Town could appeal McEveley dismissal

The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald: Jay McEveley Jay McEveley

SWINDON Town are likely to appeal the red card handed to Jay McEveley during their 2-2 draw at Peterborough United in the Johnstone’s Paint Trophy last night.

McEveley was dismissed by referee Paul Tierney in the 35th minute of the southern section area final first leg for a challenge on Britt Assombalonga – a decision Town manager Mark Cooper felt was unjust.

He and members of the club’s management team will review footage of the incident again before opting for an appeal, but he thinks one is likely.

“I thought it was very harsh,” said Cooper. “I’ve seen it again and Jay’s eyes never leave the football, the guy ducks to head the ball and Jay has made a genuine attempt to play the ball.

“We’ll look at it and there’s every chance we’ll appeal McEveley’s.”

Town outplayed Posh for long periods despite their man disadvantage and Cooper was delighted with his players at the final whistle. However, he felt the game was put into perspective by scenes towards the end of the game when paramedics tended to a Peterborough fan who collapsed in the home crowd.

“Obviously they were horrible scenes at the end and something you don’t want to witness. Thankfully the person has regained consciousness so that’s the biggest bonus of the night,” he said.

“As far as the club’s concerned I’m so proud of the football club. The supporters were first-class and totally out-sang the Peterborough fans and the players were astronomical in terms of their effort and the football they tried to play on a cabbage patch of a pitch.

“My only disappointment is we haven’t won with 10 men because we fully deserved to. I don’t think they had a shot in the second half. It’s set up for an interesting and exciting tie in two weeks’ time.”

Yaser Kasim picked up his 10th caution of the season during the clash at London Road, meaning the Iraqi midfielder will serve a two-match suspension.

Meanwhile, Swindon are closing in on the signing of Norwich winger Jacob Murphy on a loan deal.

The emergency loan window opens at the end of this week and the Robins are expected to draft in the England Under 19 international to complement their attacking options.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:15am Thu 6 Feb 14

stokes_stfc says...

If that red card gets rescinded I'll eat my metaphorical hat...
If that red card gets rescinded I'll eat my metaphorical hat... stokes_stfc
  • Score: 15

7:21am Thu 6 Feb 14

Since 1950 says...

No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded.
What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.
No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded. What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut. Since 1950
  • Score: 20

8:34am Thu 6 Feb 14

old town robin says...

Since 1950 wrote:
No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded.
What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.
When they review it, they will see there is no point to appeal.

With regards to Kasim thought he was poor last night, looked like he was afraid to tackle in case he got his 10th yellow which in the end he did. Probably best for him he takes his punishment on the chin and starts again with a clean slate and keeps his mouth shut. once again it could have been avoided, gobbing off to a referee that has already dished out 9 reds in 23 games is pure stupidity. Nat Thompson also came very close to going. Why can't they take some inspiration from Wardy, who I can't remember picking up a yellow since he came to the club.
[quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded. What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.[/p][/quote]When they review it, they will see there is no point to appeal. With regards to Kasim thought he was poor last night, looked like he was afraid to tackle in case he got his 10th yellow which in the end he did. Probably best for him he takes his punishment on the chin and starts again with a clean slate and keeps his mouth shut. once again it could have been avoided, gobbing off to a referee that has already dished out 9 reds in 23 games is pure stupidity. Nat Thompson also came very close to going. Why can't they take some inspiration from Wardy, who I can't remember picking up a yellow since he came to the club. old town robin
  • Score: 6

8:34am Thu 6 Feb 14

old town robin says...

Since 1950 wrote:
No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded.
What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.
When they review it, they will see there is no point to appeal.

With regards to Kasim thought he was poor last night, looked like he was afraid to tackle in case he got his 10th yellow which in the end he did. Probably best for him he takes his punishment on the chin and starts again with a clean slate and keeps his mouth shut. once again it could have been avoided, gobbing off to a referee that has already dished out 9 reds in 23 games is pure stupidity. Nat Thompson also came very close to going. Why can't they take some inspiration from Wardy, who I can't remember picking up a yellow since he came to the club.
[quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded. What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.[/p][/quote]When they review it, they will see there is no point to appeal. With regards to Kasim thought he was poor last night, looked like he was afraid to tackle in case he got his 10th yellow which in the end he did. Probably best for him he takes his punishment on the chin and starts again with a clean slate and keeps his mouth shut. once again it could have been avoided, gobbing off to a referee that has already dished out 9 reds in 23 games is pure stupidity. Nat Thompson also came very close to going. Why can't they take some inspiration from Wardy, who I can't remember picking up a yellow since he came to the club. old town robin
  • Score: -3

9:02am Thu 6 Feb 14

Since 1950 says...

Since 1950 wrote:
No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded.
What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.
Should read rescinded not reminded. Predictive txt.
[quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded. What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.[/p][/quote]Should read rescinded not reminded. Predictive txt. Since 1950
  • Score: 0

9:47am Thu 6 Feb 14

Stilloyal says...

Well that was a much better performance , the passion and desire that has been missing in the last few games returned ,well done.
As for the red card I don't think it's worth bothering as if it fails it'll mean an extra one match.. You only have to look at Andy Carolls appeal which deserved to be rescinded to realise that Town will probably be wasting their time. However if they feel that we can do without Mac for four games then go for it..
The team warrant maximum praise for last nights result in poor conditions and under very poor refereeing standards once again.

