Matt Mills

[Sun Tzu]

Would be interesting to hear a bit more about why it wasn;t a red.

I think the article on the official site does that, or haven't you read it?

That doesn;t explain why people on here don't think it was a red though does it....

If the answer to everything was 'look on the OS' then Graham could close HNA down. But surely this is where opinions are expressed (and supported)

[Wycombe Royal]

Would be interesting to hear a bit more about why it wasn;t a red.

I think the article on the official site does that, or haven't you read it?

That doesn;t explain why people on here don't think it was a red though does it....

If the answer to everything was 'look on the OS' then Graham could close HNA down. But surely this is where opinions are expressed (and supported)

Plenty have said why they don;t think it was a red on here (including myself) and you also have official take as well.

What "more" do you need to hear?

[Terminal Boardom]

Since when do the FA do anything than support the match officials? There was contact. Mills played the player, not the ball. The appeal will be thrown out. 4 match ban. End of.

[Percy's Rocket]

Its a shame but I don't think the powers that be want tackles like that any more....in case someone gets hurt. Have seen several players red carded for similar tackles "from distance" this season..including Shane. I am sure the refs are influenced by the distance the player moves before the tackle as they think it is a calculated attempt to hurt instead of winning the ball..so basically the 50 / 50 tackle from distance is a gamble because if you are second there (even by a fraction of a second) you are risking a red ....ridiculous...I think Mills went for the ball but if he didn't get it cleanly they won't rescind it.

[Kitson12]

I've watched it a few times now, he can't have gone over the ball because the ball hit the back of his heel. He was second to the ball (and therefore late, but I'm pretty sure that makes it a yellow not a red), but both players got a touch on it, Mills touch deflected the ball.



His studs were showing no more than any other tackle, his toes are pointed towards the ball and studs were as down as it is comfortable for it to possibly be.

He looks like he comes off the ground for a second so the appeal board may argue he was not in control and it was therefore reckless.

I agree with this completely, its very very harsh, never a red card, and if the FA has any kind of sense they'll reverse the red card and make Mr Stroud ref an Oxford United game next Saturday.

[Dickie Davies]

Since when do the FA do anything than support the match officials? There was contact. Mills played the player, not the ball. The appeal will be thrown out. 4 match ban. End of.

Roger that.

[Terminal Boardom]

I've watched it a few times now, he can't have gone over the ball because the ball hit the back of his heel. He was second to the ball (and therefore late, but I'm pretty sure that makes it a yellow not a red), but both players got a touch on it, Mills touch deflected the ball.



His studs were showing no more than any other tackle, his toes are pointed towards the ball and studs were as down as it is comfortable for it to possibly be.

He looks like he comes off the ground for a second so the appeal board may argue he was not in control and it was therefore reckless.

I agree with this completely, its very very harsh, never a red card, and if the FA has any kind of sense they'll reverse the red card and make Mr Stroud ref an Oxford United game next Saturday.

Therein lies the problem

[Sun Tzu]

That doesn;t explain why people on here don't think it was a red though does it....

If the answer to everything was 'look on the OS' then Graham could close HNA down. But surely this is where opinions are expressed (and supported)

Plenty have said why they don;t think it was a red on here (including myself) and you also have official take as well.

What "more" do you need to hear?

if you don't feel there is anything to add then I'm not really looking to hear anything from you and won;t be offended if you don;t add anything.

It's always interesting to have views that tie in with the laws of the game rather than random stuff like whether he touched the ball or if it was a 50;50 challenge.

[Ian Royal]

Never a red card, because it was controlled and not dangerous. They both went in the same, Mills got sent off because the other player got a bit of a bump and the ref totally over-reacted. If it was a genuine red, both players should have gone.

[SCIAG]

Was the challenge reckless (ie Mills went in in a way that showed a lack of regard for the safety of the other player) ? If so it was a red whether it was '50-50' or not.

