Delph's dismissal

[Big Dick Edwards]

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.

[Dave]

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.

[Goldie.7]

Clear Red.

[Toronto Villa]

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.

[brontebilly]

Bad tackle for sure but surprised the ref went for the red card.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

[silhillvilla]

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

[Holte L2]

Hopefully Delph can master the art of a forward pass whilst he's suspended.

[adrenachrome]

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. 

[mrfuse]

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.

[cdbearsfan]

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.

[lovejoy]

Yellow tops.

[mattjpa]

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

[UK Redsox]

that's a red for me. late and high

[Ad@m]

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.