Well done ,our season depends on the 2nd leg and possible final, good luck
Well that was a much better performance , the passion and desire that has been missing in the last few games returned ,well done. As for the red card I don't think it's worth bothering as if it fails it'll mean an extra one match.. You only have to look at Andy Carolls appeal which deserved to be rescinded to realise that Town will probably be wasting their time. However if they feel that we can do without Mac for four games then go for it.. The team warrant maximum praise for last nights result in poor conditions and under very poor refereeing standards once again. Well done ,our season depends on the 2nd leg and possible final, good luck Stilloyal
  • Score: 6

9:54am Thu 6 Feb 14

Graham8181 says...

Swindon town win an appeal ... that'll be the day. I think was very harsh, was a yellow at most although he did duck down to head it. players might as well just crawl on the floor all game so no one could ever kick the ball at this rate
Swindon town win an appeal ... that'll be the day. I think was very harsh, was a yellow at most although he did duck down to head it. players might as well just crawl on the floor all game so no one could ever kick the ball at this rate Graham8181
  • Score: 3

10:11am Thu 6 Feb 14

dreamofacleansheet2 says...

Old Town, Yasir's booking was pure studity and we have a lot of that in our young team, I'd like to see Cooper fine them a weeks wages for any bookings for back chat. That would sort it out quickly enough. However can't agree with you his performance. I thought he Louis T and Massimo were outstanding last night. I've been a big critic of Massimo especially away from home but the protection of Yasir and Louis in front of back four let him go and play. Boy did he play linking play and bringing NG, Nile and the kid Gladwin into play. Bravo Massimo happy you proved me completely wrong on this occasion. More of the same please and same "three" in midfield please Coops.

Amazed how little attention the possible signing of Jacob Murphy has got on here this morning. I know a number of Canary fans who rave about him and his brother. Until this season he was considered the best of the two and was one of their key players in winning the FA Youth Cup last year. I'm reliably informed he has the skills...

Regardless of ones views of the JPT if it means we've finally found the formula for the young players to perform away from home I'll be delighted with that. Only Danny, Wardy and Jay over 23 really sets us up nicely....

Finally congratulations to Danny on his performance in reply to Coop's saying he could go out on loan. Most of the fans are with you.....

World a better place this morning......
Old Town, Yasir's booking was pure studity and we have a lot of that in our young team, I'd like to see Cooper fine them a weeks wages for any bookings for back chat. That would sort it out quickly enough. However can't agree with you his performance. I thought he Louis T and Massimo were outstanding last night. I've been a big critic of Massimo especially away from home but the protection of Yasir and Louis in front of back four let him go and play. Boy did he play linking play and bringing NG, Nile and the kid Gladwin into play. Bravo Massimo happy you proved me completely wrong on this occasion. More of the same please and same "three" in midfield please Coops. Amazed how little attention the possible signing of Jacob Murphy has got on here this morning. I know a number of Canary fans who rave about him and his brother. Until this season he was considered the best of the two and was one of their key players in winning the FA Youth Cup last year. I'm reliably informed he has the skills... Regardless of ones views of the JPT if it means we've finally found the formula for the young players to perform away from home I'll be delighted with that. Only Danny, Wardy and Jay over 23 really sets us up nicely.... Finally congratulations to Danny on his performance in reply to Coop's saying he could go out on loan. Most of the fans are with you..... World a better place this morning...... dreamofacleansheet2
  • Score: 19

10:40am Thu 6 Feb 14

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

Stilloyal wrote:
Well that was a much better performance , the passion and desire that has been missing in the last few games returned ,well done.
As for the red card I don't think it's worth bothering as if it fails it'll mean an extra one match.. You only have to look at Andy Carolls appeal which deserved to be rescinded to realise that Town will probably be wasting their time. However if they feel that we can do without Mac for four games then go for it..
The team warrant maximum praise for last nights result in poor conditions and under very poor refereeing standards once again.

Well done ,our season depends on the 2nd leg and possible final, good luck
Well done Stilloyal that was very good post, in fact, so good I could have written it myself.
Agree with every word of it.
[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: Well that was a much better performance , the passion and desire that has been missing in the last few games returned ,well done. As for the red card I don't think it's worth bothering as if it fails it'll mean an extra one match.. You only have to look at Andy Carolls appeal which deserved to be rescinded to realise that Town will probably be wasting their time. However if they feel that we can do without Mac for four games then go for it.. The team warrant maximum praise for last nights result in poor conditions and under very poor refereeing standards once again. Well done ,our season depends on the 2nd leg and possible final, good luck[/p][/quote]Well done Stilloyal that was very good post, in fact, so good I could have written it myself. Agree with every word of it. Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 4

10:45am Thu 6 Feb 14

Oi Den! says...

My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk.

In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge.

Best to let it all lie.
My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk. In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge. Best to let it all lie. Oi Den!
  • Score: 4

12:47pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Is that you Lovesey says...

Oi Den! wrote:
My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk. In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge. Best to let it all lie.
I am with you Den, might have seemed harsh because of the lack of intent, but he booted they guy in the face who couldn't continue...
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk. In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge. Best to let it all lie.[/p][/quote]I am with you Den, might have seemed harsh because of the lack of intent, but he booted they guy in the face who couldn't continue... Is that you Lovesey
  • Score: 1

12:56pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Wilesy says...

