Roberts Red Card

[Ian Royal]

With appeals, it's barely about right or wrong. It was an accident, but to rescind the red it has to be obvious, horrendous error. When contact is made between forearm and face, that's not the case. It was a big misinterpretation and not an absolute howler; it will not be overturned.

Of course it won't be over turned. For a start we aren't appealing. Secondly, the ref refused to change his mind after watching it on video. Thirdly, it can't be over turned for a poor decision, it has to be where the ref has given it for something that didn't happen, otherwise whether the decision was right or not makes no difference to whoever runs the appeals.

Doesn't mean it wasn't an incorrect decision and D'arsehole is a useless prick though.

[Great Knolly]

What ever you say about it, it's not natural to have your arm horizontal as you're running. I don't think it was misinterpretation. It was borderline and the ref saw it as a red.

It's pretty common to hold a player off with an arm. To be violent there needs to be a suggestion of intent arounding swing the arm into the face.

To me D'Urso knows there was no violent intent behind it, but would rather hide behind the fact that there was contact and see a player banned than admit he might have been wrong.

If the defender hadn't gone down clutching his face, it would never have been a red. Like the arched-back swan dive in the box, and the rolling around the floor in agony, the "two hands to the face" flop to the ground is a blatantly obvious example of simulation, yet for some reason refs fall for it every single time.

Reading aren't appealing as they know they have no chance of winning. Common sense plays no part in appeals. It's just about mistaken identity or decisions that are 100% certain wrong.

Unless you're Jay Tabb you shouldn't need to hold off a player with a horizontal arm. Robert's arm does move back, and it doesn't need much movement for an elbow to do damage . Not saying it did in this case.