Le Fondre - No Goal & J Rod Should Have Been Sent Off

[stknowle]

I don't think that they bottled it...they're just not very good.

 

This. I find it quite agreeable that we have doubled them without conceding a goal, they are going down while we are staying put, they are ****e and we are not, and finally that this set of facts has frustrated their top scorer into making bitter, incorrect and embarrassing comments more befitting of a 10 year old.

[stknowle]

Patrick Barclay in the Standard tonight - calling for a panel of former refs to consider controversial decisions after each weekend:

 

"Today, for example, they could look at Southampton's first goal at Reading. Allowing it, after Jay Rodriguez had stabbed his studs almost into Adam Federici's face, was an insult to the goalkeeper"

 

WTF?! This guy, who normally writes fairly sensible stuff, does not even have the defence of being part of the Reading team while coming out with this utter sh1te. Never , ever, write about football again pal

 

Jesus, how can anyone come to that conclusion after, presumably, seeing several replays? "today for example they could look at Southampton's first goal at Reading, and they could then have conclude that they shouldn't have bothered and that I am an idiot for suggesting they should"

[Dark Munster]

[captainchris]

Idiot. Poor player in a poor team....... Clutching at straws....

[Gemmel]

Sorry but Le Fondre is not wrong. I recorded the game in Austria and we've looked at it many times. Jay had his studs up and using the letter of the law this is a red. I thought the goal should have been disallowed on seeing the replays. The thing is that when you see it in real time it looks a goal and the referee did not give a foul so history shows it was a goal. If the goalie had have done a Boruc I think he could have been injured. Therefore it was a dangerous tackle.

 

What goes around comes around. It was our turn to have a decision go for us.

 

If anybody watches the replay and is honest then they must have sympathy for Adkins.

 

That is just bizarre. If you have had the chance to watch it and review it, there is nothing that points to a foul and your assumption of what makes a foul is completely wrong.

 

He won the ball ahead of the goalie and who then pretended he was injured. J Rod got there first..... nothing in the rule book to say that is not allowed.

[badgerx16]

All the 'pundits' say it was a good challenge, other than thie quote in the OP I am struggling to find any news outlet that agrees with ALF - who cares about being top of the NPC last season, we beat them, are staying up, and he's a sore loser.

Edited 9 April, 2013 by badgerx16

[Wade Garrett]

He had one foot on the floor, didn't go over the top of the ball, and only had eyes on the ball. Defintitely not a clear cut foul, although I'm sure that some refs would have given it.

 

Not our fault that Federici hasn't got any bottle.

[Window Cleaner]

He had one foot on the floor, didn't go over the top of the ball, and only had eyes on the ball. Defintitely not a clear cut foul, although I'm sure that some refs would have given it.

 

Not our fault that Federici hasn't got any bottle.

 

 

looked at the recording I made of the game yesterday. Noticed the gaping hole that Federici left to his left for Adam to just slot home.

 

Federici really isn't up to PL standard, don't know why NA tinkers with keepers all of the time, Taylor had some decent games

and I feel sure he'd have given us a tougher time. Perhaps Reading's players just want to get the season over with and get back to their real level.i

[SimonC]

I read the Paddy Barclay bit in the Standard too..unbelieveable - he usually kmows what he is talking about too..

[derry]

 

His foot isnt high when near the keeper, there is another angle from further round the side which shows its not studs up near the keeper.

 

If it was against Saints I would be ****ed about the keeper rather than the debatable tackling decision.

 

Two things from this photo, JR's foot is studs down on the ground after contacting the ball and no contact with Federici, secondly Federici isn't looking anywhere near the ball that is underneath him. It looked like a classic bottle out. Sky had a referee analyse it (Alan Wiley?), his verdict was the same , no studs up, downward motion, watched the ball from over his shoulder, no contact with the keeper until after the ball contacted and then only because the keeper was late and advancing.

Edited 9 April, 2013 by derry

[Saints boy in Leeds]

I don't think it is that daft a comment. The incident warranted some debate. Le Fondre must have seen it on TV as he was nowhere near the incident.

 

He's right in the sense that if you go studs up in the middle of the pitch then the intent warrants a red card irrespective of whether contact is made. The difference here was that he was using the sole of his boot to bring the ball down away from the keeper and he did that quite successfully before the goalkeeper got there. As others have said, the goal keeper looked very nervous coming out and so slow he was never really in danger from the studs. A perfectly time tackle IMO.

 

IMO its a matter of bravery and commitment, you are always tought (by good coaches) that if you go in for a challenge go in 100% (like jay rod did) or you will get hurt, if the keeper hadn't of bottled it he would of prob stopped the shot, it looked worse than it was.

 

I say fair play to the keeper for not making a meal of it and rolling around like a fool, then the goal might not of stood and jay rod could of been shown the red.

[Saints boy in Leeds]

Not a foul, and if you watch their keeper, he bottles it and then briefly attempts to fein injury in an attempt to 'recover' the situation. Le Fondre what a class act at a class club...

 

This, his miss at 0 - 0 was nearly as good as Gastons chance