NickG Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Just watched it in slow motion -decision was worse than I remembered. Euell slid in to the ball -towards one of our players -their player slid in from behind Euell into his feet -already on ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 That ref was a retard. Couldn't believe how many decisions he, and the two lino's, gave their way. From what I remember three of our players, Cork, Skacel and Surman (I think) got booked for dissent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Stimp Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 I like it how the highlights barely mentioned anything about how strong our second half was, or showed either of the penalty appeals, which I really wanted to see again. Ref was an absolute disgrace yesterday, I really think we were conned out of another great comeback. We played some cracking stuff and got nothing out of it. But the poor ref was just winding our players up, understandably, and so we ended up 2-1 losers but by far the better team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Wayman Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Stop moaning about the referee, that idiot Euell went flying in from behind, foot raised and studded the Wolves player right down his shin. Accept it for what it was. It doesn't have to be a deliberate foul to be effing dangerous and this tackle was evidently dangerous as it injured the Wolves palyer quite badly and could have broken his leg. It is NOT the Ref's fault that we are complete crap and it sickened me to hear the Northam lot howling abuse at the bloke when it is Euell who should have got abuse rather than cheers when he left the field : " There are none so BLIND as those that don't WANT to SEE!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 16 November, 2008 Author Share Posted 16 November, 2008 watch it again -you are just wrong! the other player was behind him -just watched it again before posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Stop moaning about the referee, that idiot Euell went flying in from behind, foot raised and studded the Wolves player right down his shin. Accept it for what it was. It doesn't have to be a deliberate foul to be effing dangerous and this tackle was evidently dangerous as it injured the Wolves palyer quite badly and could have broken his leg. It is NOT the Ref's fault that we are complete crap and it sickened me to hear the Northam lot howling abuse at the bloke when it is Euell who should have got abuse rather than cheers when he left the field : " There are none so BLIND as those that don't WANT to SEE!" It is you that are blind sir....watch again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Jonny Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Yellow card at the very very most i'd say after watching it again. Do you think Saints would get anywhere with an apeal to the FA over this? Euell hasnt been bad of late and I think we'd need him at reading next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Stop moaning about the referee, that idiot Euell went flying in from behind, foot raised and studded the Wolves player right down his shin. Accept it for what it was. It doesn't have to be a deliberate foul to be effing dangerous and this tackle was evidently dangerous as it injured the Wolves palyer quite badly and could have broken his leg. It is NOT the Ref's fault that we are complete crap and it sickened me to hear the Northam lot howling abuse at the bloke when it is Euell who should have got abuse rather than cheers when he left the field : " There are none so BLIND as those that don't WANT to SEE!" There is a bit of a problem right there. I always thought the shin was at the front of the leg.:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintrich Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Sending off could have gone either way, we had 2 others players attempt to lunge in, before Euell went in - why was there the need for our players to dive in like that? Chris Perry also needlessly jumped off the ground with two feet in the second half, but missed both player and ball... not saying he should have been sent off, but he would have been if he had made contact - why did he even need to tackle like that?? Also it's quite amusing, when all the people around me were going mental at the ref, when their centre back made a quality recovery tackle. Clearly people were still ****ed off with the ref about the red card, as I can't see any other reason for lambasting the referee for a good decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 it looked like euell got him in the chest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 The Wolves player dived in and was across Euell which made it look worse than it was. As for the injury, what injury? he got up and played strongly for the rest of the match. Lancashire WAS injured by a bad tackle and had to go off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeismyname Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Sending off could have gone either way, we had 2 others players attempt to lunge in, before Euell went in - why was there the need for our players to dive in like that?Chris Perry also needlessly jumped off the ground with two feet in the second half, but missed both player and ball... not saying he should have been sent off, but he would have been if he had made contact - why did he even need to tackle like that?? Also it's quite amusing, when all the people around me were going mental at the ref, when their centre back made a quality recovery tackle. Clearly people were still ****ed off with the ref about the red card, as I can't see any other reason for lambasting the referee for a good decision. You should be grateful that they challenged for once! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffton Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Stop moaning about the referee, that idiot Euell went flying in from behind, foot raised and studded the Wolves player right down his shin. Accept it for what it was. It doesn't have to be a deliberate foul to be effing dangerous and this tackle was evidently dangerous as it injured the Wolves palyer quite badly and could have broken his leg. It is NOT the Ref's fault that we are complete crap and it sickened me to hear the Northam lot howling abuse at the bloke when it is Euell who should have got abuse rather than cheers when he left the field : " There are none so BLIND as those that don't WANT to SEE!" Fair enough, if thats the case maybe you could try explaining why the WOlves player got away with the same kind of 'tackle' on Lancashire less than 10 mins later and didn't get so much as a word in the ear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Wolf Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Yep. Everyone I talk to says the referee was crap. Even my sister's friend who's a Wolves' fan said he was **** from their point of view aswell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obelisk Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Just watched the incident in super slo-mo and that reinforces what