Give it to Ron Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 rescinded no 3 game ban.....bugger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintAndy14 Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 Damn, that's a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 probably won't make much difference, expect their back up is pretty handy as well.Pretty solid defence of late (except at Ipswich but on that occasion they weren't down to 10 men so probably got a bit confused as to who was supposed to do what) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 23 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2012 http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2012/green-claim-upheld-230212.aspx It was only one game as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rshephard3 Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 Bit annoying.. That said I am subscribing to the forget about WHU and stay just above the rest in 2nd philosophy same as most.. Lets hope Forest dont just roll over as usual v birmingham on saturday. And a Boro Reading draw would be lovely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 Not sure how they have managed to squirm out of that. Watching the highlights on BBC sport it was a nailed-on red card. Last man - shocking tackle to prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 Not sure how they have managed to squirm out of that. Watching the highlights on BBC sport it was a nailed-on red card. Last man - shocking tackle to prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity. Can't have England players being sent off and suspended now can we. Don't understand why it was only 1 match either...straight red=3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 Can't have England players being sent off and suspended now can we. Don't understand why it was only 1 match either...straight red=3. exactly he's just been selected in the next England squad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 Not seen the highlights so can't comment but not sure what the argument is here. - If the foul occured outside the area with no covering player and the attacker had a reasonable chance of controlling the ball then that's a red. - If there's a covering player or no real chance of controlling the ball, then a yellow. - If it's inside the area then usually yellow + penalty provided it's not common assault. - Eitherway it's only ever a one match ban for a straight red resulting from denying a goal-scoring opportunity. But as we know from the Tevez affair, the rules don't apply to West Ham. Regardless, I think they'll finish 17th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeSixty Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 Wierd decision. Even if the fa thought it was 'just a yellow' they still are supposed to uphold the red. Basically they are saying it's a tackle that doesn't warrant a card at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 Can't have England players being sent off and suspended now can we. Don't understand why it was only 1 match either...straight red=3. Violent conduct is 3 games. A professional foul is only 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Troy Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 having watched it on the bbc its not a red for me. deffo yellow but players not far around given how far the attacher boots the ball in front of him. Dunno what that means in terms of if it should be upheld but the way i see it is that it wasnt a red so he shouldnt be banned. Cant believe thetve got 7 from 9 after going down to 10 in all three of their last games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 he's crap anyway, vastly over-rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 Wasn't bad against us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OttawaSaint Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 They must have piccies of the FL brass in a comprimising position. They get a penalty nearly every week, some shocking decisons go their way, and now this. Pity they couldn't rescind Ricky's red. ****ing cheats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 There was clearly a covering defender in the middle of the area, but Green completely took out the striker who did something like a 360 degree faceplant, which I would say is reckless and therefore deserving of a red card whether it was denying of a goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO) or not. So they probably got away with it because the ref said it was DOGSO, which he must have done for it not to be a 3 match ban in the first place and West Ham pointed out the covering defender. Which is a crock of shat really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 23 February, 2012 Share Posted 23 February, 2012 "Green had originally received a red card for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity at Blackpool on Tuesday 21 February 2012." I thought that what goalkeepers do??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 Conspiracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 I assume West Ham fans have now retracted their call for Kelvin Davis to be sent off against them for a far more innocuous challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 Seems they fink we no nuffink about the rules of soccer... http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138702&start=40 Of course, none of their fans would get the laws of the game wrong would they.... http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138654 And then of course there's this lunacy where they've got nutters still declaring Sharp threw his neck onto Taylors hand or that the photo was doctored.... http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138545 My advice. Look in your own backyard first and you'll find just us many confused souls / nutjobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 Violent conduct is 3 games. A professional foul is only 1 My understanding too. However, I am still left pondering why its been rescinded. As has been said West Ham appear frequently to be above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 probably won't make much difference, expect their back up is pretty handy as well.Pretty solid defence of late (except at Ipswich but on that occasion they weren't down to 10 men so probably got a bit confused as to who was supposed to do what) Bit of a backhanded compliment for you on KUMB