Is that you Lovesey wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk. In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge. Best to let it all lie.
I am with you Den, might have seemed harsh because of the lack of intent, but he booted they guy in the face who couldn't continue...
The appeal panel will consider 'has the ref made an obvious error' The red was harsh imo but it wasn't a 'Stuart Atwell'
[quote][p][bold]Is that you Lovesey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk. In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge. Best to let it all lie.[/p][/quote]I am with you Den, might have seemed harsh because of the lack of intent, but he booted they guy in the face who couldn't continue...[/p][/quote]The appeal panel will consider 'has the ref made an obvious error' The red was harsh imo but it wasn't a 'Stuart Atwell' Wilesy
  • Score: 3

1:04pm Thu 6 Feb 14

MITTED says...

No way a red card, yellow at worst. However, it is absolutely pointless appealling because it will be rejected and the ban increased. There are numerous examples of the futility to appealing, the latest being Andy Carroll's at the weekend, which wasn't even a foul.

Superb performance last night. N;Guessen and Kasim were immense, although a shame that Kasim stupidly talked his way into the book and two game ban.
No way a red card, yellow at worst. However, it is absolutely pointless appealling because it will be rejected and the ban increased. There are numerous examples of the futility to appealing, the latest being Andy Carroll's at the weekend, which wasn't even a foul. Superb performance last night. N;Guessen and Kasim were immense, although a shame that Kasim stupidly talked his way into the book and two game ban. MITTED
  • Score: 4

1:05pm Thu 6 Feb 14

sally2 says...

Have watched town and followed football from the late 40's.and watched it go from mans game to a girls. You can push shove pull shirts,push a player away with your arm,obstruct him with no intention of getting the ball so as to allow the ball to go for a corner or goal kick.,but you can't make a good hard tackle.It is meant to be a physical game.Mike Summerbee said players would soon be carrying handbags he new how to tackle,in todays game he would get a red card in the warm up.You never saw a player wear gloves in the old days it will be longjohns next.
If they did the same with rugby it would be like netball.
Mike c
Have watched town and followed football from the late 40's.and watched it go from mans game to a girls. You can push shove pull shirts,push a player away with your arm,obstruct him with no intention of getting the ball so as to allow the ball to go for a corner or goal kick.,but you can't make a good hard tackle.It is meant to be a physical game.Mike Summerbee said players would soon be carrying handbags he new how to tackle,in todays game he would get a red card in the warm up.You never saw a player wear gloves in the old days it will be longjohns next. If they did the same with rugby it would be like netball. Mike c sally2
  • Score: 5

1:07pm Thu 6 Feb 14

London Red says...

I'm not a massive Jay fan - and if noted never include him in core squad to build around
.
Persoanlly would like us let it be and to now settle on either Byrne (my preference) or Reckford as our LB and give them a decent run in that spot - rather having lots of different people slipping in and out around Jay's injuries and bans!
.
Jay hasn't sured us up at the back and rarely offers much going forward. Plus being in and out all the time is not helping!
.
Pritchard can then come in for Kasim - have Gladwin and Luongo box-to-box and Thompson sitting at the back of the diamond with Pritch in the hole
.
Ranger and N'Guessan to continue as a pair up top
.
I would also bring Troy in as we are still suspect at the back and think he will really help - hopefully his initial forey back will have got "eagerness" out of his system and we can see what he can do
.
Then have 6 from Branco, Reckford/Byrne, Harley, Storey, Barker, Smithx2, Tijane and possibly the new Norwich Lad along side Bulford on the bench
.
Tell them they have to keep putting shift in and no performance like Oldham will be accepted and if they got the shirt they have to fight to keep it and if they get a chance they need to take it - like N'Guessan did last night - hopefully that might wake the likes of Harley up and keep Ranger/N'Guessan firing on all cylinders as they know M.Smith is hot on their heels for a spot etc
I'm not a massive Jay fan - and if noted never include him in core squad to build around . Persoanlly would like us let it be and to now settle on either Byrne (my preference) or Reckford as our LB and give them a decent run in that spot - rather having lots of different people slipping in and out around Jay's injuries and bans! . Jay hasn't sured us up at the back and rarely offers much going forward. Plus being in and out all the time is not helping! . Pritchard can then come in for Kasim - have Gladwin and Luongo box-to-box and Thompson sitting at the back of the diamond with Pritch in the hole . Ranger and N'Guessan to continue as a pair up top . I would also bring Troy in as we are still suspect at the back and think he will really help - hopefully his initial forey back will have got "eagerness" out of his system and we can see what he can do . Then have 6 from Branco, Reckford/Byrne, Harley, Storey, Barker, Smithx2, Tijane and possibly the new Norwich Lad along side Bulford on the bench . Tell them they have to keep putting shift in and no performance like Oldham will be accepted and if they got the shirt they have to fight to keep it and if they get a chance they need to take it - like N'Guessan did last night - hopefully that might wake the likes of Harley up and keep Ranger/N'Guessan firing on all cylinders as they know M.Smith is hot on their heels for a spot etc London Red
  • Score: -2

1:45pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Oi Den! says...

