Search results

This is where you (and sadly the appeal panel) have got this fundamentally back-to-front. The match-day officials sent Shelvey off, based on what they saw at the time. To RESCIND that decision, the panel have to be absolutely sure that he was NOT kicking at Lansbury. Big difference.

Whilst I agree with you there, its not the case for a review panel, whose role is to 'overturn manifest errors', not second guess a match-day referee's valid interpretation.

I can do this all day. I've nothing better to do. Yes, I've watched it. I've seen it before, I watched it when you posted it, and I've watched it again now. Despite being very much the kindest angle from Shelvey's point of view (it looks much worse from others) it STILL very clearly shows him...

I never claimed that Shelvey kicked Lansbury, though. I stated that he 'kicked out' at Lansbury. (In fact, even YOU have written on this very thread, that he kicked out) Not the same thing, but the same INTENT, and clear red either way. So yes, the review panel got it wrong. We can only...

Because the panel made an astonishingly poor decision. I seriously cannot believe your fans* continue to feel hard done by on this one - you got really lucky, you should be happy with that, and move on. Shelvey kicked out - there's really nothing else worth discussing. And, as I say, he did...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha No bias there. No sirrreeeeeee.

"blah blah blah blah blah Shelvey kicked out blah blah blah" Can you spot the important part? Which part of Lansbury he made contact with is irrelevant. Lansbury making a meal of it is irrelevant. What punishment Lansbury might have received is irrelevant. Whether it should have been a penalty...

Somewhere in between. We probably need reinforcements everywhere bar centre-back. Possibly there too, depending on Goldson's recovery. The Burton one is probably the single worst refereeing mistake, at this level, I've ever seen. Nothing subjective about it - no decision to make - just a...

:shrug: whatever. At least you'll have something to blame if you lose the title on GD.

Indeed. But the outcome is the same, thus the phrase 'in essence'.

If YOU can't spell it right, why should anyone else!?

Triggaaar is right. You're wrong. The goal was absolutely NOT 'incorrectly ruled out'. It was 100% correctly ruled out, for Gayle's very blatant encroachment. Stroud's only mistake was to NOT award you a re-take. So in essence, it is indeed just the same as being denied a clear penalty.

It really is amazing that nobody on here has mentioned it, until now.