I thought at the time of the incident. Euell slid in with a decent attempt to get the ball with no malice at all. In fact the Wolves player was nowhere near until he arrived at speed with both feet off the ground just as Euell was playing the ball. It was not a full on tackle and if anyone deserved a red it was the Wolves guy by dint of jumping in. Of course, any decent ref would have just had a word and taken control of the situation without inflaming passions but this bloke obviously thought we were there to watch him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever a red and white Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 anyone got a link for the highlights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Stop moaning about the referee, that idiot Euell went flying in from behind, foot raised and studded the Wolves player right down his shin. Accept it for what it was. It doesn't have to be a deliberate foul to be effing dangerous and this tackle was evidently dangerous as it injured the Wolves palyer quite badly and could have broken his leg. It is NOT the Ref's fault that we are complete crap and it sickened me to hear the Northam lot howling abuse at the bloke when it is Euell who should have got abuse rather than cheers when he left the field : " There are none so BLIND as those that don't WANT to SEE!" NO HE DIDN'T!!! It was right in front of me. Three players slid in at the same time and Euell played the ball, their player slid into Euell and came off worse. As I said on the match thread, if you are going to send players off for 50/50 challenges, then you might as well disband football as a sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 16 November, 2008 Author Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Just watched the incident in super slo-mo and that reinforces what I thought at the time of the incident. Euell slid in with a decent attempt to get the ball with no malice at all. In fact the Wolves player was nowhere near until he arrived at speed with both feet off the ground just as Euell was playing the ball. It was not a full on tackle and if anyone deserved a red it was the Wolves guy by dint of jumping in. Of course, any decent ref would have just had a word and taken control of the situation without inflaming passions but this bloke obviously thought we were there to watch him. totally agree -after my slo-mo analysis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surrey1saint Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 totally agree -after my slo-mo analysis! + 1! Spot on.The ref was a **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Trubble Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Stearman went in as hard for Wolves but the referee was only interested in penalising Saints players for challenges. He couldn't wait to get his yellow card out whenever we did anything contentious, when it was a Wolves player clattering into one of our lads, then it was 'play on'. I'm sure the referee had his whistle in his mouth whenever a Saints player got within breathing distance of a Wolves player, he seemed to already trying to pre-empt a decision. As for the linesman on the KIngsland stand in the second half then he wa just as inept, twice he gave decisions for the ball being out, when the ball was clearly not all over the line. Match Officials 2 Saints 1 There is nothing in that challenge that warranted a red card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surrey1saint Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 I am still incensed at this terrible referee's handling of the game. Anyone got Keith Hackett's email address.....lets get this idiot banned!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareham saint phil Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Just spoke to a Wolves supporter who was there yesterday who said, and i quote as close as possible, 1) Thought ref was sending their player off as well as if one went the other had to go as well. 2) Had to be a penalty and was in full rant over stupid defending giving it away, only to be told he hadn't given it. 3) Worse ref hes seen this season 4) Best display from a team against them in the second half, considering we were down to 10 made it even better These self important wannabees are ruining the game it wasnt just the big decisions he got wrong it was little things, goal kick instead of corner etc etc my blood pressure was skyhigh and hasn't come down yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Euell was too honest for his own good. He would have remained on the pitch had he writhed about in agony. When you have idiot referees of Tyro league standard, the sort that prevail in this division, it's the obvious thing to do. It might not be very fair, but neither was his sending off and at least we might have gained some advantage from having a complete team on the pitch, although some might argue that we played better with 10 men. OK then, let's look at it from the perspective that he wouldn't have to miss a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Bri Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 Sorry Wes but that ref was not good enough for the Tyro league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoSaint Posted 16 November, 2008 Share Posted 16 November, 2008 If it's not a red card surely Saints should appeal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingpong Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 he went in with both feet, even if he had made no contact, it's still a sending off. wouldn't get turned over on appeal in a million billion years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 he went in with both feet, even if he had made no contact, it's still a sending off. wouldn't get turned over on appeal in a million billion years. and the wolves player who went in with both feet later than Euell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 and the wolves player who went in with both feet later than Euell... so, you agree that euell went in with both feet then? seems that way to me...(which is a sending off by the way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Mullet Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 NO HE DIDN'T!!! It was right in front of me. Three players slid in at the same time and Euell played the ball, their player slid into Euell and came off worse. As I said on the match thread, if you are going to send players off for 50/50 challenges, then you might as well disband football as a sport. I made exactly the same point on Saturday. The ball was loose and two players made a 50/50 challenge. That's what happens in football sometimes. FFS, that challenge wouldnt have provoked even a yellow ten years ago - what is the game coming to? Bad championship refereeing really is beginning to spoil my love of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 so, you agree that euell went in with both feet then? seems that way to me...