[Archived] Rovers 1-1Tottenham

[Tris]

Tris...under the letter of the law it was a correct decision.

Totally disagree.

There is one reason and one reason only why the appeal has been rejected - it's because the FA needed that bunch of no hopers on their kangaroo court panel to back the referee.

Due to the comments after the match made by Mark Hughes and Martin Jol, and the subsequent hysterical reporting on said comments in the media - culminating in David Elleray being interviewed on Sky Sports News yesterday saying it all had to stop.

Elleray is probably right, but the decision made by the panel is wrong. If they'd made the correct decision then it would be an endorsement of Hughes saying Dowd had a shocker, and the FA couldn't afford to let that happen.

As it is the entire appeal process is now a discredited waste of space - just like the FA idiots who administer it.

[modes98]

will tugay's 1 game ban come in to effect immediately?

yes, but as watford isn't on it goes to the game after. Fulham away i think

[LeChuck]

Le Chuck, I definitely don't agree with what you are saying.

As you said a penalty was a perhaps the 'letter of the law', but if contact was made, then it was with Tugay's stud on his trailing foot!!!

As for the sending off, the wee jerk wasn't bearing down on goal, as when he flicked the ball over, he either flicked it behind him or in a straight line. It didn't present him with a clear goal-scoring opportunity as he still had to control the ball, despite having to beat Friedel from 16 yards and with 1 goal in 13 games for Spudz, extremely unlikely he was going to get his 2nd.

All of what you say there is completely irrelevent. There is nothing in the rules which states which leg you have to foul with, niether do you take in to account the ability of the player about to take the shot.

There is no question about whether it was a penalty or not, it's pure unmitigated bias if you believe otherwise. I'll accept there could be a debate about whether it was a goal-scoring opportunity or not, personally I think Ghaly would have been able to get a shot on goal before a defender or Friedel had reached him, and therefore a red is correct. If you think either a defender or Friedel would have reached the ball before Ghaly then fair enough, anything else is just irrelevant nonsense though.

[den]

Even so, I still find it hard to accept a guy can be sent off and susequently banned for something which was purely accidental.

Yup agreed.

[Presty On Tour]

yes, but as watford isn't on it goes to the game after. Fulham away i think

looks like a savage/axe central midfield pairing then unless bentley comes inside and peter plays.

[modes98]

looks like a savage/axe central midfield pairing then unless bentley comes inside and peter plays.

My opinion about the axe is well known. I'm all for MGP or Bentley in CM with Peter or Emerton taking either wing.

We have been linked heavily with koumas again i see, shame we didn't get him in the 3 summers we've been linked with him. According to WBA site he is hitting top form again. Surely a better bet than Dunn?

[Presty On Tour]

My opinion about the axe is well known. I'm all for MGP or Bentley in CM with Peter or Emerton taking either wing.

We have been linked heavily with koumas again i see, shame we didn't get him in the 3 summers we've been linked with him. According to WBA site he is hitting top form again. Surely a better bet than Dunn?

having seen koumas play for wales on occassions, honestly i would take dunn everytime.

koumas can score some well good goals, though his team play lets him down, he is not in the same class as a "fit" dunn imo.

[sussexrover]

The letter of the law states the challenge has to prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity. Therefore, the fact that there was another defender there who, because ghaly had turned back away from goal, may have had chance to get a block in this created a doubt as to whether a shot would have been possible. Whether friedel would have saved it or not, or the ability of the forward doesn't really have a bearing on it. But the doubt created by the presence of ooijer means it was not a clear goalscoring opportunity.

[modes98]

He didn't exactly flick it just in front of him, there was a fair amount of space between him and the ball.

Hmm i've always been a fan of koumas for his attacking football, if he was in the team i wouldn't ask him to worry about defending to much. Also i'm not sure a fit dunn exists anymore!

[92er]

yes, but as watford isn't on it goes to the game after. Fulham away i think

Is the Fulham game at home? If everybody thinks it's away, it really will impact on the attendance.

[modes98]

Is the Fulham game at home? If everybody thinks it's away, it really will impact on the attendance.

Good point i had assumed that 2 home games in a row would be followed by an away, but thats where watford comes into it.

I shouldn't worry about attendance it can't get any worse.

[CAPT KAYOS]

Totally disagree.

There is one reason and one reason only why the appeal has been rejected - it's because the FA needed that bunch of no hopers on their kangaroo court panel to back the referee.

Due to the comments after the match made by Mark Hughes and Martin Jol, and the subsequent hysterical reporting on said comments in the media - culminating in David Elleray being interviewed on Sky Sports News yesterday saying it all had to stop.

Elleray is probably right, but the decision made by the panel is wrong. If they'd made the correct decision then it would be an endorsement of Hughes saying Dowd had a shocker, and the FA couldn't afford to let that happen.