"Reckless" is a caution, is it not? "Excessive force" would be a red card for serious foul play.

[Muskrat]

Just seen the tackle on the BBC website. It wasn't a sending off offence but i'll tell you now there's no way that the FA will overturn the refs decision. It wasn't two footed or malicious but the FA won't take any of that into account.

5 game ban on its way I fear.

Although I hope I'm proved wrong of course...

[Arch]

I'm just mystified that Mills wasn't yoinked after his booking today. The appeal depends on the judgement of some humans about its danger and intent. Those humans will be aware of how he conducted himself today and, human nature being what it is, will be likely to have it subconsciously affect their attitude.

[Rex]

It's becoming a little noticable that he needs to temper himself a little more during his tackles and with his rapport with the home support.

[Mr Angry]

Just seen the tackle on the BBC website. It wasn't a sending off offence but i'll tell you now there's no way that the FA will overturn the refs decision. It wasn't two footed or malicious but the FA won't take any of that into account.

5 game ban on its way I fear.

Although I hope I'm proved wrong of course...

Why a 5 game ban?

I agree that the red card will stand, but it will be 4 match ban.

They would add an extra game's ban IF they felt that the appeal was frivolous, but as you state in your first sentence "...it wasn't a red card offence"; furthermore, unlike some teams who seem to appeal EVERY red card they receive, we tend not to appeal red cards, and I suspect that will get taken into account re: the frivolity or otherwise of the appeal.

[Sun Tzu]

Was the challenge reckless (ie Mills went in in a way that showed a lack of regard for the safety of the other player) ? If so it was a red whether it was '50-50' or not.

"Reckless" is a caution, is it not? "Excessive force" would be a red card for serious foul play.

Indeed ! I was one down on the scale !!

[Sun Tzu]

I'm just mystified that Mills wasn't yoinked after his booking today. The appeal depends on the judgement of some humans about its danger and intent. Those humans will be aware of how he conducted himself today and, human nature being what it is, will be likely to have it subconsciously affect their attitude.

But he committed a yellow card offence yesterday, so on that basis they would be more likely to think 'this guy plays it a bit tight, but isn't the violent sort', his other red was for handball so his track record is fairly good.
They also should only be able to consider what is in the ref's report and what is in our appeal. What happened against Coventry would be totally inadmissable in the appeal (I did see your commnt refereed to the subconcious !)

[leww_rfc]

I'm just mystified that Mills wasn't yoinked after his booking today. The appeal depends on the judgement of some humans about its danger and intent. Those humans will be aware of how he conducted himself today and, human nature being what it is, will be likely to have it subconsciously affect their attitude.

But he committed a yellow card offence yesterday, so on that basis they would be more likely to think 'this guy plays it a bit tight, but isn't the violent sort', his other red was for handball so his track record is fairly good.
They also should only be able to consider what is in the ref's report and what is in our appeal. What happened against Coventry would be totally inadmissable in the appeal (I did see your commnt refereed to the subconcious !)

'greed, they can't look at the Coventry game and bring that into the report, as it was submitted on Sunday.

[Sarah Star]

I don't think it's that clear cut as to whether it was a red card tackle or not tbh, but I think it was worth appealing just so that Mills could play yesterday against Coventry since there was only a day between matches to make any changes.

[Sun Tzu]

I don't think it's that clear cut as to whether it was a red card tackle or not tbh, but I think it was worth appealing just so that Mills could play yesterday against Coventry since there was only a day between matches to make any changes.

That would be a very dodgy basis to appeal !

Get him excluded from an extra game in order to play in a game with not much on it ?

[brendywendy]

I don't think it's that clear cut as to whether it was a red card tackle or not tbh, but I think it was worth appealing just so that Mills could play yesterday against Coventry since there was only a day between matches to make any changes.

That would be a very dodgy basis to appeal !

Get him excluded from an extra game in order to play in a game with not much on it ?

man u did it with ferdinand didnt they?
though of course there is more riding on their games