Roberts Red Card

[Snowball]

I'm 65, was sat in the West Stand, wearing dark glasses, seventy yards away
using my four laptop computers, and drinking sherry and I could see the colour of the card












Must admit, I thought it was for their player for pulling down Roberts

[Shackleton Royal]

very little point in appealing IMO. if Derry`s card wasn`t rescinded what chance as JR got?

I'm clutching at the last remaining straw but Derry put his hand on Young DELIBERATELY.

Otherwise our first two fixtures better be away to both Manchester clubs - nothing lost

Derry was s/o for denying a goal scoring opportunity. Which was what the club could appeal against. Therefore it wasn't over turned.

Our appeal will be against the violent nature of the challenge. 2 completely different situations so no comparison in appeal terms.

[FiNeRaIn]

Saw it last night after thinking it was no way a red at the game. Whilst it might have been an accident he clearly moves his arm across him and catches him in the face, seen those given loads of times. This is not going to get rescinded no matter how nicely we act towards the ref and the football league.

[RoyalBlue]

Saw it last night after thinking it was no way a red at the game. Whilst it might have been an accident he clearly moves his arm across him and catches him in the face, seen those given loads of times. This is not going to get rescinded no matter how nicely we act towards the ref and the football league.

In which case forget the niceties - D'Arsole you are a complete and utter incompetent cn*t!

[The Real Sandhurst Royal]

Seen it a couple of time on the box.

I can see the referees union will sticking together on this one and not recinding.

[FiNeRaIn]

Laughably he is going to miss THREE games because of an accident that is branded like a joey barton/balotelli because of it. Terrible.

[Franchise FC]

Laughably he is going to miss THREE games because of an accident that is branded like a joey barton/balotelli because of it. Terrible.

I can't help but feel that his ONLY chance of being rescinded is if D'Urso admits that it was an accident and shouldn;t have been red.

Otherwise, 3 games it is.

[Ian Royal]

Laughably he is going to miss THREE games because of an accident that is branded like a joey barton/balotelli because of it. Terrible.

I can't help but feel that his ONLY chance of being rescinded is if D'Urso admits that it was an accident and shouldn;t have been red.

Otherwise, 3 games it is.

Yep, no faith the in the appeal process. And tbh no faith in D'urso either. the only way it's getting rescinded is if the cameras had shown no contact.

[Franchise FC]

Laughably he is going to miss THREE games because of an accident that is branded like a joey barton/balotelli because of it. Terrible.

I can't help but feel that his ONLY chance of being rescinded is if D'Urso admits that it was an accident and shouldn;t have been red.

Otherwise, 3 games it is.

Yep, no faith the in the appeal process. And tbh no faith in D'urso either. the only way it's getting rescinded is if the cameras had shown no contact.

Well, we know that's not the case.

[SLAMMED]

And it was from the player that is widely quoted as being the nicest bloke in football and a true gentleman.

Roberts looked gutted walking off the pitch

[soggy biscuit]

Hang your head in shame Roberts

[sandman]

Agreed.

If your going to put your elbow in someones face at least do it on purpose and knock some teeth out while you're at it.

[Y21]

I presume the red card was for violent conduct...which surely implies a certain amount of intent to cause injury. Considering that even the opposition player agrees that it was an accident, to not rescind it would be a complete fecking nonsense...which unfortunately is the sort of thing we expect from the idiots running football these days.

[Rex]

I presume the red card was for violent conduct...which surely implies a certain amount of intent to cause injury.

Gamesmanship and being interpreted to the letter of the law are open to interpretation. Take out one of our attacking threats could be seen as cynical and again that is open to interpretation. I very much doubt that Jason intended to hurt anyone as i don't think it's part of his game.

[Y21]

I presume the red card was for violent conduct...which surely implies a certain amount of intent to cause injury.

Gamesmanship and being interpreted to the letter of the law are open to interpretation. Take out one of our attacking threats could be seen as cynical and again that is open to interpretation. I very much doubt that Jason intended to hurt anyone as i don't think it's part of his game.

I probably wrote that badly. I don't think Jason tried to hurt the oppo player, what I meant was that must be what the ref thought at the time and that was why he sent him off. Hopefully with a second look he'll realise it was an accident.

[Rusty royal]

So! It's OK to tackle from behind (clearly seen by a ref) and break someone ankle and stay on the pitch But accidentaly catch some one with a flaying arm (you do not run with your arms down by your sides) and get sent off. Very inconsistent refereeing

[parky]

So! It's OK to tackle from behind (clearly seen by a ref) and break someone ankle and stay on the pitch But accidentaly catch some one with a flaying arm (you do not run with your arms down by your sides) and get sent off. Very inconsistent refereeing

That's not inconsistent refereeing, those are the inconsistencies given in the FIFA interpretations of the Laws of the Game.

[cmonurz]

So! It's OK to tackle from behind (clearly seen by a ref) and break someone ankle and stay on the pitch But accidentaly catch some one with a flaying arm (you do not run with your arms down by your sides) and get sent off. Very inconsistent refereeing

That's not inconsistent refereeing, those are the inconsistencies given in the FIFA interpretations of the Laws of the Game.

Accidentally catching someone with a flailing arm is not a red card offence.

[parky]

No, however my gut reaction seeing it from Y26 was that it was a straight red. For me however in the LOTG this is the argument between what should be classed as Reckless and what is Careless, Reckless being the definition of a Red Card Offence and Careless being a yellow.

[Kingsley Junior]

Yep, no faith the in the appeal process. And tbh no faith in D'urso either. the only way it's getting rescinded is if the cameras had shown no contact.

Contact is irrelevant... it is an offence to strike OR attempt to strike an opponent - therefore, if he has been sent off for violent conduct, the referee must assume there was intent, so it wouldn't matter if he touched him or not - think Pepe Reina recently.

Personally though I didn't think it was violent conduct... though I also think it won't get overturned.