sally2 wrote:
Have watched town and followed football from the late 40's.and watched it go from mans game to a girls. You can push shove pull shirts,push a player away with your arm,obstruct him with no intention of getting the ball so as to allow the ball to go for a corner or goal kick.,but you can't make a good hard tackle.It is meant to be a physical game.Mike Summerbee said players would soon be carrying handbags he new how to tackle,in todays game he would get a red card in the warm up.You never saw a player wear gloves in the old days it will be longjohns next.
If they did the same with rugby it would be like netball.
Mike c
That's all fair enough. It is meant to be a physical game. But in this specific instance, we are talking about someone being kicked in the head with a lot of force, something that could result in serious injury to the brain or damage to the eyes. No footballer wants too inflict an injury like that any more than he wants to receive one. The game is a lot faster now than it was decades ago. Players' safety has to be paramount. If the cost of that is the occasional "harsh" red card I think it's a price worth paying.
[quote][p][bold]sally2[/bold] wrote: Have watched town and followed football from the late 40's.and watched it go from mans game to a girls. You can push shove pull shirts,push a player away with your arm,obstruct him with no intention of getting the ball so as to allow the ball to go for a corner or goal kick.,but you can't make a good hard tackle.It is meant to be a physical game.Mike Summerbee said players would soon be carrying handbags he new how to tackle,in todays game he would get a red card in the warm up.You never saw a player wear gloves in the old days it will be longjohns next. If they did the same with rugby it would be like netball. Mike c[/p][/quote]That's all fair enough. It is meant to be a physical game. But in this specific instance, we are talking about someone being kicked in the head with a lot of force, something that could result in serious injury to the brain or damage to the eyes. No footballer wants too inflict an injury like that any more than he wants to receive one. The game is a lot faster now than it was decades ago. Players' safety has to be paramount. If the cost of that is the occasional "harsh" red card I think it's a price worth paying. Oi Den!
  • Score: -4

1:47pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Oi Den! says...

"to inflict" not "too inflict". Never was the greatest typist.
"to inflict" not "too inflict". Never was the greatest typist. Oi Den!
  • Score: -6

3:41pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

Oi Den! wrote:
My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk.

In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge.

Best to let it all lie.
Perhaps all players should carry out a formal "Risk Assessment" before attempting an overhead kick in future.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk. In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge. Best to let it all lie.[/p][/quote]Perhaps all players should carry out a formal "Risk Assessment" before attempting an overhead kick in future. Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 5

3:42pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

Oi Den! wrote:
My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk.

In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge.

Best to let it all lie.
Perhaps all players should carry out a formal "Risk Assessment" before attempting an overhead kick in future.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk. In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge. Best to let it all lie.[/p][/quote]Perhaps all players should carry out a formal "Risk Assessment" before attempting an overhead kick in future. Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Oi Den! says...

Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk.

In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge.

Best to let it all lie.
Perhaps all players should carry out a formal "Risk Assessment" before attempting an overhead kick in future.
Pretty flippant attitude O-S. I'd hazard a guess that you would not have been too pleased if a Posh player had taken one of our players out in the same manner. McEveley's action was clearly not malicious but it was also clearly dangerous. It wasn't just that his foot was high. There was a fair bit of force in the collision.

All I'm saying is that if players know there is the prospect of a red card they will be less likely to take the risk, which I believe is a good thing. You're entitled to your view. Mine is that the ref got a very tricky decision right last night.
[quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk. In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge. Best to let it all lie.[/p][/quote]Perhaps all players should carry out a formal "Risk Assessment" before attempting an overhead kick in future.[/p][/quote]Pretty flippant attitude O-S. I'd hazard a guess that you would not have been too pleased if a Posh player had taken one of our players out in the same manner. McEveley's action was clearly not malicious but it was also clearly dangerous. It wasn't just that his foot was high. There was a fair bit of force in the collision. All I'm saying is that if players know there is the prospect of a red card they will be less likely to take the risk, which I believe is a good thing. You're entitled to your view. Mine is that the ref got a very tricky decision right last night. Oi Den!
  • Score: -5

4:18pm Thu 6 Feb 14

London Red says...

Nani's sending off against Real is a prime example where he caught the Real player in the mid-rift.
.
That was debated like mad but pundits like Keane said it was right to give him a red as he should be aware who is around him if going in with a foot up
.
Dangerous play doesn't have to be malicious - it just has to have the potential to cause an injury - which it clearly did as BA went off at half time!
.
N.Thompson was border line with his as that had more intent - he clearly knew the player was there. Thought Yellow was right on that one as less dangerous than Jays boot to the head - others will disagree with both but thats football
Nani's sending off against Real is a prime example where he caught the Real player in the mid-rift. . That was debated like mad but pundits like Keane said it was right to give him a red as he should be aware who is around him if going in with a foot up . Dangerous play doesn't have to be malicious - it just has to have the potential to cause an injury - which it clearly did as BA went off at half time! . N.Thompson was border line with his as that had more intent - he clearly knew the player was there. Thought Yellow was right on that one as less dangerous than Jays boot to the head - others will disagree with both but thats football London Red
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Thu 6 Feb 14

smirg kcab says...

Deep down I'm sure cooper would have taken a red card, just to get asombalongobinbonglo
ngo out of the game, that was the turning point for our great comeback.
Hope he's out for the return, as he's a powerful guy
Deep down I'm sure cooper would have taken a red card, just to get asombalongobinbonglo ngo out of the game, that was the turning point for our great comeback. Hope he's out for the return, as he's a powerful guy smirg kcab
  • Score: 1

4:42pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Oi Den! says...

