt from behind, it wasn't high, there was no malice. Yes he caught his ankle but it was a genuine challenge that he mistimed.
I think a few views are being affected by his refusal to sign a new contract.
Agree with this, harsh red for me, the angle the tackle comes from makes it look worse but the fact is it's slightly late, on the floor and catches him across the top of his foot, definitely a yellow but you could probably find 1 or 2 like that every week that don't lead to red. Just like the Benteke red I don't think anyone would have been calling it an injustice to have only been yellow. I genuinely think that the only correct red for us is the Richardson one.
-
I am with PWS. It deserves a red for uncontrolled brainlessness. These days with refs as precious and starstruck as they are you do not gamble.
Know what you mean Brian, but we also see players getting away with it every week.
The lack of consistency really pisses me off.
I guarantee that if that was John Terry he'd have got a yellow and stayed on the pitch.
-
Stevie G would never get sent off for a challenge like that.
It seems that any challenge which is late is fair game for a red card these days. I swear the refs change the criteria every week.
Was it two footed - no
Was there excessive force - no
Was it high - no
Was it reckless - perhaps, but every challenge is potentially reckless
Was it petulant - yes
The challenge was a yellow, he stamped on his foot.
-
I didn't think there was any intent but I can see why the ref has sent him off.
-
Certain refs love the attention. Like today Atkinson couldn't get into his back pocket quick enough. I'm not sure it's a red if it's on sky and you are a sky5 team. For anyone else it's a red probably.
-
I can't argue with the ref for giving a red card, saying that if it was against us and the ref gave a yellow that would have been fine too.
It's one of them silly tackles without the intent to hurt, just a shit clumsy tackle.
We're due some luck soon aren't we?
-
I didn't think there was any intent but I can see why the ref has sent him off.
Same for me. I didn't think it was a red but understand why it was given.
-
I can't argue with the ref for giving a red card, saying that if it was against us and the ref gave a yellow that would have been fine too.
It's one of them silly tackles without the intent to hurt, just a shit clumsy tackle.
We're due some luck soon aren't we?
We had it v Leicester when they had a man sent off incorrectly
-
What annoys me, is of the 4 red cards we've received, we've been treated harshly.
Benteke, deserved Red, but so should Mason.
Richardson and Delph were a yellow at most.
Gabby, was ridiculous and rightly resinded.
Then on top of this, bad tackles, like the one that seriously injured Westwood, get punished lightly.
Let's all be honest, we see tackles like the Delph one every game and they're never given red cards.
Have we done something to annoy the refs?
-
We are so boring to watch I think we've upset the PL hierarchy and they want us gone. The refs have been briefed possibly.
-
It's bloody annoying. We've had a really shut run with injuries followed by this run of reds. When will it end? Like I said we could do with some luck now and again.
-
I can't argue with the ref for giving a red card, saying that if it was against us and the ref gave a yellow that would have been fine too.
It's one of them silly tackles without the intent to hurt, just a shit clumsy tackle.
We're due some luck soon aren't we?
We had it v Leicester when they had a man sent off incorrectly
That was in the 80th minute, not such a game changer
-
I can't argue with the ref for giving a red card, saying that if it was against us and the ref gave a yellow that would have been fine too.
It's one of them silly tackles without the intent to hurt, just a shit clumsy tackle.
We're due some luck soon aren't we?
We had it v Leicester when they had a man sent off incorrectly
That was in the 80th minute, not such a game changer
Dunno, we are masters at late goals against
-
I can't argue with the ref for giving a red card, saying that if it was against us and the ref gave a yellow that would have been fine too.
It's one of them silly tackles without the intent to hurt, just a shit clumsy tackle.
We're due some luck soon aren't we?
We had it v Leicester when they had a man sent off incorrectly
I'm not sure a sending off for Koncehesky (which he brought on himself) is quite the same as 4 sendings off, a very bad injury to Westwood and an F.A charge.
-
What annoys me, is of the 4 red cards we've received, we've been treated harshly.
Benteke, deserved Red, but so should Mason.
Richardson and Delph were a yellow at most.
Gabby, was ridiculous and rightly resinded.
Then on top of this, bad tackles, like the one that seriously injured Westwood, get punished lightly.
Let's all be honest, we see tackles like the Delph one every game and they're never given red cards.
Have we done something to annoy the refs?
I agree that tackle was a lot worse because it looked like intent.
-
The "scissors" type tackle such as on Westwood is meant for maximum effect on the player and not to win the ball. That was a much worse tackle than Delph's today.
Too much inconsistency from refs who do not seem to understand "the game".
They apply rules/laws and interpret them far too individually for there to be any sense to players, fans and even the refs themselves as a collective body.
When I asked who the ref was v Stripeys, a fellow Villa fan said: "Mike Dean...local derby....sending off in the first half-hour".
Now that's consistent!!!
-
Yellow. This would have been a yellow before this season. Platini is to blame for trying to eliminate tackling from the game. Fouls are part of the game and the laws of the game are not being applied but interpreted by incompetent referees.
-
Never a red. Bizarre.
-
The whole red card thing has gone beyond stupidity at the moment and no one knows what the deal is anymore. Yes, it was a little late and high but if you're going to get red for that then bollocks to it. Should've been a yellow.
-
As an ex centre half, I think I'd be sent off every week now . My main assett was a sliding tackle . Nothing felt better when you "got the lot" and won the ball.
It's a different game now .
-
If he had have been given a yellow I would have thought it quite lucky. one of those where you think you've swerved one. Another ref may not have given the decision but others would have. The problem was that he made the ref make a decision when if he hadn't have lunged but moved his feet a little, the 50/50 call wouldn't have to be made.