As it is the entire appeal process is now a discredited waste of space - just like the FA idiots who administer it.

Tris totally agree with what you are saying - think most who play football would.

Le Chuck to me is just one of them and belongs on that panel

Ironic (or should that be ironically thing is that Paul Elliot is on it) with his history of the Anfield saga.

Correct decision my arse - I'll say it again and I am yet to be convinced there was contact from any replay - if there was and its a BIG BIG IF then every flaming challenge in the penalty box would be a penalty.

[frosty]

I am just glad that the game Tugay will miss is Fulham.....should be able to beat them with or without him.

[rover_groo]

All of what you say there is completely irrelevent.

Le Chuck, I don't think all of what I said was completely irrelevant. In fairness I was being biased and making a joke about Ghaly only scoring one goal etc etc

But I beleive that Tugay went in for the ball fairly and am not 100% sure that contact was made (I don't believe that the referee was 100% sure on his decision and deep down, he would question his decision).

IF THERE WAS CONTACT, then it was basically with his stud and that's not a biased view, so how can that be a penalty. A stud to take down a 12 stone man? Maybe it's a case of elephant and mouse with Ghaly when he saw Tugay running in. Rolled at least twice in the box!!

How can you condone that or think that Tugay should have been sent off?

[thenodrog]

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ste B @ Nov 21 2006, 12:06 ) 461576[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

Once Gary Mabbutt has looked at the two videos.

(panel is actually Paul Elliot, Gordon Milne, Robbie Earle, Graham Taylor, Gary Mabbutt, Alan Jones, David Rose and Warren Barton)

Appeals REJECTED!

TheFA

Must be a hanging jury...... every appeal was rejected. Obviously the FA are making some sort of a point.

[den]

Le Chuck, I don't think all of what I said was completely irrelevant. In fairness I was being biased and making a joke about Ghaly only scoring one goal etc etc

But I beleive that Tugay went in for the ball fairly and am not 100% sure that contact was made (I don't believe that the referee was 100% sure on his decision and deep down, he would question his decision).

IF THERE WAS CONTACT, then it was basically with his stud and that's not a biased view, so how can that be a penalty. A stud to take down a 12 stone man? Maybe it's a case of elephant and mouse with Ghaly when he saw Tugay running in. Rolled at least twice in the box!!

How can you condone that or think that Tugay should have been sent off?

I know what you're saying. How much contact is needed before a penalty is given?

Answers please?

[Eddie]

It was a penalty because there WAS contact and that contact made a player fall over, you don't have to mean it for it to be a foul.

[AggyBlue]

It was a penalty because there WAS contact and that contact made a player fall over, you don't have to mean it for it to be a foul.

So you're saying it's no longer a contact sport?

No wonder crowds are dropping.

[modes98]

So you're saying it's no longer a contact sport?

No wonder crowds are dropping.

It is ridiculas, no tackles are allowed these days. Don't even think about going shoulder to shoulder with someone! But if your a defender you can deliberately play the man and let the ball run out of play, yet you do it at the other end and it's a free kick to the defending team

[DP]

For me the whole thing just highlighted what a grey area this clear goal scoring opportunity is. It's all about interpretation. I wouldn't be surprised if the FA foresaw this and asked the MOTD2 guys to agree with them in order to give them some support.

Once the ref gives the penalty he's given Spurs undoubtably a much better scoring opportunity. Should only be a sending off if it's a handball on the line or a player is deliberately hauled down when through on goal with full control of the ball. If there's any doubt, the player shouldn't be sent off.

The problems now stem from the laws of the game themselves.

[Eddie]

So you're saying it's no longer a contact sport?

No wonder crowds are dropping.

No, I'm saying that if you slide across someone and trip them up then it will probably be called a foul.

[jim mk2]

I'm only surprised the FA didn't appoint the MOTD2 idiots onto the panel to make sure.

I'm certain there was a hidden agenda behind Gavin Peacock's comments of Match of the Day. Either he had been told by the editorial team at MotD (under pressure from the FA) to back the referee or Peacock had been told directly by Lancaster Gate officials.

[RovertheHill]

No, I'm saying that if you slide across someone and trip them up then it will probably be called a foul.

I still say there is a difference between tripping somebody up with the intent to trip them up, and them falling over your foot. And it was also very debatable that he would have got a clean volley off before Ooijer (I think) or Brad got to him

[AggyBlue]

No, I'm saying that if you slide across someone and trip them up then it will probably be called a foul.

The fact is Toogs made an attempted block, not even an attempted tackle, the spuds player then turned into Toogs and blatently kicked his trailing foot, then he proceded to roll around.

I'd have sent the Spuds player off

[yellowsubmarine]

I'd have sent the Spuds player off

I would have sent the referee and linesman off.