London Red wrote:
Nani's sending off against Real is a prime example where he caught the Real player in the mid-rift.
.
That was debated like mad but pundits like Keane said it was right to give him a red as he should be aware who is around him if going in with a foot up
.
Dangerous play doesn't have to be malicious - it just has to have the potential to cause an injury - which it clearly did as BA went off at half time!
.
N.Thompson was border line with his as that had more intent - he clearly knew the player was there. Thought Yellow was right on that one as less dangerous than Jays boot to the head - others will disagree with both but thats football
Good post LR. I think the whole thing just shows that one man's wrong decision can be another man's correct one, which in turn proves that the ref's job is often more difficult than some like to believe.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Nani's sending off against Real is a prime example where he caught the Real player in the mid-rift. . That was debated like mad but pundits like Keane said it was right to give him a red as he should be aware who is around him if going in with a foot up . Dangerous play doesn't have to be malicious - it just has to have the potential to cause an injury - which it clearly did as BA went off at half time! . N.Thompson was border line with his as that had more intent - he clearly knew the player was there. Thought Yellow was right on that one as less dangerous than Jays boot to the head - others will disagree with both but thats football[/p][/quote]Good post LR. I think the whole thing just shows that one man's wrong decision can be another man's correct one, which in turn proves that the ref's job is often more difficult than some like to believe. Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

5:21pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk.

In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge.

Best to let it all lie.
Perhaps all players should carry out a formal "Risk Assessment" before attempting an overhead kick in future.
Pretty flippant attitude O-S. I'd hazard a guess that you would not have been too pleased if a Posh player had taken one of our players out in the same manner. McEveley's action was clearly not malicious but it was also clearly dangerous. It wasn't just that his foot was high. There was a fair bit of force in the collision.

All I'm saying is that if players know there is the prospect of a red card they will be less likely to take the risk, which I believe is a good thing. You're entitled to your view. Mine is that the ref got a very tricky decision right last night.
The prospect of a red card was pretty high last night, given the Referee Paul Tierney's record so far this season, dont you think ?
24 Games
77 Yellow Cards
10 Red Cards
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk. In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge. Best to let it all lie.[/p][/quote]Perhaps all players should carry out a formal "Risk Assessment" before attempting an overhead kick in future.[/p][/quote]Pretty flippant attitude O-S. I'd hazard a guess that you would not have been too pleased if a Posh player had taken one of our players out in the same manner. McEveley's action was clearly not malicious but it was also clearly dangerous. It wasn't just that his foot was high. There was a fair bit of force in the collision. All I'm saying is that if players know there is the prospect of a red card they will be less likely to take the risk, which I believe is a good thing. You're entitled to your view. Mine is that the ref got a very tricky decision right last night.[/p][/quote]The prospect of a red card was pretty high last night, given the Referee Paul Tierney's record so far this season, dont you think ? 24 Games 77 Yellow Cards 10 Red Cards Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 1

5:45pm Thu 6 Feb 14

MARK TITCOMBE says...

old town robin wrote:
Since 1950 wrote:
No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded.
What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.
When they review it, they will see there is no point to appeal.

With regards to Kasim thought he was poor last night, looked like he was afraid to tackle in case he got his 10th yellow which in the end he did. Probably best for him he takes his punishment on the chin and starts again with a clean slate and keeps his mouth shut. once again it could have been avoided, gobbing off to a referee that has already dished out 9 reds in 23 games is pure stupidity. Nat Thompson also came very close to going. Why can't they take some inspiration from Wardy, who I can't remember picking up a yellow since he came to the club.
Kasim played really well. You shouldn't be allowed to post on here if you thought that. You clearly know zero about football.
[quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded. What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.[/p][/quote]When they review it, they will see there is no point to appeal. With regards to Kasim thought he was poor last night, looked like he was afraid to tackle in case he got his 10th yellow which in the end he did. Probably best for him he takes his punishment on the chin and starts again with a clean slate and keeps his mouth shut. once again it could have been avoided, gobbing off to a referee that has already dished out 9 reds in 23 games is pure stupidity. Nat Thompson also came very close to going. Why can't they take some inspiration from Wardy, who I can't remember picking up a yellow since he came to the club.[/p][/quote]Kasim played really well. You shouldn't be allowed to post on here if you thought that. You clearly know zero about football. MARK TITCOMBE
  • Score: -3

6:00pm Thu 6 Feb 14

swwindon61uk says...

Oi Den! wrote:
My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk.

In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge.

Best to let it all lie.
No way it will get overturned.
You have to be aware of what you might do, it is like in ice hockey you are responsible for control of your stick,you hit somebody in the head with it accidental or not you will get punished.

Nathan Thompson is going to cost us dear down the line and it will not be to far down that line i feel!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: My first thought was that the red card was harsh because there was clearly no intent. On reflection though, if a player is going to get his foot that high I think he has to make sure there is no other player around or accept the consequences of taking the risk. In any case, if we're going to have retrospective justice, McEveley should get a yellow card for his blatant dive and then another for the later challenge. And Nathan Thompson should get a red for his over the top lunge. Best to let it all lie.[/p][/quote]No way it will get overturned. You have to be aware of what you might do, it is like in ice hockey you are responsible for control of your stick,you hit somebody in the head with it accidental or not you will get punished. Nathan Thompson is going to cost us dear down the line and it will not be to far down that line i feel! swwindon61uk
  • Score: 2

6:03pm Thu 6 Feb 14

swwindon61uk says...

