Roberts sending off

[techender]

Originally Posted by krux

What did Andrade do?

Yes, booted the ball at Roberts, but that was around the time this whistle went so not a case of ungentlemanly conduct with Roberts lying prone.

He then had to put up with pea brained sore loser in his face and grabbing his balls. What else did he do???

One positive is that on his trip to the tunnel, Roberts crossed the half way lone for the first time this season.
Posted via mobile theme

Sorry mate, as I wrote in a previous post, I get the frustration with Roberts and agree with comments regards his stupidity, but to allude Andrade was blameless is pushing things a little.
He shot the ball at Roberts a good few seconds after the whistle blew and knew exactly what he was doing. He also continued with the argument with Roberts after being told by the ref to cool it.
Granted he was more streetwise than Roberts, but certainly not blameless.

[wxmdoug]

Originally Posted by dixienormous

Raven is also a much better player and should start every game. Jennings should be the first player out the door, he is utterly useless.

raven should start every game as he is our best footballer ,

jennings scored a good goal on friday

i thought the game should have been called off as the kop end goalmouth and wings were waterlogged ,the linesman had to run over the line onto the pitch as it was too waterlogged .

i thought someone would have had a very serious injury as you could not do anything with the ball and everything was mistimed.

we should have matched them with size as they proper out muscled us

simon ,raven ,wright should have started

[krux]

Originally Posted by techender

Sorry mate, as I wrote in a previous post, I get the frustration with Roberts and agree with comments regards his stupidity, but to allude Andrade was blameless is pushing things a little.
He shot the ball at Roberts a good few seconds after the whistle blew and knew exactly what he was doing. He also continued with the argument with Roberts after being told by the ref to cool it.
Granted he was more streetwise than Roberts, but certainly not blameless.

He wound Roberts up, but my point, I think, was that he didn't do anything the ref could send him off for.
Posted via mobile theme

[Nobby]

Originally Posted by krux

He wound Roberts up, but my point, I think, was that he didn't do anything the ref could send him off for.
Posted via mobile theme

He retaliated by aiming a kick at Roberts. It was blatant. How the 4th official missed that but saw the grope ill never know.

[cynprifathro]

Did Roberts mouth an inappropriate comment at a black player?

[fugazi3973]

Originally Posted by cynprifathro

Did Roberts mouth an inappropriate comment at a black player?

Again? Not the first post you've put this on. Why are you accusing Roberts of being a racist? Just because the player was black doesn't mean this has happened. If that's the first thought that crosses your mind then you need to take a long look at yourself.

[The Only Way Is Up]

When a referee favours your opponents by letting them get away with obvious dives, niggling challenges and a blatant disregard for the rules, while you and your team are punished by him at every opportunity - especially those that are questionable, it's easy to see how teams either become mouthy, or shy away from situations where challenges are required but fear of being unfairly penalised steps in. We saw both of those at times over Easter. While it isn't a good excuse for players failing to deliver what supporters of a team aiming for promotion expect, it is inexcusable for a referee to be so bad at his job that an entire season's aspirations can be destroyed by him at a stroke.

Have we reached the stage that football needs to reconsider the application of its rules and remember that it is not a ballet dance? The likes of Joey must think the game's become a farce in comparison with his era - when men were men, and refs were less like a bunch of baby minders crossed with star struck prima-donnas. Or maybe it is simply high time that refs were subject to far greater scrutiny of the matches they take and the decisions they make. Why is it that the media never challenges refs about their decision-making or their control of the game? Why are they elevated to god-like status where they can't be challenged about decisions they make - on the day they make them?

Over the weekend, one commentator stated that a penalty or a sending-off can be a game-changer, and that there must be certainty on the part of the ref before making such a decision. He MUST see the offence before making that decision, and if he is unsighted or unsure then he MUST NOT be influenced by players, the crowd, or even the other match officials, instead allowing the game to continue uninterrupted.

There is still no guarantee that justice will be done, one way or the other, but such one-sided decisions as led up to Roberts' red card yesterday must not cause matches to become a parody.

[krux]

Originally Posted by Nobby

He retaliated by aiming a kick at Roberts. It was blatant. How the 4th official missed that but saw the grope ill never know.

Clutching at straws there pal. Sorry.
Posted via mobile theme

[fugazi3973]

Originally Posted by The Only Way Is Up

When a referee favours your opponents by letting them get away with obvious dives, niggling challenges and a blatant disregard for the rules, while you and your team are punished by him at every opportunity - especially those that are questionable, it's easy to see how teams either become mouthy, or shy away from situations where challenges are required but fear of being unfairly penalised steps in. We saw both of those at times over Easter. While it isn't a good excuse for players failing to deliver what supporters of a team aiming for promotion expect, it is inexcusable for a referee to be so bad at his job that an entire season's aspirations can be destroyed by him at a stroke.

Have we reached the stage that football needs to reconsider the application of its rules and remember that it is not a ballet dance? The likes of Joey must think the game's become a farce in comparison with his era - when men were men, and refs were less like a bunch of baby minders crossed with star struck prima-donnas. Or maybe it is simply high time that refs were subject to far greater scrutiny of the matches they take and the decisions they make. Why is it that the media never challenges refs about their decision-making or their control of the game? Why are they elevated to god-like status where they can't be challenged about decisions they make - on the day they make them?

Over the weekend, one commentator stated that a penalty or a sending-off can be a game-changer, and that there must be certainty on the part of the ref before making such a decision. He MUST see the offence before making that decision, and if he is unsighted or unsure then he MUST NOT be influenced by players, the crowd, or even the other match officials, instead allowing the game to continue uninterrupted.

There is still no guarantee that justice will be done, one way or the other, but such one-sided decisions as led up to Roberts' red card yesterday must not cause matches to become a parody.

This is excellent. Good points, well made.

[Redordead]

How the hell Wedgebury didn’t get a booking for his foul?

That’s how bad of a referee he is.