though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 (edited) Just watched the Green sending off for the first time. It's still a red card for me. Yes, there was another West Ham player close by but, if Green had charged out and missed the Blackpool player, instead of chopping him down, then I'm pretty convinced the West Ham defender wouldn't have got back in time to stop the ensuing shot from the Blackpool player, ergo Green's action stopped as near as damn it a certain goal. But there again, what do I know? Edited 24 February, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 Seems they fink we no nuffink about the rules of soccer... http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138702&start=40 Of course, none of their fans would get the laws of the game wrong would they.... http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138654 And then of course there's this lunacy where they've got nutters still declaring Sharp threw his neck onto Taylors hand or that the photo was doctored.... http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138545 My advice. Look in your own backyard first and you'll find just us many confused souls / nutjobs. Hahahaha that's priceless. Some gorms on their claiming we don't knopw the rules when it comes to red and yellow cards, then one of the claims that having seen the replay, Sharp should have got a booking for running over to Noble and then another one for play-acting. Not a single one of them seems the slightest bit concerned about the blatant dive from Noble to win the penalty in the first place. no siree, he's wearing a WHU shirt so he MUST have been fouled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 There was clearly a covering defender in the middle of the area, but Green completely took out the striker who did something like a 360 degree faceplant, which I would say is reckless and therefore deserving of a red card whether it was denying of a goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO) or not. So they probably got away with it because the ref said it was DOGSO, which he must have done for it not to be a 3 match ban in the first place and West Ham pointed out the covering defender. Which is a crock of shat really. The other possibility is that the attacker was deemed to have been going away from the goal - that is, the ball was not going towards the goal but out towards the wing - even if it's only slightly, under the current interpretation that's not DOGSO. Which is why last weekend's assault on the Cardiff striker definitely wasn't a red for DOGSO - he took the thing sideways when he was chopped down. Again the question there was more if the keeper was reckless, which Green certainly was. Should have been a 3 match ban for violent conduct not a 1 match ban (overturned) for denying a goalscoring opportunity. As a general rule I'm not sure why people think West Ham are being protected when they've had someone sent off in three straight matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersonic Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 I couldn't really care less. I'm only worried about our players' fitness for Watford. It seems we have some fans who are more obsessed with what is going on a WH than with us. So what if their keeper got sent off and it got over-turned, I'm more worried about if Sharp is match fit, Guly has recovered from his illness and if we have to put up with Harding at right-back again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 I couldn't really care less. I'm only worried about our players' fitness for Watford. It seems we have some fans who are more obsessed with what is going on a WH than with us. So what if their keeper got sent off and it got over-turned, I'm more worried about if Sharp is match fit, Guly has recovered from his illness and if we have to put up with Harding at right-back again so that would be no,no and highly likely then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersonic Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 so that would be no,no and highly likely then. Which doesn't bother me as we beat Derby (arguably a better side that Watford) quite comfortably with that side. Although this is Saints... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 Shouldn't matter whether it's red, I thought they'd only change it if it's mistaken identity or something daft like that. Given WH have admitted it's promotion or bust, are the FL trying to make sure yet another club doesn't go into administration? They do seem to have had a huge amount of good fortune this season. Their fans can't see it, but they're an odd bunch at the best of times. They shouldn't even need the help with that expenditure. They've gone for the QPR/Pompey short term route, perhaps even more than they did. No decent football, no planning for the future, no building a team just 'sign everyone and make sure we get up this season or we're FCKED'. Wish they'd fail, it's not good for football at all, and clubs like Reading, Cardiff, Blackpool deserve it far more for building steadily, cutting costs when needed and trying to play football. I'd include Brum in that, but they signed Marlon King, so fck them. stop talking shyt.........cardiff and brum have been fuked finically in the past...recent past.. west ham have signed some very good players and have owners underwriting their finances......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 Thanks for that. Cardiff didn't spend anything like the same, and have sold plenty of players. Birmingham have lost 25 players this season to rebuild and cut costs. It's not getting into financial problems that bothers me so much, but the way clubs deal with it, learn from it and move on. But you can view it however you like, I won't be calling it shyt. saying the football league don't want west ham in admin so they reversed a red card.....adrian, that is desperate shyte...imagine reading that about us on any other message board mean while....we keep signing people despite not breaking even.....is that fair... or is that just 'different'....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 Yes because he plays for West Ham, I have not seen it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 24 February, 2012 Share Posted 24 February, 2012 Ridiculous that they overturned that card when they didnt overturn Bartons or Huths where both players shouldnt have even go a yellow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now