Ref (15 Viewers)

[Skyblue Bangkok]

Could you not say this about any time someone kicks the ball hard?

Anyone who says it was a penalty is talking nonsense, Robins included.

Well Robins and Pearson both mentioned the follow through and high tackle. Football is a very subjective sport , I often have to explain that to some of the Americans out here who don't quite understand " soccer".

 

---

[SBT]

Course but when that recklessness ends with a stud to the inside of someone’s thigh it’s a little awkward to ignore
Subjective anyway

It’s not the referee’s job to make sure no-one ever gets hurt on the pitch. Sometimes players are going to get hurt when someone else gets the ball before them, it’s ok. I’m going full on #GamesGone here.

 

[Skyblue Bangkok]

I think it was a pen personally and I think English football as a whole needs to get away from the idea that a challenge can't possibly be a foul if the defender wins the ball. There is nothing at all about winning the ball in the laws of the game. It was reckless from Thomas and he could have done Dewsbury-Hall some fairly serious damage. That being said, the referee still had an appallig game. His defintion of a yellow card varied massively throughout and, first half especially, he seemed to want to give every decision he could to Leicester. Red card was a correct decision, poor challenge.

It's like hearing ex players saying he didn't mean to hurt so and so , which is irrelevant. Or he's not type of player. I mean does a someone on a drinking driving charge in court use a " I'm not that type of driver " excuse .

 

[Brylowes]

ITheir keeper should have been minimum booked and possibly sent off for his flying karate kick though.

Had an outfield player attempted the same challenge I’m sure he’d have been sent off, not really sure why that makes a difference’ but to the ref I’m sure it does.

 

[SBT]

Well Robins and Pearson both mentioned the follow through and high tackle. Football is a very subjective sport , I often have to explain that to some of the Americans out here who don't quite understand " soccer".

A wild Nigel Pearson emerges!

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Had an outfield player attempted the same challenge I’m sure he’d have been sent off, not really sure why that makes a difference’ but to the ref I’m sure it does.

Looked awful from block 30 but maybe different from refs angle
Truly awful endangering of the opponent.
Did live his reaction to the goals lol

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

Course but when that recklessness ends with a stud to the inside of someone’s thigh it’s a little awkward to ignore
Subjective anyway

You keep saying this, but despite lots of people asking you I've still not seen you say what Thomas should have done instead. It was physically impossible from where he was for Thomas to curtail his follow through, just as it was for the Leicester keeper when he did that kung fu kick that Godden unsurpringly flinched back from. The Thomas decision rankled more with me because of the inconsistent approach to these 2 incidents, rather than for the penalty decision itself. If the ref had given a foul and booked their keeper then the arguments against the penalty decision would be effectively rendered null and void.

 

[Brylowes]

Looked awful from block 30 but maybe different from refs angle
Truly awful endangering of the opponent.
Did live his reaction to the goals lol

I’m in Block 19 and it looked bloody terrible from there.

 

[skyblu3sk]

View attachment 33349

This was awful

Thought this was by far his worst decision of the match. If Thomas was reckless this has to be. Completely out of control and would have seriously injured Godden if he makes contact.

 

[MalcSB]

Looked awful from block 30 but maybe different from refs angle
Truly awful endangering of the opponent.
Did live his reaction to the goals lol

It was reckless with the potential to cause serious injury, as you would put it. Far more reckless than Thomas.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

You keep saying this, but despite lots of people asking you I've still not seen you say what Thomas should have done instead. It was physically impossible from where he was for Thomas to curtail his follow through, just as it was for the Leicester keeper when he did that kung fu kick that Godden unsurpringly flinched back from. The Thomas decision rankled more with me because of the inconsistent approach to these 2 incidents, rather than for the penalty decision itself. If the ref had given a foul and booked their keeper then the arguments against the penalty decision would be effectively rendered null and void.

I’m sure I did
He either runs across the player and doesn’t make a tackle or just doesn’t make a tackle
Only Bobby would know if he could have changed the trajectory of his follow through

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

It was reckless with the potential to cause serious injury, as you would put it. Far more reckless than Thomas.

Absolutely right from my perspective

 

[Adge]

I actually thought he started quite well and seemed to want to let the game flow, but in doing so become too lenient and then lost control.

The big ones for me;

1) Not a pen. No idea what Thomas is supposed to do with his leg/foot after making contact with the ball, his momentum was carrying him that way, there’s no change of direction. I also don’t think his leg is particularly high, especially considering…
2) Their keeper has to at least be booked for the high foot, but the Ref didn’t even give a foul! Also means - if he’s consistent - Thomas’ leg definitely was not high.
3) Definite red card - late and reckless. He’d lost his head about 15 minutes prior to this tackle.
4) Palmer booked for kicking the ball away and MVE booked for inciting the crowd, their player kicks the ball into our fans. That’s a booking for either kicking the ball away or inciting the fans.
5) Their players - especially Winks - constantly moaning so dissent surely? We get Sakamoto booked for ‘dissent’ post penalty decision. Huh?!

Still, we won and that’s that really matters!

Sorry-but you’ve fallen into the trap of listening to the “expert” pundits there. On the EFL ITV highlights the commentator said “it’s reckless and late”
If that was the case he would still be on the pitch as “reckless” is a caution (yellow card offence) and he was sent off for “excessive force” which is a dismissal from the field of play (red card).
A classic case of people employed in the sport who do not know the laws of the game unfortunately.

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

Sorry-but you’ve fallen into the trap of listening to the “expert” pundits there. On the EFL ITV highlights the commentator said “it’s reckless and late”
If that was the case he would still be on the pitch as “reckless” is a caution (yellow card offence) and he was sent off for “excessive force” which is a dismissal from the field of play (red card).
A classic case of people employed in the sport who do not know the laws of the game unfortunately.

