by marlowuk » 20 Jan 2016 04:02
by Pepe the Horseman » 20 Jan 2016 06:45
genome Beers are on Pepe btw, he had money on a Vydra hattrick at 100/1
by Armadillo Roadkill » 20 Jan 2016 07:23
by leon » 20 Jan 2016 08:13
Armadillo Roadkill It could easily have not been a red card (from where I was sat, the referee might well have considered at least two Huddersfield players could have got to Vydra before he was one-on-one with their (excellent) keeper). But it was also a pretty stupid place to commit a foul, so they can't feel too aggrieved. Amazing support - hats off.
Reading were, from there on, pretty effective against ten men, and the goals went in through sheer persistence as much as anything else.
And also, whilst I'm still not getting carried away, a bit disgusted by McDermott bringing on Sa at the end. Nice gesture to give Vydra his chance of an ovation, but putting Sa on for a few seconds looks, to me at least, calculated to humiliate him. And there's no need for that.
by Esteban » 20 Jan 2016 08:26
by Winston Smith » 20 Jan 2016 08:41
by Extended-Phenotype » 20 Jan 2016 08:46
Armadillo Roadkill It could easily have not been a red card (from where I was sat, the referee might well have considered at least two Huddersfield players could have got to Vydra before he was one-on-one with their (excellent) keeper). But it was also a pretty stupid place to commit a foul, so they can't feel too aggrieved. Amazing support - hats off.
Reading were, from there on, pretty effective against ten men, and the goals went in through sheer persistence as much as anything else.
And also, whilst I'm still not getting carried away, a bit disgusted by McDermott bringing on Sa at the end. Nice gesture to give Vydra his chance of an ovation, but putting Sa on for a few seconds looks, to me at least, calculated to humiliate him. And there's no need for that.
by West Stand Man » 20 Jan 2016 08:49
by wingnut » 20 Jan 2016 08:49
by West Stand Man » 20 Jan 2016 08:52
Winston Smith Just watched the highlights - LOL @ that being a red card.
by ZacNaloen » 20 Jan 2016 08:56
by wingnut » 20 Jan 2016 08:57
by West Stand Man » 20 Jan 2016 08:58
wingnut It wasn't "right down the middle", he was over to the left, he didn't have the ball properly under control and there were two other defenders.
Plus it was Vydra.
by wingnut » 20 Jan 2016 09:00
by Winston Smith » 20 Jan 2016 09:04
ZacNaloen LOL @ people saying that wasn't a blatant Red.
Vydra was 1 on 1 with the keeper and the "covering players" were parallel not ahead.
Criteria for deciding when to penalise for denying an
obvious goal-scoring opportunity:
The direction of the play.
The location of the foul.
The proximity of the player to the ball.
The probability of controlling the ball.
The location and number of opponents.
The opportunity for the attempt on goal
by West Stand Man » 20 Jan 2016 09:07
Winston SmithZacNaloen LOL @ people saying that wasn't a blatant Red.
Vydra was 1 on 1 with the keeper and the "covering players" were parallel not ahead.
being parallel or not isn't a specific criteria that decides whether it was DACGSO. That is what pundits starting saying when the ruling was brought in and got hammered for it as they were getting it wrong.Criteria for deciding when to penalise for denying an
obvious goal-scoring opportunity:
The direction of the play.
The location of the foul.
The proximity of the player to the ball.
The probability of controlling the ball.
The location and number of opponents.
The opportunity for the attempt on goal
by Winston Smith » 20 Jan 2016 09:08
by ZacNaloen » 20 Jan 2016 09:15
by Jano » 20 Jan 2016 09:28
by tidus_mi2 » 20 Jan 2016 09:32
Users browsing this forum: MartinRdg, WestYorksRoyal and 387 guests