That he gave a red isn't particularly surprising which is why I think the decision is correct.
-
Me too, silhill.
Or not...'cos we'd be suspended most of the time.
Once got suspended for 28 days in Dec/Jan. Postponed games due to bad weather etc meant I didn't miss any.
Justice!
-
We are so boring to watch I think we've upset the PL hierarchy and they want us gone. The refs have been briefed possibly.
I wonder what danlanza is up to these days.
-
A quick run through the the match reports on the beeb, Guardian and Independent websites describe the red card as surprising, unfortunate and a surprise.
Not seen it on anything other than a heavily pixelated 3G stream yet, so can't really comment with my own view.
-
Another ref might have given a yellow but Delph was taking a huge risk making such a rash challenge right in front of the referee. He's too much of a hot head.
-
We are so boring to watch I think we've upset the PL hierarchy and they want us gone. The refs have been briefed possibly.
I wonder what danlanza is up to these days.
Possibly move to conspiracy thread
-
Another ref might have given a yellow but Delph was taking a huge risk making such a rash challenge right in front of the referee. He's too much of a hot head.
He's been a lot better recently. This was his first card of any colour for us this season. And he had 1 yellow in his 17 games for us last season.
-
Another ref might have given a yellow but Delph was taking a huge risk making such a rash challenge right in front of the referee. He's too much of a hot head.
Quite right .
However Clint hill QPR straight red which was yellow
Konchesky Leicester a straight red only had a yellow
Anyone who has seen this two tackles I like to know thoughts on them being as worse if not more than fabs.
I voted yellow for delph.
-
McCarthy (Everton) yellow for similar to Delph.
Schneiderlin (S'ton) yellow for similar - later got 2nd yellow
Konchesky (Leic) yellow for identical tackle - later got 2nd yellow
Hill (QPR) yellow for reckless scissor tackle
Vertongen (Spuds) no card for similar on Van Persie
Gardner (WBA) no card for late hit on player's foot - ref gave free kick...and later nothing at all for a massive kick-out/swipe at Bojan leading up to Stoke's 1st goal
That looks pretty consistent to me - except for Delph's.
-
There were several yellows given today for identical challenges it has to be said, that's the inconsistency that is so annoying! Having said that I think the fair assessment is hard to call so one to take on the chin I'm afraid (Delph isn't an established enough international yet, to get the free pass from refs :) ).
-
McCarthy (Everton) yellow for similar to Delph.
Schneiderlin (S'ton) yellow for similar - later got 2nd yellow
Konchesky (Leic) yellow for identical tackle - later got 2nd yellow
Hill (QPR) yellow for reckless scissor tackle
Vertongen (Spuds) no card for similar on Van Persie
Gardner (WBA) no card for late hit on player's foot - ref gave free kick...and later nothing at all for a massive kick-out/swipe at Bojan leading up to Stoke's 1st goal
That looks pretty consistent to me - except for Delph's.
Yep that's pretty much how I saw it after watching motd. I didn't think it was a red at the time and still don't.
I'm surprised how many Villa fans thought it was red and can only put it down to a dislike of Delph's contract issue.
-
McCarthy (Everton) yellow for similar to Delph.
Schneiderlin (S'ton) yellow for similar - later got 2nd yellow
Konchesky (Leic) yellow for identical tackle - later got 2nd yellow
Hill (QPR) yellow for reckless scissor tackle
Vertongen (Spuds) no card for similar on Van Persie
Gardner (WBA) no card for late hit on player's foot - ref gave free kick...and later nothing at all for a massive kick-out/swipe at Bojan leading up to Stoke's 1st goal
That looks pretty consistent to me - except for Delph's.
Yep that's pretty much how I saw it after watching motd. I didn't think it was a red at the time and still don't.
I'm surprised how many Villa fans thought it was red and can only put it down to a dislike of Delph's contract issue.
Q.E.D.
Although I am not sure the contract issue is the only reason for Villa fans' opinions. Fabian's previous for dodgy tackles probably plays in to the equation.
-
It was a little harsh as it was clumsy more than malicious, but if you go in studs up, a few yards from the ref, then you're asking for it. It was a nothing area of the pitch, the player was going nowhere, so it was a fucking stupid challenge to make. Some ref's may have given a yellow but honestly given Delph's penchant for fugly tackles, I think it's just caught up with him this time. I'd have expected him to have had a few more reds in his career by now, coming from the Paul Scholes academy of tackling (sadly not the Scholes academy of passing).
3 games out because of a challenge that didn't need to be made at all. Which will leave us going into (what should be) winnable games trying to cobble together a midfield.
I've no sympathy for Delph whatsoever with this because I think he dropped us in it for no good reason. But it's typical of him. It's also typical of the brainless way in which we seem to play as a football team. Short of Benteke and Sanchez (and Grealish, barely older than a glint in his daddy's eye, when he gets time), no one in midfield or attack seems to show much nous.
-
It was harsh but it was stupid and it's the third such challenge he's made since returning from injury
Asking for trouble and I can't see it being overturned
-
It was harsh but it was stupid and it's the third such challenge he's made since returning from injury
Asking for trouble and I can't see it being overturned
I don't think there's a hope in hell they'll overturn that one. It's sadly, as someone mentioned above, a prime example of why Delph won't make it at a bigger club. Stuff like this will put off top 4. He might get a move to an also-ran like Spurs or Liverpool but ultimately within a year or two he'll end up back at a lower-mid-table club. If he could rake passes around the pitch and had the adhesive touch of Scholes then certain clubs could overlook the horror film challenges, but he can't.
