Luongo Red Card Recinded

[striker]

Correct decision, after a poor decision at the weekend. Glad he wont miss any games. 

[bradowl]

5 hours ago, Essix Blue said:

You seriously think it’d make a difference?

 

Of course it would, we would have 11 men instead of 10 for all 90 minutes. 

I'm not saying we would have got something out of game but we would have had a much better chance. 

[Guest Ferkorf]

5 hours ago, latemodelchild said:

Shame we can't replay the game. 

God No!

First one was bad enough

[Guest Ferkorf]

Good news for Luongo but I want to see that referee punished for such a terrible decision.

Give him a ten year season ticket

[casbahowl]

13 hours ago, billyblack said:

Oh well. Following saturday then

 

Finger on the pulse as usual

[cookeh]

13 hours ago, Ash76 said:

 

So you was wrong then?

 

 

No, I still think it was justifiable as a red. Harsh one, but still.

 

But why would i WANT our players banned?

If Bannan randomly bites someone at QPR, it should be a red, but i hope he gets away with it!

 

Despite everything we're still in with a shot at playoffs and once you get in there its a bit of a lottery.
I want our best team on the pitch every game.

 

[N0rtherner]

17 hours ago, Essix Blue said:

You seriously think it’d make a difference?

 

Of course. Owls on the verge of getting back into the game at 1-0 down but get a red card and play with one player less... Would be so bold to guarantee we wouldn't have lost 5-0 with 11 men on the pitch.

[Striggy]

23 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

No, I still think it was justifiable as a red. Harsh one, but still.

 

But why would i WANT our players banned?

If Bannan randomly bites someone at QPR, it should be a red, but i hope he gets away with it!

 

Despite everything we're still in with a shot at playoffs and once you get in there its a bit of a lottery.
I want our best team on the pitch every game.

 

 

You still think it was a justifiable red? really?

[cookeh]

Just now, Striggy said:

You still think it was a justifiable red really?

 

Why would I change my mind because someone at the FA disagrees? Plenty of folk on here disagreed already, and it's not like the FA should be held in higher esteem is it. They're clowns. You think I should change my mind just because the FA said so?

 

I think Luongo is really late, knows he'll be late, but goes anyway and studs the player on the way thru. That means it could fall into the bracket of serous foul play and be a red card offense. People disagree, it's football.

 

Like i said, i'm glad it's been rescinded tho.

 

[dorian gray]

17 hours ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

The fact the referee doesn't get sanctioned is a disgrace

 

 

police policing the police, or in this case, not even bothering.

no ****ing wonder that FIFA and UEFA won't touch english officials with a barge pole.

back in the 60/70's if they had a big game on, they'd have a West German, Italian, or English ref, not anymore.

[dorian gray]

12 hours ago, bradowl said:

 

Of course it would, we would have 11 men instead of 10 for all 90 minutes. 

I'm not saying we would have got something out of game but we would have had a much better chance. 

if the MOTM is the most effective person on the field, then that was the ref.

[Animis]

14 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

Why would I change my mind because someone at the FA disagrees? Plenty of folk on here disagreed already, and it's not like the FA should be held in higher esteem is it. They're clowns. You think I should change my mind just because the FA said so?

 

I think Luongo is really late, knows he'll be late, but goes anyway and studs the player on the way thru. That means it could fall into the bracket of serous foul play and be a red card offense. People disagree, it's football.

 

Like i said, i'm glad it's been rescinded tho.

 

 

Are you are saying it shouldn't have been rescinded?

[bigdan2003]

I can't understand why anyone would think that's a red card...or anywhere near a red card. It's simply not.

 

It's not even a foul. 

 

 

[Big Jack]

54 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

No, I still think it was justifiable as a red. Harsh one, but still.

 

But why would i WANT our players banned?

If Bannan randomly bites someone at QPR, it should be a red, but i hope he gets away with it!

 

Despite everything we're still in with a shot at playoffs and once you get in there its a bit of a lottery.
I want our best team on the pitch every game.

No way was that a red, get yourself to spec savers. The ref was conned like yourself. At least sense prevailed which is somewhat unusual for the EFL.

[thewookieisdown]

I genuinely can’t believe that anyone thinks this was remotely red card country. Or that it didn’t materially affect proceedings. Of course we were playing badly and of course we responded badly to this set back. But my initial reaction was that the sending off was game over. More than an hour at a man disadvantage when already a goal down feels lethal. 
 

All this is so obvious one has to wonder if people taking a different view are really in good faith

[oldtawnyowl]

47 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

 

I think Luongo is really late, knows he'll be late, but goes anyway and studs the player on the way thru. That means it could fall into the bracket of serous foul play and be a red card offense.

 

 

Hang on a minute.

 

I think I've sussed you out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're an Australian referee ar'nt you. 

[Beauchief Owl]

EFL take no action against players rolling around clearly trying to con the ref. Not surprising as early in the season Mitrovic did same holding his face and rolling back and forth as though in agony. He was trying to get his opponent a red card. Ref did not fall for it but failed to give a card to Mitrovic and nothing done even though replays clearly showed he had not even been touched in face. Disgraceful in my view, it just encourages players to play act. We should be stamping on this behavior it's spoiling the game.

[Lionel Fessi]

I just cannot understand how when red cards are recinded - therefore proving that either the match day officials or opposing player are at fault how is there no further repercussions on the guilty party? It's a completely fraudulent system that irreversibly punishes teams when wrong and does nothing to rectify mistakes even when they are proven and brought to light!

 

For what it's worth, even if we stayed with 11 men on Saturday i still don't think we would of won...we were really THAT bad but how many times do we see big decisions called wrong in games? It's almost a regular occurrence at Hillsbrough we have referees who are well below par and offer no consistency at all. Who holds them accountable for their poor performance?

[Beauchief Owl]

Heard good point today about one reason for lower standard of referees, re VAR. Many of better refs used for that hence not on the pitch and others promoted in their place. 

[31Dec1966]

7 hours ago, thewookieisdown said:

I genuinely can’t believe that anyone thinks this was remotely red card country. Or that it didn’t materially affect proceedings. Of course we were playing badly and of course we responded badly to this set back. But my initial reaction was that the sending off was game over. More than an hour at a man disadvantage when already a goal down feels lethal. 
 

All this is so obvious one has to wonder if people taking a different view are really in good faith

That's right. I don't think anyone in the ground thought it was a red card except Travis who thought, I slid in a bit there but maybe if I feign injury I could make out it's Luongo in the wrong.  To those who say we would have lost anyway I say, probably, but 1-0 down at half time meant we could have changed things. After all their first goal had a bit of luck about it, whats to say we couldn't have done the same.