mikevapour
New member
- Apr 18, 2012
- 26
They were reviewing decisions and only showed the second half incident and said he was unlucky ! Didn't show the first half tackle, half a story!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Sky sports news - Heaton
- Thread starter mikevapour
- Start date
BensGrandad
New member
FL Show didnt show it either could that be because it was too controversial.
Philzo-93
Well-known member
Not controversial, it's football!!
If that's in the Premiership then MOTD/SSN et al will be all over that situation!
Marxo
Well-known member
Someone said on another thread that the BBC had lost some of the footage from our match and that was why the incident wasn't shown. I don't know if that's true, is it available on Seagulls player, or has this footage been lost forever?
TSB
Captain Hindsight
It's on player. Beeb and Sky lost their footage of it.
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
Waxing chumps like candles since ‘75
- Oct 4, 2003
- 11,048
Too controversial? Are you joking, it's the kind of incident these shows thrive on. I've seen lots of debate over said incident and its been argued both for and against the ref's decision on the day. I am sure it was posted elsewhere that there was a problem with the footage and that's why it's not being shown. It wasn't exactly Lampard World Cup goal level of controversy.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Sergei's Celebration
Well-known member
It was a tech issue with the digital gubbins the broadcasters got sent wasn't it? Hence no manager interviews and shot of the first yellow.
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
Waxing chumps like candles since ‘75
- Oct 4, 2003
- 11,048
Or they didn't want Claridge to make a prat of himself
The only real way to stop that happening would be to stop employing him.
London Irish
Well-known member
They were already 1-0 down, and everyone who was there knows Burnley wouldn't have scored with 12 players never mind 10, even with us playing rush goalies
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
shaunslats
Member
They forgot to record i
We seem to get crap coverage all round. The football league show is a joke, always just very short clips of the Albion games, usually Bright as pundit. Then we have SSN, which often has Salako doing the match update. What with Gus getting his face on coverage as well, a dead loss atm.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Both incidents are on Player in the 12 odd minutes of highlights. According to Andy Naylor tweets on Saturday, Buckley's head did brush the ball so the second yellow may have been harsh, which is why you see Heaton pointing to Buckley after he caught the ball.
Andy Naylor @AndyNaylorArgus 24 Aug
Interesting admission from Buckley. Says the ball skimmed his head before Heaton handled for the second time to be sent-off. #bhafc
The first offence was a straight red imo.
Andy Naylor @AndyNaylorArgus 24 Aug
Interesting admission from Buckley. Says the ball skimmed his head before Heaton handled for the second time to be sent-off. #bhafc
The first offence was a straight red imo.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,650
I saw that. I haven't seen any replays but I thought he handled it twice before Buckley was near him. Buckley was close to him and could have touched it before he picked it up but I was sure he kind of dropped/threw it up, then patted it before Buckley was near him
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
It was football karma - or put another way, two refereeing howlers and a nightmare evening with the assessor.
He should have gone for the first one, although I could excuse that to a point - the law says he has to be going towards goal and it be a clear goalscoring opportunity. While in my opinion I don't think the defenders would have covered Buckley sliding the ball back in, he did take the ball a lot wider with that touch. So there is an excuse for the ref, even if he got it wrong.
The second one was a real howler, and if you'd have been Heaton, Burnley, Dyche or the fans you'd be furious. Buckley touched it, and admitted it. The ref has gone for a very rarely used rule, and then got it wrong.
He should have gone for the first one, although I could excuse that to a point - the law says he has to be going towards goal and it be a clear goalscoring opportunity. While in my opinion I don't think the defenders would have covered Buckley sliding the ball back in, he did take the ball a lot wider with that touch. So there is an excuse for the ref, even if he got it wrong.
The second one was a real howler, and if you'd have been Heaton, Burnley, Dyche or the fans you'd be furious. Buckley touched it, and admitted it. The ref has gone for a very rarely used rule, and then got it wrong.
Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
The laws of the game do not say a player has to be going directly towards goal, merely that the referee should consider the 'direction of play' when considering whether a clear goal scoring opportunity had been denied. The 'direction of play' guidance is to support the referee in deciding whether a clear goal scoring opportunity had been unfairly denied, not a separate thing that also has to be true. The referee really didn't have any excuses on that one.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
You have inserted the word 'directly' in there (not sure why), which isn't in the law. It says 'moving towards the player's goal'. So the referee did have an excuse if he thought Buckley was heading away from goal. I don't think he will get AS bollocked for that one as the second one. Though as I have aleady said, in my view it was a red card.
Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Are you sure? It really doesn't say 'moving towards the player's goal':
Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the offence to occur inside the penalty area.
If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned.
Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:
• the distance between the offence and the goal
• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• the direction of the play
• the location and number of defenders
• the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity
may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick
If we exclude the 2 or 3 decent chances they did have after going down to 10 men.
Vokes' header with 5 minutes to go should have been better and would have embarrassed our statuesque defence.