-
Poyet claims Delph was unlucky but then says he could have broken the players leg.
I think that says it all, it was dangerous, whether he intended it or not.
I don't have a problem with the red at all, some refs might not have but you can certainly say it meets the criteria for one.
-
I think it's an idiotic challenge, especially when you consider it's right in front of the referee.
-
Someone needs to get a grip of our players. We've had 4 straight reds in the last couple of months. Obviously Gabby's shouldn't have been given, but we need to stop making wreckless challenges.
-
I've not seen it yet, waiting for it on MOTD now. But he must have been late, as the reason I missed it in real time was that I was explaining to the missus what "line it" means.
-
Why did he play on the right and Cleverly on the left.
-
Just watched MOTD, so first time to see it back, and can see why it was a red although the one by Clint Hill for QPR just before was equally as bad and only got a yellow. That inconsistency is why these things will always be disputed.
-
I read with interest this morning Gary Monk giving Jonjo Shelvey a public shoeing for his silly and reckless yellow cards.
Maybe he can come and give a talk at Bodymoor Heath?
-
McCarthy (Everton) yellow for similar to Delph.
Schneiderlin (S'ton) yellow for similar - later got 2nd yellow
Konchesky (Leic) yellow for identical tackle - later got 2nd yellow
Hill (QPR) yellow for reckless scissor tackle
Vertongen (Spuds) no card for similar on Van Persie
Gardner (WBA) no card for late hit on player's foot - ref gave free kick...and later nothing at all for a massive kick-out/swipe at Bojan leading up to Stoke's 1st goal
That looks pretty consistent to me - except for Delph's.
Yep that's pretty much how I saw it after watching motd. I didn't think it was a red at the time and still don't.
I'm surprised how many Villa fans thought it was red and can only put it down to a dislike of Delph's contract issue.
Nothing to do with the contract issues, it's because we arnt Utd/chelski/'The Mighty Reds YNWA' fans who only see things with one eye
Delph went into a tackle showing his studs two foot of the ground,so it's a red,
some refs might have given yellow and he would have got lucky,but in this case he saw red, and only Delph is to blame for that
There's no excuses it was seen as a red card challenge, and to quote numerous other type challenges where they were deemed different is irelevent, because two wrongs never make a right
It's actually quite nice that 80% of us actually see it as it is and don't try and excuse what was a silly tackle made by a very good player
-
I hope the club fine Delph for his recklessness. Out months injured and now misses another 3 games for his stupidity.
-
Put it this way.... If it was the other way around we would be all shouting for a red card which it was. It was a stupid tackle and when you give the ref a chance to send you off you can't complain
-
I assume he will miss Palace, Blackpool and Leicester?
-
I assume he will miss Palace, Blackpool and Leicester?
Unless the F.A charge him for looking at the referee surprised at the decision. It wouldn't shock me in the slightest.
-
I assume he will miss Palace, Blackpool and Leicester?
On paper you look at Palace and Leicester and think that we've got to be winning 1 or both of those games. Delph out makes it a little bit more difficult, but we've really got to getting a bare minimum of 4 points in those two, because our inevitable tougher run is coming up shortly after. Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea.
Lambert might figure we're cushty now but in a months time we could be back in the shite again. We could really do without players getting themselves sent off.
-
Its not a red card for me.
I don't like the slow creep towards a no contact sport. Its late and clumsy, but its never a sending off.
-
Not a red for me. He didn't lead with his studs, or with 2 feet and wasn't high when he made contact with the player. I don't think he ever endangered the safety of his opponent, or was ever likely to cause him serious injury. I would also class it as more of a stretch than a lunge. It was reckless and clumsy, and was definitely a yellow card, but I'm very surprised that so many people think that it was, especially when the neutral pundits on MOTD also thought it was harsh.
-
Just watched MOTD, so first time to see it back, and can see why it was a red although the one by Clint Hill for QPR just before was equally as bad and only got a yellow. That inconsistency is why these things will always be disputed.
The fact that other refs got certain other decisions right or wrong doesn't make it any less of a red card.
-
I assume he will miss Palace, Blackpool and Leicester?
A cynic would suggest he has had a better offer elsewhere and got sent off so he is rested when he makes his debut somewhere else.
-
I'm all for cutting out violent play which risks injury and takes the skill out of the game; but the number of what I would call marginal yellows which stray over into reds, largely because refs are scared of getting a call from their leader for unnecessary tolerance and using their common sense, worries me. The losers at the end of the day are the fans who come to watch an eleven-a-side. Sending a man off usually results in a completely different game and ruins it for most. As far as I'm concerned, Delph wasn't being malicious, nor reckless - he was late and his foot came down on the other guy's foot. Painful? yes. A foul? Yes. A red card? In today's game, yes. Violent? Not really. Another reason for falling out of love with football.
-
Its not a red card for me.
I don't like the slow creep towards a no contact sport. Its late and clumsy, but its never a sending off.
I'm not sure how stamping your studs into an opponent's ankle could be anything other than 'serious foul play". I agree that it wasn't done with malicious intent, but then it doesn't have to be.
-
I can't argue with the ref for giving a red card, saying that if it was against us and the ref gave a yellow that would have been fine too.
It's one of them silly tackles without the intent to hurt, just a shit clumsy tackle.
We're due some luck soon aren't we?
We had it v Leicester when they had a man sent off incorrectly
I thought that evened out the player that got yellow rather than red for that tackle on Westwood but if you want to see the negative side in everything, please carry on, it is your opinion.
