Hamer (2 Viewers)

mark82

Super Moderator
Listening to CWR, he had clearly not seen it properly.

He hadn't, but I'd be very surprised if we appealed it (despite my own opinion on the incident). Don't really see these overturned. Would need to be clear evidence that it was simulation by their player or there was no contact/intent. Both are nigh on impossible to prove with the evidence available.
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
I don't hold the view it was simulation, but I do think he was holding hamer down and it wasn't so much a kick out as trying to free himself. It is possible he caught him completely accidentally.
 

Tommo1993

Well-Known Member
I don't hold the view it was simulation, but I do think he was holding hamer down and it wasn't so much a kick out as trying to free himself. It is possible he caught him completely accidentally.

View does not fit the common narrative.
 

Adge

Well-Known Member
I don't hold the view it was simulation, but I do think he was holding hamer down and it wasn't so much a kick out as trying to free himself. It is possible he caught him completely accidentally.
This is where the average Joe Public football fan doesn’t understand the laws of the game. I’ve seen the term “no intent” or “not intentional” regarding Hamers sending off. It doesn’t matter if it’s intentional or not. If a high foot catches another player in the upper body/face it’s a red card, intent or no intent, doesn’t matter. Not sure why people can’t get it-it’s mandatory.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
This is where the average Joe Public football fan doesn’t understand the laws of the game. I’ve seen the term “no intent” or “not intentional” regarding Hamers sending off. It doesn’t matter if it’s intentional or not. If a high foot catches another player in the upper body/face it’s a red card, intent or no intent, doesn’t matter. Not sure why people can’t get it-it’s mandatory.
It's not a high foot it's trying to release himself from someone who's trying to play WWE Smackdown .
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
This is where the average Joe Public football fan doesn’t understand the laws of the game. I’ve seen the term “no intent” or “not intentional” regarding Hamers sending off. It doesn’t matter if it’s intentional or not. If a high foot catches another player in the upper body/face it’s a red card, intent or no intent, doesn’t matter. Not sure why people can’t get it-it’s mandatory.
This is where the average two bob referee assumes that it was suggested it shouldn't be red, merely that the collision was accidental rather than the blues player simulating.
 

Tommo1993

Well-Known Member
This is where the average Joe Public football fan doesn’t understand the laws of the game. I’ve seen the term “no intent” or “not intentional” regarding Hamers sending off. It doesn’t matter if it’s intentional or not. If a high foot catches another player in the upper body/face it’s a red card, intent or no intent, doesn’t matter. Not sure why people can’t get it-it’s mandatory.

So he was brought down intentionally and red carded for the final stage of the infringement that he was victim of, in other words. It’s a straighten of the legs to release himself from a grapple.
 

Winny the Bish

Well-Known Member
Looks like it could be a certain RWB replacing Hamer whilst he is suspended...

The Kevin Foley flashbacks I’m having rn


giphy.gif
 
D

Deleted member 2477

Guest
This is where the average Joe Public football fan doesn’t understand the laws of the game. I’ve seen the term “no intent” or “not intentional” regarding Hamers sending off. It doesn’t matter if it’s intentional or not. If a high foot catches another player in the upper body/face it’s a red card, intent or no intent, doesn’t matter. Not sure why people can’t get it-it’s mandatory.
High foot ?. It was no more than 18” off the floor
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
This is where the average Joe Public football fan doesn’t understand the laws of the game. I’ve seen the term “no intent” or “not intentional” regarding Hamers sending off. It doesn’t matter if it’s intentional or not. If a high foot catches another player in the upper body/face it’s a red card, intent or no intent, doesn’t matter. Not sure why people can’t get it-it’s mandatory.
How is it a high foot when he's on the ground?
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
This is where the average Joe Public football fan doesn’t understand the laws of the game. I’ve seen the term “no intent” or “not intentional” regarding Hamers sending off. It doesn’t matter if it’s intentional or not. If a high foot catches another player in the upper body/face it’s a red card, intent or no intent, doesn’t matter. Not sure why people can’t get it-it’s mandatory.

