Listening to CWR, he had clearly not seen it properly.
He scored a 1 on 1 Vs Luton earlier in the week didn't he?He's brilliant until he's handed a one on one.
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.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.
It's not a high foot it's trying to release himself from someone who's trying to play WWE Smackdown .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.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 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.
The Kevin Foley flashbacks I’m having rnLooks like it could be a certain RWB replacing Hamer whilst he is suspended...
Coventry City boss says Todd Kane could fill in for suspended Hamer
Coventry City news from CoventryLive as Sky Blues boss Mark Robins weighs up his options to cover key role during four match banwww.coventrytelegraph.net
High foot ?. It was no more than 18” off the floorThis 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?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 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.
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.
? 2 footed challenge is deemed reckless and as such a red card offenceWhere's that in the Laws of the Game?
? 2 footed challenge is deemed reckless and as such a red card offence
? 2 footed challenge is deemed reckless and as such a red card offence
Looks like it could be a certain RWB replacing Hamer whilst he is suspended...
Coventry City boss says Todd Kane could fill in for suspended Hamer
Coventry City news from CoventryLive as Sky Blues boss Mark Robins weighs up his options to cover key role during four match banwww.coventrytelegraph.net
He scored a 1 on 1 Vs Luton earlier in the week didn't he?
But apart from that....
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 himReckless actually means a yellow card
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
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
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 with99% 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
Appeal and lose we lose Hamer for a fifth game not worth the risk imoDoesnt sound like we will be appealing the red going by Robins comments
Mark Robins points finger at Hannibal Mejbri after Birmingham City incident
The latest Birmingham City news from BirminghamLive as Coventry City boss Mark Robins addresses the big talking point of today's 0-0 drawwww.birminghammail.co.uk
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.Appeal and lose we lose Hamer for a fifth game not worth the risk imo
He scored a 1 on 1 Vs Luton earlier in the week didn't he?
Looks like it could be a certain RWB replacing Hamer whilst he is suspended...
Coventry City boss says Todd Kane could fill in for suspended Hamer
Coventry City news from CoventryLive as Sky Blues boss Mark Robins weighs up his options to cover key role during four match banwww.coventrytelegraph.net
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?