-
I would say we were on the harsh end against Leicester as Vardy's tackle was worse than any of the 4 reds that we have had this season. Konchesky getting sent in the last 15 minutes did not make up for losing a man for 6 weeks and them not getting the player sent off. Ditto the penalty appeal at Swansea etc, we are getting very, very little from the officials
-
McCarthy (Everton) yellow for similar to Delph.
Schneiderlin (S'ton) yellow for similar - later got 2nd yellow
Konchesky (Leic) yellow for identical tackle - later got 2nd yellow
Hill (QPR) yellow for reckless scissor tackle
Vertongen (Spuds) no card for similar on Van Persie
Gardner (WBA) no card for late hit on player's foot - ref gave free kick...and later nothing at all for a massive kick-out/swipe at Bojan leading up to Stoke's 1st goal
That looks pretty consistent to me - except for Delph's.
Yep that's pretty much how I saw it after watching motd. I didn't think it was a red at the time and still don't.
I'm surprised how many Villa fans thought it was red and can only put it down to a dislike of Delph's contract issue.
Nothing to do with the contract issues, it's because we arnt Utd/chelski/'The Mighty Reds YNWA' fans who only see things with one eye
Delph went into a tackle showing his studs two foot of the ground,so it's a red,
some refs might have given yellow and he would have got lucky,but in this case he saw red, and only Delph is to blame for that
There's no excuses it was seen as a red card challenge, and to quote numerous other type challenges where they were deemed different is irelevent, because two wrongs never make a right
It's actually quite nice that 80% of us actually see it as it is and don't try and excuse what was a silly tackle made by a very good player
Not trying to excuse it john - it was a silly challenge to make in an area where little was at stake - trying to point out the inconsistency of refs' decisions which is bound to lead to players, fans and refs themselves not quite sure what's ok and what isn't.
-
Its not a red card for me.
I don't like the slow creep towards a no contact sport. Its late and clumsy, but its never a sending off.
I have seen these given as red and, then again, given as yellow. No consistency.
I agree with your comment on slow creep to no contact sports. We are seeing an out of proportion increase in cards compared with fouls. Look at yesterday, four fouls resulting in a yellow and a straight red.
Football has become a very technical and high speed game with TV dissecting every incident. However, expecting players to get timing spot on every time is too much. What they should be trying to separate and punish accordingly is the malicious foul and the various forms of cheating. I believe that cheating caught on camera should be punished with a retrospective yellow, whether the ref has seen the incident or not.
-
Just watched MOTD, so first time to see it back, and can see why it was a red although the one by Clint Hill for QPR just before was equally as bad and only got a yellow. That inconsistency is why these things will always be disputed.
The fact that other refs got certain other decisions right or wrong doesn't make it any less of a red card.
But does half a dozen 'wrongs' make it right. You need consistency so that the players know where the bar is set
-
Its not a red card for me.
I don't like the slow creep towards a no contact sport. Its late and clumsy, but its never a sending off.
I have seen these given as red and, then again, given as yellow. No consistency.
I agree with your comment on slow creep to no contact sports. We are seeing an out of proportion increase in cards compared with fouls. Look at yesterday, four fouls resulting in a yellow and a straight red.
Football has become a very technical and high speed game with TV dissecting every incident. However, expecting players to get timing spot on every time is too much. What they should be trying to separate and punish accordingly is the malicious foul and the various forms of cheating. I believe that cheating caught on camera should be punished with a retrospective yellow, whether the ref has seen the incident or not.
Consistency of these decisions might also be effected by how close the ref is to the incident. In this case he was pretty close and had a great view of it. Had it been Dowd for example he'd have been leant on a steward wheezing for breath at the other end of the pitch and then given a yellow just to cover his bases.
-
Its not a red card for me.
I don't like the slow creep towards a no contact sport. Its late and clumsy, but its never a sending off.
I'm not sure how stamping your studs into an opponent's ankle could be anything other than 'serious foul play". I agree that it wasn't done with malicious intent, but then it doesn't have to be.
I don’t think he has stamped, as that would imply something malicious has happened, when as others have said, he just clumsily overarches for the ball and catches his opponent on the foot. Players shouldn’t be getting red cards for stuff like that.
-
Completely agree Ads. Having your foot stamped on is a fairly common occurrence in a football match and very rarely leads to anything more severe than momentary pain, possibly a small bruise. In an absolute worse-case scenario it could chip a bone in the foot, but there was nowhere near enough force in Delph's challenge to do that.
No-one seems to have mentioned just how quickly Gomez seemed to recover form a challenge that apparently left him writhing in agony on the ground at the time. I saw numerous tackles on MOTD last night that were worse than Delph's and none of them resulted in straight red-cards and 3-match bans.
-
The exact same thing happened in a game I played in before Christmas, I move the ball on quicker than the opponent thinks and he catches my foot with his studs. It does make you shout out, as you expect it to hurt, but there was no need for the player to roll about.
The fact players feel the need to con referees is indicative at how inconsistent they are in their decisions.
-
Whether it was a red or not we are getting a raw deal from refs this season....
Vertionghan was lucky to stay on the pitch against us!
That Mason fella would of been done for an attempted headbutt on Benteke but the ref only saw Benteke pushing him back in the face!
Gabby's sending off was a complete joke.
Westwood got crippled against Leicester by Vardy and he got away with it and we lose an important player for months.
You see all those dodgy tackles during yesterdays MOTD and only Delph gets the red.
Come on we are getting done up gone and proper, it would happen to the big 5.
