by Far Canal » 09 Apr 2007 23:35
by Far Canal » 09 Apr 2007 23:41
by Handsome Man » 09 Apr 2007 23:58
by Coppelled Streets » 10 Apr 2007 00:14
Handsome Man If Pardew is telling the truth, then it is criminal. The signal should have been a red card, not some kind of conspiratorial nod.
by AthleticoSpizz » 10 Apr 2007 00:22
seems like a bit of common sense to meCoppelled StreetsHandsome Man If Pardew is telling the truth, then it is criminal. The signal should have been a red card, not some kind of conspiratorial nod.
Bit harsh don't you think?
Pardew says quite clearly that if there was a tackle that warrants a sending off then so be it, but if there are too many silly little tackles and the kid is close to getting his second yellow card, then give him a little indication and he'll bring him off.
I don't see much wrong with that to be honest!
by The 17 Bus » 10 Apr 2007 08:07
AthleticoSpizzseems like a bit of common sense to meCoppelled StreetsHandsome Man If Pardew is telling the truth, then it is criminal. The signal should have been a red card, not some kind of conspiratorial nod.
Bit harsh don't you think?
Pardew says quite clearly that if there was a tackle that warrants a sending off then so be it, but if there are too many silly little tackles and the kid is close to getting his second yellow card, then give him a little indication and he'll bring him off.
I don't see much wrong with that to be honest!
Thought Poll was no worse today than Poll on anyother day 6/10
by brighton_royal » 10 Apr 2007 09:52
AthleticoSpizzseems like a bit of common sense to meCoppelled StreetsHandsome Man If Pardew is telling the truth, then it is criminal. The signal should have been a red card, not some kind of conspiratorial nod.
Bit harsh don't you think?
Pardew says quite clearly that if there was a tackle that warrants a sending off then so be it, but if there are too many silly little tackles and the kid is close to getting his second yellow card, then give him a little indication and he'll bring him off.
I don't see much wrong with that to be honest!
Thought Poll was no worse today than Poll on anyother day 6/10
by Huntley & Palmer » 10 Apr 2007 09:54
by Huntley & Palmer » 10 Apr 2007 09:56
by Top Flight » 10 Apr 2007 10:08
brighton_royalAthleticoSpizzseems like a bit of common sense to meCoppelled StreetsHandsome Man If Pardew is telling the truth, then it is criminal. The signal should have been a red card, not some kind of conspiratorial nod.
Bit harsh don't you think?
Pardew says quite clearly that if there was a tackle that warrants a sending off then so be it, but if there are too many silly little tackles and the kid is close to getting his second yellow card, then give him a little indication and he'll bring him off.
I don't see much wrong with that to be honest!
Thought Poll was no worse today than Poll on anyother day 6/10
The problem with this is that Poll has obviously privately agreed to give Pardew an extra signal prior to sending off his player, to allow Pardew to pull him off. The yellow card is this signal, surely? Along with the string of fouls that followed from Song.
The issue is that Poll might lean towards NOT sending off Song after a bad challenge because he hasn't yet given Pards a wink, when under normal circumstances (when he hadn't "reached an agreement" with a manager) he would more often than not have shown a second yellow.
If I was Colin or Curbishley I would be livid.
The referee should be TOTALLY impartial and run the match according to the laws of the game. It is this public admission of lack of impartiality which might/should mean Poll is asked some questions.
by RoyalBlue » 10 Apr 2007 10:31
Handsome Man If Pardew is telling the truth, then it is criminal. The signal should have been a red card, not some kind of conspiratorial nod.
by 2 Pints and a packet of c » 10 Apr 2007 10:59
by John Madejski's Wallet » 10 Apr 2007 12:11
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 214 guests