Also lets not forget the Peterborough player had to leave the game.
Also lets not forget the Peterborough player had to leave the game. swwindon61uk
  • Score: 2

6:08pm Thu 6 Feb 14

MITTED says...

Oi Den! wrote:
sally2 wrote:
Have watched town and followed football from the late 40's.and watched it go from mans game to a girls. You can push shove pull shirts,push a player away with your arm,obstruct him with no intention of getting the ball so as to allow the ball to go for a corner or goal kick.,but you can't make a good hard tackle.It is meant to be a physical game.Mike Summerbee said players would soon be carrying handbags he new how to tackle,in todays game he would get a red card in the warm up.You never saw a player wear gloves in the old days it will be longjohns next.
If they did the same with rugby it would be like netball.
Mike c
That's all fair enough. It is meant to be a physical game. But in this specific instance, we are talking about someone being kicked in the head with a lot of force, something that could result in serious injury to the brain or damage to the eyes. No footballer wants too inflict an injury like that any more than he wants to receive one. The game is a lot faster now than it was decades ago. Players' safety has to be paramount. If the cost of that is the occasional "harsh" red card I think it's a price worth paying.
In F1 the stewards decide if their was fault by driver involved in collisions. Very often collisions are "natural sporting collision" and no fault is attributed. That is exactly what happened with Jay last night, a natural sporting collision which does not necessarily make it a foul, there was no intent whatsoever, any idiot could see that from the TV pictures; he was focused on the ball and the peterborough stuck his head in. If the other player had raised his foot instead, there would have been no fuss and probably no foul given. I don't agree that harsh reds are a price worth paying when TV can be used to so easily used to rectify a referee's very obvious mistake. The FA is quick enough to over-rule a referee's spur of the moment decision when it is later seen as too lenient, it should be just as pro-active when it's the opposite.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sally2[/bold] wrote: Have watched town and followed football from the late 40's.and watched it go from mans game to a girls. You can push shove pull shirts,push a player away with your arm,obstruct him with no intention of getting the ball so as to allow the ball to go for a corner or goal kick.,but you can't make a good hard tackle.It is meant to be a physical game.Mike Summerbee said players would soon be carrying handbags he new how to tackle,in todays game he would get a red card in the warm up.You never saw a player wear gloves in the old days it will be longjohns next. If they did the same with rugby it would be like netball. Mike c[/p][/quote]That's all fair enough. It is meant to be a physical game. But in this specific instance, we are talking about someone being kicked in the head with a lot of force, something that could result in serious injury to the brain or damage to the eyes. No footballer wants too inflict an injury like that any more than he wants to receive one. The game is a lot faster now than it was decades ago. Players' safety has to be paramount. If the cost of that is the occasional "harsh" red card I think it's a price worth paying.[/p][/quote]In F1 the stewards decide if their was fault by driver involved in collisions. Very often collisions are "natural sporting collision" and no fault is attributed. That is exactly what happened with Jay last night, a natural sporting collision which does not necessarily make it a foul, there was no intent whatsoever, any idiot could see that from the TV pictures; he was focused on the ball and the peterborough stuck his head in. If the other player had raised his foot instead, there would have been no fuss and probably no foul given. I don't agree that harsh reds are a price worth paying when TV can be used to so easily used to rectify a referee's very obvious mistake. The FA is quick enough to over-rule a referee's spur of the moment decision when it is later seen as too lenient, it should be just as pro-active when it's the opposite. MITTED
  • Score: 3

7:41pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Wilesy says...

The subject gets debated to death every time we get a red card.

As long as you have human referees you will get human error. I was actually surprised the ref didn't even things up given he had a few opportunities...

You win some you lose some, yes we maybe lost on the Jay one as there was no intent and he got the ball first but a) he should have been more aware of where the player was when he kicked him and b) he should have been in a better position to start with as Assombalongo was away and clear if he hadn't challenged.

But on the other hand we won on the Nathan Thompson incidents on another day he could have got a straight red for his booking challenge, and then was perhaps fortunate not to get another yellow when he held onto the ball in 2nd half and got pushed over sparking a melee.
The subject gets debated to death every time we get a red card. As long as you have human referees you will get human error. I was actually surprised the ref didn't even things up given he had a few opportunities... You win some you lose some, yes we maybe lost on the Jay one as there was no intent and he got the ball first but a) he should have been more aware of where the player was when he kicked him and b) he should have been in a better position to start with as Assombalongo was away and clear if he hadn't challenged. But on the other hand we won on the Nathan Thompson incidents on another day he could have got a straight red for his booking challenge, and then was perhaps fortunate not to get another yellow when he held onto the ball in 2nd half and got pushed over sparking a melee. Wilesy
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Thu 6 Feb 14

The Jockster says...

stokes_stfc wrote:
If that red card gets rescinded I'll eat my metaphorical hat...
Same as that!
[quote][p][bold]stokes_stfc[/bold] wrote: If that red card gets rescinded I'll eat my metaphorical hat...[/p][/quote]Same as that! The Jockster
  • Score: -2

8:38pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Oi Den! says...