-
At the time I feared it was probably a red - mainly because Delph was lunging in with his studs showing. I don't think there was malice, just clumsiness (which is no excuse, I know). Interesting to hear Jenas and Murphy on MOTD last night saying reputations precede players.
I am amazed by PWS' stats above saying that was Delph's first card of the season as for me he was always a walking yellow card. Apparently he has 21 in 94 games for us - I have no idea how that compares to other central midfielders.
Before his debut v Switzerland I told mates in the pub to watch out for his first yellow card, and he duly obliged after about 5 minutes, and was very lucky not to get a second. I think that probably attracted more attention than anything he has done for Villa this season.
-
The exact same thing happened in a game I played in before Christmas, I move the ball on quicker than the opponent thinks and he catches my foot with his studs. It does make you shout out, as you expect it to hurt, but there was no need for the player to roll about.
The fact players feel the need to con referees is indicative at how inconsistent they are in their decisions.
Or as is more likely to be the case, that fact that players routinely cheat makes it harder for referees to make the correct decision.
-
Those tackles get given as red but you do have to catch the ref on a bad day. We seem to have done that an awful lot this season.
-
Going off topic slightly, who was the 4th official yesterday? My mate reckoned it was Phil Dowd but I couldn't tell properly from where we were sitting.
-
It wornt Dowd, I think he did the Hull game.
-
There isn't any consistency in this sort of thing, that is definitely the case. Although i don't know how there would ever be consistency as it is a judgement made by a human being put on the spot, and therefore subject to subjectivity as well as influences from other factors (some understandable, like player reactions, others less palatable like the fact that many refs shit themselves in giving decisions against "big" clubs).
Personally, I thought it was a definite red.
I can understand why others see it differently, though, but I think the key factor here is that it was the sort of challenge which was well within that range of actions that can cause a player to get sent off - rightly or wrongly, so it was no surprise he went.
-
All referee's in the premier league are contracted earning an average salary of between 70k to 85k. Referees outside the premier league are not under contract and have other sources of income.
The danger for referees used to lie in the dreaded assessor that sat in the stand, who, as the name implies, assessed the ref's performance. It would be conceivable that the referee would be more worried that his performance satisfied the assessor more than anyone else. I don't know in the digital age we live in, with all the cameras that scrutinise every move, that the assessor still exists but, I do know that these referees are aware that their every move is under the utmost scrutiny. Why would they wish to put such a lucrative living in jeopardy by deliberately giving the wrong decision?
Yet again, the problem of consistency raises its head. As Paulie states, it's very difficult for the level of consistency we all seek due to the fact of how we as humans see events. Football, is all about angles, whether playing or officiating, where you are, what you see, how you see it. I once questioned the late Neil Midgley as to why he didn't give us a penalty (I can't remember which match) he said the incident when Gary Shaw did his diving swan impersonation, he asked me where about I was standing. I replied somewhere on the Holte (the end where the incident took place) his reply to that was, "if I had been standing there I might have thought it was a penalty". Can you see what I am trying to say? As I've said before, the best any referee can do to be consistent is to be consistent with him/herself. Such are the laws of football, wide open to interpretation.
I'm probably naïve but, I don't think referees allow their perceived dislike of teams to influence any decision they make during games. I certainly didn't.
http://www.tsmplug.com/football/average-salary-premier-league-referees/
-
I think you're right Dave. They get assessed after games and wouldn't want to be making too many mistakes based on dislike of one team or another.
-
I saw it as a yellow, he didn't have both feet off the ground so wasn't out of control, the studs were showing but it was by no means a leg breaker of a challenge, he was just unfortunate it landed on the guys foot. Compare to the Clint Hill flying lunge with both feet off the ground against Palace for which only a yellow was given, mainly because he didn't connect with the player - if he had, it would have been a potential career-ender. But as others have said refs are brainless attention seeking automatons these days, so why give them the opportunity for their pavlovian reaction whenever a player does the dying swan/shot by a sniper act. It seems our squad is, collectively, as thick as Lambert and Lerner.
-
I was surprised to learn this was Delph's first professional Red Card. Granted this was arguably pretty harsh and far, far away from the worst tackle he's made but perhaps tackling Karma just caught up with him last night.
Again though my major issue with the tackle was that there was absolutely no need for him to make it and put himself in the position of giving that ref the choice to make.
-
The exact same thing happened in a game I played in before Christmas, I move the ball on quicker than the opponent thinks and he catches my foot with his studs. It does make you shout out, as you expect it to hurt, but there was no need for the player to roll about.
The fact players feel the need to con referees is indicative at how inconsistent they are in their decisions.
Or as is more likely to be the case, that fact that players routinely cheat makes it harder for referees to make the correct decision.
Yes. There is a lot of that about.
-
The issue I have with the poll on here is that this site seems far more willing to 'blame our own' than is fair in many cases. I haven't seen a single genuinely neutral report that doesn't suggest it was very harsh but on here you'd think it was at best a 50/50 one that probably deserved a red, I really don't understand it, it's as if there's a collective requirement to prove that the site doesn't have 'claret and blue specs', it was a tackle that 9 times out of 10 gets a yellow and the wider perspective supports that.
-
I haven't seen a single genuinely neutral report that doesn't suggest it was very harsh but on here you'd think it was at best a 50/50 one that probably deserved a red, I really don't understand it
The majority of responses as I've read it is that a yellow card probably would have been fair and more in line with other similar challenges but his stupidity in making THAT tackle in THAT place at THAT time means that he can't complain about it being red.