Wouldn’t he/she just be describing the tackle as reckless in this case and not the literal law?

 

[Skyblue Bangkok]

Had an outfield player attempted the same challenge I’m sure he’d have been sent off, not really sure why that makes a difference’ but to the ref I’m sure it does.

I saw the pic of that challenge but none of the highlights I saw, showed that particular challenge .

 

[Esoterica]

I’m sure I did
He either runs across the player and doesn’t make a tackle or just doesn’t make a tackle
Only Bobby would know if he could have changed the trajectory of his follow through

So what stops any player deliberately running into a defender forcefully clearing the ball and claiming a penalty then?

If D-H gets there first, pings it into the top corner and catches Thomas on his shot follow through, there is absolutely no way the goal gets overturned and D-H booked. It's a defender who just wasn't close enough to his man to stop the shot.

For me Dewsbury-Hall causes that whole situation himself by (late) challenging for a ball that has already gone.

 

[Nick]

So what stops any player deliberately running into a defender forcefully clearing the ball and claiming a penalty then?

If D-H gets there first, pings it into the top corner and catches Thomas on his shot follow through, there is absolutely no way the goal gets overturned and D-H booked. It's a defender who just wasn't close enough to his man to stop the shot.

For me Dewsbury-Hall causes that whole situation himself by (late) challenging for a ball that has already gone.

Exactly, Thomas has already cleared it.

 

[Skyblue Bangkok]

Exactly, Thomas has already cleared it.

We won does it matter . We can't change what's happened.

 

[Nick]

We won does it matter . We can't change what's happened.

Where did I say we can?

 

[David O'Day]

Course but when that recklessness ends with a stud to the inside of someone’s thigh it’s a little awkward to ignore
Subjective anyway

it's not reckless pete and you are allowed contact

it was a frankly awful decision from an awful ref

 

[David O'Day]

I’m sure I did
He either runs across the player and doesn’t make a tackle or just doesn’t make a tackle
Only Bobby would know if he could have changed the trajectory of his follow through

nonsense

 

[skyblu3sk]

it's not reckless pete and you are allowed contact

it was a frankly awful decision from an awful ref

The only thing that really didn't help his case was he locked his leg out once he had made contact. If he catches him but doesn't do that then absolutely no way a pen.

 

[Skyblue Bangkok]

Where did I say we ca

Where did I say we can?

My point is more we won that's all why dwell on the ref . It's over and let's look forward to the next game. Win lose or draw I always think game over next please.

 

[David O'Day]

The only thing that really didn't help his case was he locked his leg out once he had made contact. If he catches him but doesn't do that then absolutely no way a pen.

there's not "locked leg" component of the laws of the game

he won the ball, just because there is accidental contact after it is bit a foul

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

We won does it matter . We can't change what's happened.

Can’t change anything that’s happened, we shall sit here in silence.

 

[Hobo]

it's not reckless pete and you are allowed contact

it was a frankly awful decision from an awful ref

Yes you are but studs on the inside of the thigh just above the knee is dangerous and reckless.

I accept it was unintentional and he had been put in a difficult situation. I thought it was a penalty at the time and have seen it several times since and I still think it was a penalty.

 

[Nick]

Yes you are but studs on the inside of the thigh just above the knee is dangerous and reckless.

I accept it was unintentional and he had been put in a difficult situation. I thought it was a penalty at the time and have seen it several times since and I still think it was a penalty.

Their player ran into the out stretched leg after Thomas had kicked it. Not the other way round.

The irony is godden nearly having his head taken off.

 

[David O'Day]

Yes you are but studs on the inside of the thigh just above the knee is dangerous and reckless.

I accept it was unintentional and he had been put in a difficult situation. I thought it was a penalty at the time and have seen it several times since and I still think it was a penalty.

nonsense, utter nonsense and the contact was created by their player

you have the right to be wrong, you are still wrong though

 

[David O'Day]

Their player ran into the out stretched leg after Thomas had kicked it. Not the other way round.

The irony is godden nearly having his head taken off.

this

 

[skyblu3sk]

there's not "locked leg" component of the laws of the game

he won the ball, just because there is accidental contact after it is bit a foul

The locked leg is like following through on someone rather than colliding but pulling your leg back so it's not as bad. As I said before, we'd want it if it was the other way round. I also think the yellow was right as no malice.

 

[skyblu3sk]

this

Keeper should have been booked minimum was very dangerous.

 

[David O'Day]

The locked leg is like following through on someone rather than colliding but pulling your leg back so it's not as bad. As I said before, we'd want it if it was the other way round. I also think the yellow was right as no malice.

the leicester player creates the contact and as i said there is no "locked leg" section in the laws of the game

 

[skyblu3sk]

the leicester player creates the contact and as i said there is no "locked leg" section in the laws of the game

There was less than a second between him playing the ball and making contact I don't see how he tries to make contact. Even Robins said it was a pen I'm not sure why you are arguing it. What I was saying about locking the leg is it lifts their player off the floor which makes it look worse.

 

[MalcSB]

I’m sure I did
He either runs across the player and doesn’t make a tackle or just doesn’t make a tackle
Only Bobby would know if he could have changed the trajectory of his follow through

If he runs across the player, that player then runs into him and it will be deemed a penalty.

 

[wingy]

Course but when that recklessness ends with a stud to the inside of someone’s thigh it’s a little awkward to ignore
Subjective anyway

It wasn't a stud Pete you can see on video his gets turned inwards IE away from the challenge it the side of his like the players when he contacts it, I mean did wonder if the impact of DH leg on his foot was actually harmful to Thomas turning his leg?