MITTED wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
sally2 wrote:
Have watched town and followed football from the late 40's.and watched it go from mans game to a girls. You can push shove pull shirts,push a player away with your arm,obstruct him with no intention of getting the ball so as to allow the ball to go for a corner or goal kick.,but you can't make a good hard tackle.It is meant to be a physical game.Mike Summerbee said players would soon be carrying handbags he new how to tackle,in todays game he would get a red card in the warm up.You never saw a player wear gloves in the old days it will be longjohns next.
If they did the same with rugby it would be like netball.
Mike c
That's all fair enough. It is meant to be a physical game. But in this specific instance, we are talking about someone being kicked in the head with a lot of force, something that could result in serious injury to the brain or damage to the eyes. No footballer wants too inflict an injury like that any more than he wants to receive one. The game is a lot faster now than it was decades ago. Players' safety has to be paramount. If the cost of that is the occasional "harsh" red card I think it's a price worth paying.
In F1 the stewards decide if their was fault by driver involved in collisions. Very often collisions are "natural sporting collision" and no fault is attributed. That is exactly what happened with Jay last night, a natural sporting collision which does not necessarily make it a foul, there was no intent whatsoever, any idiot could see that from the TV pictures; he was focused on the ball and the peterborough stuck his head in. If the other player had raised his foot instead, there would have been no fuss and probably no foul given. I don't agree that harsh reds are a price worth paying when TV can be used to so easily used to rectify a referee's very obvious mistake. The FA is quick enough to over-rule a referee's spur of the moment decision when it is later seen as too lenient, it should be just as pro-active when it's the opposite.
Trouble is Mitted, these things are not black and white. You think it was a very obvious mistake and there are people on here who agree with you. Equally there are plenty who think the ref got it right. So how can it be so very obvious? It all comes down to opinion and the only opinion that matters, whether we like it or not, is the ref's. If we can't agree amongst ourselves whether the ref was right or wrong, how are the FA going to do any better with the same evidence?
[quote][p][bold]MITTED[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sally2[/bold] wrote: Have watched town and followed football from the late 40's.and watched it go from mans game to a girls. You can push shove pull shirts,push a player away with your arm,obstruct him with no intention of getting the ball so as to allow the ball to go for a corner or goal kick.,but you can't make a good hard tackle.It is meant to be a physical game.Mike Summerbee said players would soon be carrying handbags he new how to tackle,in todays game he would get a red card in the warm up.You never saw a player wear gloves in the old days it will be longjohns next. If they did the same with rugby it would be like netball. Mike c[/p][/quote]That's all fair enough. It is meant to be a physical game. But in this specific instance, we are talking about someone being kicked in the head with a lot of force, something that could result in serious injury to the brain or damage to the eyes. No footballer wants too inflict an injury like that any more than he wants to receive one. The game is a lot faster now than it was decades ago. Players' safety has to be paramount. If the cost of that is the occasional "harsh" red card I think it's a price worth paying.[/p][/quote]In F1 the stewards decide if their was fault by driver involved in collisions. Very often collisions are "natural sporting collision" and no fault is attributed. That is exactly what happened with Jay last night, a natural sporting collision which does not necessarily make it a foul, there was no intent whatsoever, any idiot could see that from the TV pictures; he was focused on the ball and the peterborough stuck his head in. If the other player had raised his foot instead, there would have been no fuss and probably no foul given. I don't agree that harsh reds are a price worth paying when TV can be used to so easily used to rectify a referee's very obvious mistake. The FA is quick enough to over-rule a referee's spur of the moment decision when it is later seen as too lenient, it should be just as pro-active when it's the opposite.[/p][/quote]Trouble is Mitted, these things are not black and white. You think it was a very obvious mistake and there are people on here who agree with you. Equally there are plenty who think the ref got it right. So how can it be so very obvious? It all comes down to opinion and the only opinion that matters, whether we like it or not, is the ref's. If we can't agree amongst ourselves whether the ref was right or wrong, how are the FA going to do any better with the same evidence? Oi Den!
  • Score: 3

9:01pm Thu 6 Feb 14

The Jockster says...

MARK TITCOMBE wrote:
old town robin wrote:
Since 1950 wrote:
No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded.
What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.
When they review it, they will see there is no point to appeal.

With regards to Kasim thought he was poor last night, looked like he was afraid to tackle in case he got his 10th yellow which in the end he did. Probably best for him he takes his punishment on the chin and starts again with a clean slate and keeps his mouth shut. once again it could have been avoided, gobbing off to a referee that has already dished out 9 reds in 23 games is pure stupidity. Nat Thompson also came very close to going. Why can't they take some inspiration from Wardy, who I can't remember picking up a yellow since he came to the club.
Kasim played really well. You shouldn't be allowed to post on here if you thought that. You clearly know zero about football.
You're not by any chance related to Mark'sDad are you? Why the vitriol insinuating OTR knows nothing about football? His opinion on a players performance is just different to your opinion so why not respond politely saying you disagree because .......etc etc.
[quote][p][bold]MARK TITCOMBE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded. What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.[/p][/quote]When they review it, they will see there is no point to appeal. With regards to Kasim thought he was poor last night, looked like he was afraid to tackle in case he got his 10th yellow which in the end he did. Probably best for him he takes his punishment on the chin and starts again with a clean slate and keeps his mouth shut. once again it could have been avoided, gobbing off to a referee that has already dished out 9 reds in 23 games is pure stupidity. Nat Thompson also came very close to going. Why can't they take some inspiration from Wardy, who I can't remember picking up a yellow since he came to the club.[/p][/quote]Kasim played really well. You shouldn't be allowed to post on here if you thought that. You clearly know zero about football.[/p][/quote]You're not by any chance related to Mark'sDad are you? Why the vitriol insinuating OTR knows nothing about football? His opinion on a players performance is just different to your opinion so why not respond politely saying you disagree because .......etc etc. The Jockster
  • Score: -2

12:15am Fri 7 Feb 14

old town robin says...