The average neutral report isn't going to bother with the last bit, because it's a partisan sentiment because they obviously don't care who wins so they don't really care about whether a player's action has a detrimental affect on their team.
More a case of punishment for a lack of forethought rather than punishment for the tackle itself.
-
I haven't seen a single genuinely neutral report that doesn't suggest it was very harsh but on here you'd think it was at best a 50/50 one that probably deserved a red, I really don't understand it
The majority of responses as I've read it is that a yellow card probably would have been fair and more in line with other similar challenges but his stupidity in making THAT tackle in THAT place at THAT time means that he can't complain about it being red.
The average neutral report isn't going to bother with the last bit, because it's a partisan sentiment because they obviously don't care who wins so they don't really care about whether a player's action has a detrimental affect on their team.
More a case of punishment for a lack of forethought rather than punishment for the tackle itself.
but a ref shouldn't be thinking like that, it was a poor challenge in a 'safe' situation but it was still only a yellow, it's the 'clear red', '2 foot high' and 'stamped his studs down on his ankle' comments that I find odd, it's like "I'm so fair that I'm going to go the other way and actually judge Villa players much more harshly than anyone else", I just can't agree with that attitude, we've had 4 reds this season and 3 of them are very harsh, the Richardson one is a fair cop, it was a shocker of a tackle. We shouldn't be accepting those decisions and blaming the players for giving the ref an opportunity to fuck us over, in my opinion.
-
Red as a baboon's arse.
-
Red as a baboon's arse.
Yellow as the stripe on Gobby Savage's back all day long.
And also in the winter twilight.
-
Irish Indie (http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/villa-appeal-after-delph-red-card-30869414.html)
Aston Villa have appealed Fabian Delph's red card after the midfielder was dismissed against Sunderland.
The 25-year-old became the third Villa player to be sent off in four games when he saw red for a challenge on Jordi Gomez in Sunday's 0-0 Barclays Premier League draw with Sunderland.
It forced manager Paul Lambert to deny they are a dirty team after Kieran Richardson and Gabby Agbonlahor - who had his red card agianst Manchester United rescinded - also walked early this month.
Villa hope to get another card overturned after launching a protest for Delph. Lambert said: "I thought it was a harsh red card and we think three games is excessive.
"Fabian hasn't gone in maliciously at all. I can kind of understand why the referee's done it, but I still think it's excessive."
Delph is facing a three-game ban starting with the New Year's Day visit of Crystal Palace if Villa fail in their appeal.
It was their fourth red card of the season, including Agbonlahor's, after Christian Benteke was dismissed against Tottenham in November and Lambert feels they are being harshly treated by officials.
"I think it's been unfair at times," he said.
"I think because we are a youngish kind of side, we can be a target for that.
"Even when you ask the lads about it sometimes they can't believe it either. It's just something you have to try and get through.
"You just have to try and keep 11 guys on the pitch, but I saw some challenges over the weekend on TV and they weren't punished with anything. You think to yourself 'how is that different from ours?'
"I think if you go back to Gabby's red card, everyone knew that shouldn't have been sent off.
"So we were down to 10 men against Manchester United then they told us that Gabby shouldn't have been sent off - well thanks very much.
"Christian's red card I would also debate, too."
Press Association
-
It was a yellow for me but I'd be very surprised If it was overturned. They have to be horrendous mistakes to get overturned
-
It won't be overturned
-
There are clearly two lines of thought here. Was the tackle a sending off offence? Probably not. Just like the stupidity of Benteke's dismissal was it an act of bone headed irresponsibility by the player. To expect Villa players in the current climate to know what tarts referees have become is not being gratuitously anti Villa it is part of the modern game. As has already been said it probably indicates the same vein of stubborn stupidity in the manager and the players.
-
I havn't read through all posts but Stirlings slap in the face against Swansea was every bit if not worse that Bentekes indiscretion, the difference was that the Swansea player didn't roll around holding his face.
Refs have to use a bit of common sense there are too many players trying to get the opposition player sent off.
-
Yep. Sterling, if wearing Claret and Blue, would have been sent off.
I don't necessarily mind that the linesman ignored it, it was handbags, but once again it's the complete lack of consistency.
-
I havn't read through all posts but Stirlings slap in the face against Swansea was every bit if not worse that Bentekes indiscretion, the difference was that the Swansea player didn't roll around holding his face.
Refs have to use a bit of common sense there are too many players trying to get the opposition player sent off.
I personally think there are also too many players getting sent off and it is ruining many games. I have sympathy for referees as some challenges can appear a lot worse when viewed at a certain angle, but it seems a little too easy at the moment to go straight for the red card.
-
Players conning referees doesn't help. They're pathetic the way they feign injury, but they do it to gain an advantage because they're reaction works. See Ashley Young, see that Sunderland gimp.
-
I haven't seen a single genuinely neutral report that doesn't suggest it was very harsh but on here you'd think it was at best a 50/50 one that probably deserved a red, I really don't understand it
The majority of responses as I've read it is that a yellow card probably would have been fair and more in line with other similar challenges but his stupidity in making THAT tackle in THAT place at THAT time means that he can't complain about it being red.
The average neutral report isn't going to bother with the last bit, because it's a partisan sentiment because they obviously don't care who wins so they don't really care about whether a player's action has a detrimental affect on their team.
More a case of punishment for a lack of forethought rather than punishment for the tackle itself.
but a ref shouldn't be thinking like that, it was a poor challenge in a 'safe' situation but it was still only a yellow
Sorry if I'm being clear but that's not what I mean. I was addressing your point as to why fans are more likely to judge him more harshly than neutrals would.
