It's a clear as day red card. He's denied a clear goalscoring chance.Armadillo Roadkill wrote:Two very poor refereeing decisions.
You're supposed to decide on what happens, not on some unfounded prejudice against a player. Smith was clearly brought down. Why would he dive if he's through on goal?
Holzman should have got a yellow. There was no intent to foul, so I don't see how it can be a red.
As if it wasn't already hard enough...
Last man though. So yes, a red.Armadillo Roadkill wrote:Two very poor refereeing decisions.
You're supposed to decide on what happens, not on some unfounded prejudice against a player. Smith was clearly brought down. Why would he dive if he's through on goal?
Holzman should have got a yellow. There was no intent to foul, so I don't see how it can be a red.
As if it wasn't already hard enough...
There’s no difference really, it’s just appalling refereeing. Both forwards played for it, contact in both cases. There is not one single excuse to treat them differentlySnowflake Royal wrote:The difference between the two incidents is the Lincoln player stays on his feet and goes in to Smith's upper body with a shoulder, giving the ref the chance to decide it's shoulder to shoulder (it wasn't) and a dive (it wasn't). Made all the easier because Smith goesover easy all the time and pisses refs off.
Compared to Holzman who goes to ground from behind taking out the Lincoln player's legs. Nailed on red card.
One gives the ref the option to bottle it the other doesn't
I’m not convinced there was contact but equally no real complaints on it as a decision on its ownSnowflake Royal wrote:It's a clear as day red card. He's denied a clear goalscoring chance.Armadillo Roadkill wrote:Two very poor refereeing decisions.
You're supposed to decide on what happens, not on some unfounded prejudice against a player. Smith was clearly brought down. Why would he dive if he's through on goal?
Holzman should have got a yellow. There was no intent to foul, so I don't see how it can be a red.
As if it wasn't already hard enough...
Definitely contactHound wrote:I’m not convinced there was contact but equally no real complaints on it as a decision on its ownSnowflake Royal wrote:It's a clear as day red card. He's denied a clear goalscoring chance.Armadillo Roadkill wrote:Two very poor refereeing decisions.
You're supposed to decide on what happens, not on some unfounded prejudice against a player. Smith was clearly brought down. Why would he dive if he's through on goal?
Holzman should have got a yellow. There was no intent to foul, so I don't see how it can be a red.
As if it wasn't already hard enough...
You never know it might. We’re too nice too often. Might rattle him into doing something else stupidSnowflake Royal wrote:That's right Sam, you keep arguing with the ref and pissing him off, that'll help.
Very slight if so and considerably less than on smith. But yeah no real argument with itSnowflake Royal wrote:Definitely contactHound wrote:I’m not convinced there was contact but equally no real complaints on it as a decision on its ownSnowflake Royal wrote: It's a clear as day red card. He's denied a clear goalscoring chance.
Ben House has spent much of the game doing exactly the same thing. Must be something you learn in the Academy.Snowflake Royal wrote:That's right Sam, you keep arguing with the ref and pissing him off, that'll help.
Don't care what House does.Sutekh wrote:Ben House has spent much of the game doing exactly the same thing.Snowflake Royal wrote:That's right Sam, you keep arguing with the ref and pissing him off, that'll help.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 216 guests