In what way was his foot high?
 

Adge

Well-Known Member
Listen, I’m just telling you how it is. That is what Mr Scott will have seen from an unbiased neutral point of view. You don’t have to agree with the explanation.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
Listen, I’m just telling you how it is. That is what Mr Scott will have seen from an unbiased neutral point of view. You don’t have to agree with the explanation.

Yes I agree with you.

I'm not sure if Hamer meant to kick him in the face or was genuinely trying to wriggle free.

But by the letter of the law he had to go really:

"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball"

Makes no mention of whether it has to be deliberate or not.
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Looks like it could be a certain RWB replacing Hamer whilst he is suspended...


I expect Kelly will be back in, and I think he'll be a bit better than people are expecting. He gets slated a bit too easily for my liking, and even if he does slow us down a bit, there are some really important parts of his play that I think we are crying out for. Certainly on the defensive side of things.

As mad as it sounds, I think Kane would do OK in the middle, as he is a fairly tidy player. I would just prefer him at RWB as Dabo is a big problem for us at the moment.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
But apart from that....

He is not great at shooting and poor given his height and presence poor in the air. He’d be worth millions otherwise he could have had 30 last season
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
99% of the time a player lunges in with both feet is deemed out of control and gets a red card. Ref didn’t even book him

There is no rule that says that tackle is a foul - show me the rule that says it is
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
I expect Kelly will be back in, and I think he'll be a bit better than people are expecting. He gets slated a bit too easily for my liking, and even if he does slow us down a bit, there are some really important parts of his play that I think we are crying out for. Certainly on the defensive side of things.

As mad as it sounds, I think Kane would do OK in the middle, as he is a fairly tidy player. I would just prefer him at RWB as Dabo is a big problem for us at the moment.

I'm not sure about Kelly.

As for Dabo, and I've said this numeerous times, he offers an outlet and retains possession more than any other wing back option we have and Robins seems to like this.

The criticisms about him defensively and going forward are all valid but Robins seems to be more interested in the attributes I've mentioned
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure about Kelly.

As for Dabo, and I've said this numeerous times, he offers an outlet and retains possession more than any other wing back option we have and Robins seems to like this.

The criticisms about him defensively and going forward are all valid but Robins seems to be more interested in the attributes I've mentioned

Robins also is interested in Jamie Allens attributes as a number 10
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
99% of the time a player lunges in with both feet is deemed out of control and gets a red card. Ref didn’t even book him
He didnt really lunge in with 2 feet. They were side by side to each other, he went with one foot then his second foot slipped. It wasn't with
'excessive' force or 'brutality against an opponent' which is the offence used when people get sent off for 2 footed lunges. Big difference between these two challenges for example. Only one of which is a red card.

454013f80470583e70443822a9d3e0a3.jpg
232922a33659060692e11d3fa6605c61.jpg


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Appeal and lose we lose Hamer for a fifth game not worth the risk imo
Options are 4, 5 or 0 I'd say at 4-1 it's worth a gamble appealing and they don't always increase it for a failed appeal.
 

Skybluedownunder

Well-Known Member
Robins looking to play Todd Kane centre mid in the four games Hamer will be suspended… fuck me you know we are desperate when he’s an option out of position and hasn’t played all season after being bombed out and nobody wanting him


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

pusbccfc

Well-Known Member
Looks like it could be a certain RWB replacing Hamer whilst he is suspended...


I've said on here before that I could see Kane doing a better job on midfield. His decent range of passing with less responsibility tracking back than you have as a RB.
 

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
I would get Kane in to replace Dabo thinking he could go into midfield shows how poor the requirement has been, maybe he could pick Palmer I assume he is fit and here.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
I've said on here before that I could see Kane doing a better job on midfield. His decent range of passing with less responsibility tracking back than you have as a RB.

Hey Todd, I know we spent months on end trying to get you out the club, but nobody was interested so…fancy playing in Hamer’s position for a few weeks?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top