The Jockster wrote:
MARK TITCOMBE wrote:
old town robin wrote:
Since 1950 wrote:
No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded.
What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.
When they review it, they will see there is no point to appeal.

With regards to Kasim thought he was poor last night, looked like he was afraid to tackle in case he got his 10th yellow which in the end he did. Probably best for him he takes his punishment on the chin and starts again with a clean slate and keeps his mouth shut. once again it could have been avoided, gobbing off to a referee that has already dished out 9 reds in 23 games is pure stupidity. Nat Thompson also came very close to going. Why can't they take some inspiration from Wardy, who I can't remember picking up a yellow since he came to the club.
Kasim played really well. You shouldn't be allowed to post on here if you thought that. You clearly know zero about football.
You're not by any chance related to Mark'sDad are you? Why the vitriol insinuating OTR knows nothing about football? His opinion on a players performance is just different to your opinion so why not respond politely saying you disagree because .......etc etc.
Thanks for that Jockster, posters like Titcombe actually make me sick, always think they are clever to put others posters down. I've been playing and watching football for more than 50 years, so to have a gobscheit like him tell me I know zero about football just because my opinion of a players performance on the night was poor compared to his usual level was totally unnecessary. Dreamofacleansheet also didn't agree with me but gave a perfectly polite answer which I accept as his view, he didn't lower himself with insulting my intelligence.

I'm going to give posting on here a miss after this post, there are too many trolls like Titcombe that seem to get adverse pleasure with abusing the opinions of other posters.

Take care and watch your back.
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MARK TITCOMBE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: No point. This is Swindon Town. He'll get another 2 games for frivolous appeal. There was no intent whatsoever, but it was high. It was harsh but won't be reminded. What's more worrying is that we have now lost Kasim for getting his 10th yellow. Not a dirty player but like Pritchard, indisciplined. Another influential player out at the business end of the season because they can't keep their gob shut.[/p][/quote]When they review it, they will see there is no point to appeal. With regards to Kasim thought he was poor last night, looked like he was afraid to tackle in case he got his 10th yellow which in the end he did. Probably best for him he takes his punishment on the chin and starts again with a clean slate and keeps his mouth shut. once again it could have been avoided, gobbing off to a referee that has already dished out 9 reds in 23 games is pure stupidity. Nat Thompson also came very close to going. Why can't they take some inspiration from Wardy, who I can't remember picking up a yellow since he came to the club.[/p][/quote]Kasim played really well. You shouldn't be allowed to post on here if you thought that. You clearly know zero about football.[/p][/quote]You're not by any chance related to Mark'sDad are you? Why the vitriol insinuating OTR knows nothing about football? His opinion on a players performance is just different to your opinion so why not respond politely saying you disagree because .......etc etc.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that Jockster, posters like Titcombe actually make me sick, always think they are clever to put others posters down. I've been playing and watching football for more than 50 years, so to have a gobscheit like him tell me I know zero about football just because my opinion of a players performance on the night was poor compared to his usual level was totally unnecessary. Dreamofacleansheet also didn't agree with me but gave a perfectly polite answer which I accept as his view, he didn't lower himself with insulting my intelligence. I'm going to give posting on here a miss after this post, there are too many trolls like Titcombe that seem to get adverse pleasure with abusing the opinions of other posters. Take care and watch your back. old town robin
  • Score: 3

8:02am Fri 7 Feb 14

Oi Den! says...

Very well said chaps.
Very well said chaps. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Swindon1984 says...

First impression when I saw it was straight red. I haven't changed my mind with repeated viewings, but I do have some sympathy as the lad clearly didn't want to do any damage, if anything had his eye on the ball so much he didn't realise what was around him. The foot was high, if you get your boot that high you need to make sure you don't clatter someone, regardless of whether their head was down lower than you'd expect, end of. No intent but still dangerous. Don't see any point in appealing as it will only add to the ban. Unfortunately just one to put down to experience.

Hopefully Jay will come back more determined, he's a good player do doubt, a natural left back and in that sense a bit unique to us really, as anyone else who's been played in that position is there as a secondary rather than primary role. Best of luck with the appeal, don't hold out much hope though.
First impression when I saw it was straight red. I haven't changed my mind with repeated viewings, but I do have some sympathy as the lad clearly didn't want to do any damage, if anything had his eye on the ball so much he didn't realise what was around him. The foot was high, if you get your boot that high you need to make sure you don't clatter someone, regardless of whether their head was down lower than you'd expect, end of. No intent but still dangerous. Don't see any point in appealing as it will only add to the ban. Unfortunately just one to put down to experience. Hopefully Jay will come back more determined, he's a good player do doubt, a natural left back and in that sense a bit unique to us really, as anyone else who's been played in that position is there as a secondary rather than primary role. Best of luck with the appeal, don't hold out much hope though. Swindon1984
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree