BOROCHAT
Newest article: Re: Match thread - Blackpool (A) by FreemoToday 17:13Today at 17:13:16view thread
Oldest article: WATN by MerseyBoro2/8 08:51Fri Aug 2 08:51:13 2024view thread
Next thread: 🎙️SFC POD: Footballistically/ S6 EP34 by Boromatt4/12 21:04Wed Dec 4 21:04:31 2024view thread
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 550
Do we know why he was carded?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 528
Because the ref was a dick. I did not enjoy his handling of the game at all, right from the very start.
Not booking Hoskins for his cynical foul on Kemp as we were breaking early in the first half was a joke, some of his soft bookings early in the second half were a joke, and he showed three separate bookings at our bench in separate incidents when nothing obvious had happened.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 443
Is there some sort of rule where if you play advantage then you don’t go back and book the player? Otherwise, a baffling non decision.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 381
There is not, and that is exactly what I expected him to do, but no.
And it was made even more baffling when he then booked another of their players for doing the exact same thing over on the terrace sideline only minutes later, the sole difference being our player went down so no advantage played.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 367
Rule changed a couple of years ago:
If advantage is played for a tactical foul then there shouldn't be a booking
If advantage is played for a reckless foul then there should be a booking
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 330
That one somehow completely passed me by, but checking with IFAB and you are indeed correct. Thanks.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 329
That’ll be why no booking then. And why our players didn’t protest.
Thanks for the info!
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 345
That sounds like a bad law change
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 318
Absolutely, if the intent in the foul is booking worthy, it shouldn't matter whether we go and score or not.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 436
100%. Even if his decisions weren't particularly bad in isolation, his general body language, handling of the game etc. left so much to be desired and was very aggressive. Also felt after the red that he was looking to give Northampton every single 50/50 especially when we were attacking. Can see why he got a run out in the National League last week.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 450
Inc letting there players exit pitch where they wanted when injured or subbed, notice Young dud not do it .
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 424
Yep. Delaying restarts are no longer a booking either it seems, but that’s not just from last nights ref.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 496
Cuthbert is a poor man's Colin.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 770
Should get sent off more often.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 430
Well he'll be banned from the touchline for the Crawley game for starters
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: REVELL IN
Views: 416
Are the new rules Inc this that were introduced last season now in bin then EDIT replies to wrong poster sorry
Edited by HitchinBoro exCalling at 08:59:26 on 4th December 2024
reply to this article | return to the front page
Previous thread: Our Attacking Issues (using Statistics!) by borostag3/12 12:25Tue Dec 3 12:25:58 2024view thread