We, as fans think that he deserve it for his lack of sense shown and how it impacts the team where a neutral isn't going care about how it might affect our chances of winning the match.
-
Oh I got that, as I pointed out, it's the overreaction in some of the comments where they're trying to make out it was a lot worse than it actually was. Call it a stupid challenge and him an idiot for making it, but don't make stuff up to make the challenge sound worse than it was to justify to yourself that it was entirely the players fault and the ref had no choice but to give the red. Any time you feel the need to exaggerate how bad a tackle was to square it up as a red then it suggests that deep down you know it was only a yellow but you're angry that we had 10 men and want to blame the player for it.
All this comes back to Lambert again though I'm afraid. We've had a lot of bookings since he took over because of players lunging in (we've also conceded a lot of free kicks that have punished us) and a run of red cards was always likely to come as a result of that at some point. He's had enough time to work with the players to make them a bit more 'savvy' and it just hasn't happened, this is just another symptom of the lack of training ground improvements in the squad.
-
Appeal failed, personally I think we are lucky not to be hit with an extended ban for a frivolous appeal as it was the refs opinion not an outright mistake like Agbonlahor's.
-
As a gauge if opinion on here is split suggesting that it could have been seen differently than the initial outcome then how was the appeal frivolous?
-
Let's face it, whatever the merits of it we were never going to have two successive red card appeals upheld.
-
As a gauge if opinion on here is split suggesting that it could have been seen differently than the initial outcome then how was the appeal frivolous?
Because appeals are for incorrect decisions, the colour of card might have been harsh in some eyes but to reverse a refs call their has to be conclusive evidence he was wrong/missed something.
-
Reads to me like we tried to get the 3 game ban reduced rather than get the red card rescinded.
-
We have had a rough trot with decisions no doubt, Swarbricks ineptness in not sending off Vertonghen / Mason / Soldado but giving Benteke a red - Gabby's red were awful calls.
No doubt Sterling won't get charged with his face slap last night, which was exactly the same as Benteke's and missed by the ref - that will really annoy
-
As a gauge if opinion on here is split suggesting that it could have been seen differently than the initial outcome then how was the appeal frivolous?
Because appeals are for incorrect decisions, the colour of card might have been harsh in some eyes but to reverse a refs call their has to be conclusive evidence he was wrong/missed something.
Frivolous would mean that we were wasting the FA's time in making an appeal because the decision was so definite that it should not have been appealed at all. There mere fact that even you acknowledge that the card might have been harsh suggests the panel might have had the same thoughts making the decision to appeal worthwhile if ultimately unsuccessful.
-
Just watched MOTD, so first time to see it back, and can see why it was a red although the one by Clint Hill for QPR just before was equally as bad and only got a yellow. That inconsistency is why these things will always be disputed.
The fact that other refs got certain other decisions right or wrong doesn't make it any less of a red card.
Well it does if you don't agree that it was a red in the first place and the argument others are flagging is that 'it's a red these days', clearly not.
-
Does Blackpool count as one of the games?
-
Yes.
-
This has become a very interesting thread. A troll buster if you will.
The argument is layered. The first or upper layer is "Did that which Delph did merit a red card?" taken as an act in isolation. The second layer is "Do the circumstances of the act increase or reduce the justification of a red card?" (for example does a rash challenge to try to stop a goal merit a red card any more or any less than a rash challenge in an unthreatening situation?) And the third, and most ethical layer is "When a player gets a red card who exactly is being punished for his misdemeanor?" Certainly not the player. The punishment is meted out to the rest of his team (much more hard effort) the club (potential for points lost) and the fans (increased probability of yet another horrible game). Thus I think there is a case as PWS put it for the card being merited for sheer fuckwittery.
-
To try and help with clarification (if needed):
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred
(see Law 13 – Position of free kick).
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the
following seven offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match
The crux of all this lies in the part of the first sentence that has been emboldened.
-
Not surprising at all really. Consistency of course certainly needs looking at and we've had a rough couple of months but in several of these situations the players should have known better. Benteke shouldn't have risen to the bait and Delph shouldn't have been making such a stupid challenge. Fuckwittery is indeed the best explanation.
Maybe we should count ourselves fortunate that Hutton only got a yellow for the handbags at dawn with that Leicester player. Some ref's would have dished out two straight reds for both the players.
Our players need to be sent out with a little more discipline and also using their bloody brains a bit more.
-
Will be interesting what Cisse gets for his 3 elbows attack on Coleman which the ref missed!
-
I see Shelvey has been charged by the FA but Stirling, surprise surprise, has not. You'd struggle to find a more incompetent, inconsistent bunch of arseholes. Double standards or what?
If, and it's a very big if, Benteke's was worthy of a violent conduct charge & 3 game ban then surely Stirling's slap is equally as bad?
-
Delph has never been a great tackler. Weak part of his game. Crap tackle, not surprised that we fail to get this one rescinded.
-
Delph has never been a great tackler. Weak part of his game. Crap tackle, not surprised that we fail to get this one rescinded.
This is why he will never be signed by a top side.
-
He has been signed by a top side.
-
He has been signed by a top side.
Apologies I meant a sky4/5 team
-
Yes.
Thought so, read this on The Mirror website earlier and wasn't sure..
"However, there was no such luck for Delph and the 25-year-old will now miss games against Crystal Palace, Leicester City and Liverpool."
-
If the FA don't charge and ban Sterling for what he did then it really will show what a farce they are.
-
If the FA don't charge and ban Sterling for what he did then it really will show what a farce they are.
