Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Albion] Schelotto injury



B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Exile said:
Stop being an idiot. They (apart from Stuart Attwell at the time) have indicated absolutely no such thing.
Click to expand...

They have by not taking any further action which means that they didnt consider the action already taken as being inappropriate. They have inferred that his dealing with the situation was correct The authorities are quick to jump in with a charge a la Hemed. but they have chosen not to.
 






Stat Brother

Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,647
West west west Sussex
Exile said:
Stop being an idiot.
Click to expand...

stable.png
 




McTavish

McTavish

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2014
1,562
BensGrandad said:
They have by not taking any further action which means that they didnt consider the action already taken as being inappropriate.
Click to expand...
No, that's not true - how do you know it was referred to the panel?
BensGrandad said:
They have inferred that his dealing with the situation was correct
Click to expand...
No, they haven't. They may either not have looked at it at all or they may have looked at it and decided that the challenge was not severe enough to warrant a straight red for serious foul play - the panel cannot give a retrospective yellow. There is no way that you can know that they have looked at it and decided the call was correct.
BensGrandad said:
The authorities are quick to jump in with a charge a la Hemed. but they have chosen not to.
Click to expand...
The foul has to be referred to the panel - if the referee says that he saw the whole incident then it can't be referred whether the referee got it right or wrong. The Hemed stamp was referred because neither the referee nor his assistants clearly saw the incident.
 




Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,156
Goldstone
Stato said:
Whilst we can often be myopic over decisions against us, and I wouldn't agree with referees making decisions on the basis of outcomes*, I think you may need to have a closer look. It was definitely a foul. People were excusing Kolasinac because he was looking at the ball, but when you watch in slow motion you can see that he does glance at Schelotto before the coming together and then looks away again.
Click to expand...
Even if he didn't take his eyes off the ball, it's still a reckless foul, because he didn't need to look to know where Schelotto would be when the ball was circa 7 feet off the ground - obviously he'd be where the ball was. He shoulder charged that position, and predictably wiped Schelotto out. He immediately pointed to the ball to pretend he'd got the ball, as he knew he'd taken Schelotto out.
 




Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,156
Goldstone
BensGrandad said:
They have by not taking any further action which means that they didnt consider the action already taken as being inappropriate.
Click to expand...
You're an idiot.

It would be easier to explain the space time continuum to my cocker spaniel than get anything through your thick closed skull.
 




B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Triggaaar said:
You're an idiot.

It would be easier to explain the space time continuum to my cocker spaniel than get anything through your thick closed skull.
Click to expand...

so easy to say from your high and mighty position without being able to offer any solution other than you THOUGHT it was a foul My view is based on what the authorities have done or not done for whatever reason and I believe that my view is more relevant than yours but if you wish to continue with your narrow minded blue and white blinkered view carry on.
 


Thunder Bolt

Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Aug 18, 2009
65,402
Beside the seaside, beside the sea
BensGrandad said:
so easy to say from your high and mighty position without being able to offer any solution other than you THOUGHT it was a foul My view is based on what the authorities have done or not done for whatever reason and I believe that my view is more relevant than yours but if you wish to continue with your narrow minded blue and white blinkered view carry on.
Click to expand...

I know having an argument on Nsc is one of your favourite pasttimes, even when you don't believe yourself, the things that you post, but you do NOT know what the authorities have done or not done.
 


LlcoolJ

LlcoolJ

Mama said knock you out.
Oct 14, 2009
12,982
Sheffield
BensGrandad said:
so easy to say from your high and mighty position without being able to offer any solution other than you THOUGHT it was a foul My view is based on what the authorities have done or not done for whatever reason and I believe that my view is more relevant than yours but if you wish to continue with your narrow minded blue and white blinkered view carry on.
Click to expand...
This is just willful stupidity. You've no idea what "the authorities" have or haven't done so please just STOP!
 






Bob'n'weave

Bob'n'weave

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2016
1,970
Nr Lewes
Triggaaar said:
Even if he didn't take his eyes off the ball, it's still a reckless foul, because he didn't need to look to know where Schelotto would be when the ball was circa 7 feet off the ground - obviously he'd be where the ball was. He shoulder charged that position, and predictably wiped Schelotto out. He immediately pointed to the ball to pretend he'd got the ball, as he knew he'd taken Schelotto out.
Click to expand...

Is the right answer.

Whatever happens, or doesn't happen, it was intentional and it was a foul.
 






Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,156
Goldstone
BensGrandad said:
so easy to say from your high and mighty position without being able to offer any solution other than you THOUGHT it was a foul
Click to expand...
I insult you because you ignore all efforts to explain things to you, as I will now repeat:
You suggest that all I offer is my opinion that is was a foul, but:
de la zouch said:
Dermot Gallagher has just called it as a definite red on SSN Ref Watch. For once I agree with a referee!
Click to expand...
So you see BG, it's not just what I thought is it.

The evidence you're providing is that a panel hasn't said he now needs to be banned, but this has also been explained to you:
Triggaaar said:
1) I'm not sure a panel has looked at it.
2) Even if they have, it's possible that 2 out of 3 thought it was a red card, and the 3rd thought it was a yellow card, because that would mean the decision stands.
Click to expand...
You have come up with no evidence that any ref that has seen video footage doesn't think he should have been sent off.

But of course you ignore all the evidence, and repeat the same crap. That's why you're the subject of my insults.
 




B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Thunder Bolt said:
I know having an argument on Nsc is one of your favourite pasttimes, even when you don't believe yourself, the things that you post, but you do NOT know what the authorities have done or not done.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows we can only assume that
(a) They watched TV footage as that is their designated role as a refs panel.
(b) They concluded that the matter required no further action

I think that it is in our best interests to drop this matter and allow Arsenal to field their strongest side against our relegation rivals as others have mentioned.previously
 
Last edited:






Thunder Bolt

Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Aug 18, 2009
65,402
Beside the seaside, beside the sea
BensGrandad said:
Nobody knows we can only assume that
(a) They watched TV footage as that is their designated role as a refs panel.
(b) They concluded that the matter required no further action
Click to expand...

What's with the 'we'? It seems only you have assumed that.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here