They haven't charged him & they won't be either. Shelvey has been charged & has until 6pm tomorrow to respond.
-
So it's as I said. They show what a farce of an organisation they really are. I wonder what reason they have for not charging a player for striking another player in the face.
-
So it's as I said. They show what a farce of an organisation they really are. I wonder what reason they have for not charging a player for striking another player in the face.
Maybe the linesman did'nt see it. That's the best they'll come up with.
-
An utterly disgraceful decision regarding Sterling.
-
An utterly disgraceful decision regarding Sterling.
He's Englands saviour and plays for Liverpool though. He could shit on the refs boots and get away with it.
-
Surprised Villa even appealed it. Not in a million years was that going to be rescinded.
-
Surprised Villa even appealed it. Not in a million years was that going to be rescinded.
It seems to me we tried appealing the 3 game ban rather than the actual red card. Not sure anyone has ever been successful getting a 3 game ban turned into 1 or 2?
-
Surprised Villa even appealed it. Not in a million years was that going to be rescinded.
It seems to me we tried appealing the 3 game ban rather than the actual red card. Not sure anyone has ever been successful getting a 3 game ban turned into 1 or 2?
Didn't realise that, but we could have been punished again for a frivolous appeal.
-
I based it on this that was on the official FB page. The way it is worded is what makes me think we appealed the length of ban rather than red card.
The appeal to have Fabian Delph’s suspension reduced on the basis of three matches being an excessive punishment for the offence committed has been unsuccessful.
-
So it's as I said. They show what a farce of an organisation they really are. I wonder what reason they have for not charging a player for striking another player in the face.
Maybe the linesman did'nt see it. That's the best they'll come up with.
I thought that the incident not being seen by or brought to the attention of the referee was the only ground for retrospective punishment. If the referee has seen it and chosen not to act, then it can't be altered?
-
So it's as I said. They show what a farce of an organisation they really are. I wonder what reason they have for not charging a player for striking another player in the face.
Maybe the linesman did'nt see it. That's the best they'll come up with.
If the officials say they saw it but didn't think in warranted any action then the FA can't do anything. It's the same rule relating to the challenge by Wigan's McManaman a couple of seasons ago which nearly snapped a Newcastle player in two. The officials saw it & gave a yellow, when in truth it was as clear a red as you'll ever see, but the FA's rule don't allow them to act if the officials have seen it. The linesman must have seen it, Shelvey gets done because they say they didn't see it.
-
They FA should stop being pissing about and take retrospective action regardless of whether the officials saw it in the game.
And how the hell did the linesman see it and not deem it worthy of a red?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/29/245209E100000578-0-image-a-66_1419897269691.jpg)
-
We actually did the same with Benteke, didn't appeal the offence, just the 3 match ban. I too am unaware of any club who's reduced it from 3 matches to just one after a straight red so does seem a waste of time.
-
Not surprised to learn we failed to overturn the Delph ban at all. Weather it should have been a red or yellow,no way was they going to overturn it.As for Delph ,well i think he was brainless.He has recently seen Richardson and Gabby sent off and makes a needless challenge like that right in front of the referee.
-
They FA should stop being pissing about and take retrospective action regardless of whether the officials saw it in the game.
And how the hell did the linesman see it and not deem it worthy of a red?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/29/245209E100000578-0-image-a-66_1419897269691.jpg)
I haven't seen the Sterling incident but that picture and the fact he didn't get sent off is a joke.
The irony of the FA accusing FIFA of being corrupt is incredible.
-
They FA should stop being pissing about and take retrospective action regardless of whether the officials saw it in the game.
And how the hell did the linesman see it and not deem it worthy of a red?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/29/245209E100000578-0-image-a-66_1419897269691.jpg)
He plays for a team that "matters" in their eyes. We don't. Sorry to say but I genuinely believe that the teams who make up the numbers in the league like us do get a worse deal from the refs.
-
Look closely at that picture of Sterling and you will see the Liverpool fans laughing their heads off. When Delph put in the tackle that got him sent off all round us in the Holte Lower there was a collective sharp intake of breath and such comments as "what a prat" and "here we go again", no laughing, no cheering. It underlines Ciggies point that Liverpool regard themselves a club that matter in the eyes of the FA and as such decisions will always be skewed in their favour. Add to that the naked ambition of referees and their need to find favour with the London/Manchester/Liverpool obsessed media and the huge inconsistency of decisions is explained.
-
If you also throw in the fact that Joe Hart went head to head with the ref himself on the pitch and nothing get's done. Criticize the ref after the game and you get a fine. What's all that about?
-
If you also throw in the fact that Joe Hart went head to head with the ref himself on the pitch and nothing get's done. Criticize the ref after the game and you get a fine. What's all that about?
How many Swan Dives and Too Footed lunges did StevieMe get away with over the years. Not to mention hoodwinking refs into freekicks that never were. But he's a model pro don't you know.
-
If you also throw in the fact that Joe Hart went head to head with the ref himself on the pitch and nothing get's done. Criticize the ref after the game and you get a fine. What's all that about?
This is the kind of thing that pisses me off most, we got fined because our players contested the gabby red card which was later rescinded but how often do other clubs have 3-4 players around the ref for every major decision and nothing gets done. I've said before football needs to do something meaningful about that because right now young kids think surrounding the ref and demanding justice is part of the game so it's just going to get worse if they don't stamp down on it and actually put some genuine effort into the respect campaign.
-
It happens all the time, we're lucky Delph hasn't gone before, but there you go, we did well without him in the team earlier in the season, perhaps we'll go on a run again now.
-