(which is a sending off by the way) Where in my post did I say Euell went in with both feet? It was an unfinished sentence to highlight that the Wolves player's involvement in the tackle. If you watch it again you will see that Euell was on the ball with his right foot going to his left side away from his opponent and his left leg tucked under his body but the Wolves player had his right foot raised going into the tackle. What the ref saw was his teammate rolling about on the floor and not the real incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 I am still incensed at this terrible referee's handling of the game. Anyone got Keith Hackett's email address.....lets get this idiot banned!! i think its a place called st. dunstans................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker268 Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 anyone got a link for the highlights? http://www.football.virginmedia.com/page/Football/Championship/VideoIndex/0,,12555,00.html there is more on there than the championship, it still sickens me how soft both their goals were, had we had perry playing the full 90 mins then who knows we may have won as the defense looked a little stronger in the second half Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
instinct Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 wasn't sure until I watched it on the championship BUT awful decision - ref ruined the game at least the game was entertaining though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Under Weststand Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 From the looking at the tackle on virgin media they both went into the tackle with 2 feet off the ground & was nothing more than a 50-50 challenge, if Euell had been a fraction of a second earlier would the Wolves player have had the red card instead??? Because that is what we are talking about BOTH players did the same thing therefore if Euell deserved a red card then so did the Wolves player, as the "intent" was the same. You can argue that all our spendings off this season have been technically correct, but when these same things occur in other games & against us & nothing is done we do seem to be getting the Butt end of the decisions at the moment. But isn't that always the way when at the bottom of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingpong Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 and the wolves player who went in with both feet later than Euell... should also have been sent off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 Stop moaning about the referee, that idiot Euell went flying in from behind, foot raised and studded the Wolves player right down his shin. Accept it for what it was. It doesn't have to be a deliberate foul to be effing dangerous and this tackle was evidently dangerous as it injured the Wolves palyer quite badly and could have broken his leg. It is NOT the Ref's fault that we are complete crap and it sickened me to hear the Northam lot howling abuse at the bloke when it is Euell who should have got abuse rather than cheers when he left the field : " There are none so BLIND as those that don't WANT to SEE!" And there are none so blind as those whose dislike of Lowe make them produce a completely perverted view of what actuall happened. If Euell were to go off so should the Wolves guy because his challenge was equally wild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 17 November, 2008 Author Share Posted 17 November, 2008 Euell would not even has seen the other guy -he slide in from behind Euell was Euell was already committed on the ground. You can see what a bizzare decsion by the way the wolves player comforts Euell -hardly berating him for a reckless tackle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 and the wolves player who went in with both feet later than Euell... How did he win the ball, slide past and end up with his chest where the ball was if he went in later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obelisk Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 How did he win the ball, slide past and end up with his chest where the ball was if he went in later?You obviously need to try harder at physics. If I have the ball at my foot a split second before you come flying in like an exocet missile then you're going to make rather firm contact with both the ball and my foot with whatever part of your body is exposed. Have another look. The Wolves player was airborn with two feet while Euell was grounded with one foot in the tackle. The ref screwed up badly. **** happens but it don't make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 (edited) You can see from this that the Wolves player was airborne and the ball was somewhere close to Surmans feet. Euell slid in nowhere near the Wolves player, who was coming from a completely different angle. If anything he was the wreckless one because both of his feet left the ground. Edited 17 November, 2008 by krissyboy31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 You obviously need to try harder at physics. If I have the ball at my foot a split second before you come flying in like an exocet missile then you're going to make rather firm contact with both the ball and my foot with whatever part of your body is exposed. Have another look. The Wolves player was airborn with two feet while Euell was grounded with one foot in the tackle. The ref screwed up badly. **** happens but it don't make it right. The Wolves player slid in, not 2 footed as you can clearly see in the above pic, he won the ball and then Euell came in fractionally late and caught him, if the Wolves player didnt get there 1st, Euell would have won the ball and then got caught by the wolves player, theres no way this will get reversed, if anything, he will get an extra game is Saints appeal. Logic clearly deserts you on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 The Wolves player slid in, not 2 footed as you can clearly see in the above pic, he won the ball and then Euell came in fractionally late and caught him, if the Wolves player didnt get there 1st, Euell would have won the ball and then got caught by the wolves player, theres no way this will get reversed, if anything, he will get an extra game is Saints appeal. Logic clearly deserts you on this one. Strange, I would say that Euell is nearer the ball than the Wolves player, so to be fractionally late he would have to have far less velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 Strange, I would say that Euell is nearer the ball than the Wolves player, so to be fractionally late he would have to have far less velocity. The angle forshortens it but the fact is the Wolves player got there 1st and was caught late by Euell, Saints have no chance with an appeal. Only Cardiff would get away with that as the Welsh FA overturns everything for them. I dont think it should be a sending off as both players went in with a genuine attempt to win the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 The Wolves player slid in, not 2 footed as you can clearly see in the above pic, he won the ball and then Euell came in fractionally late and caught him, if the Wolves player didnt get there 1st, Euell would have won the ball and then got caught by the wolves player, theres no way this will get reversed, if anything, he will get an extra game is Saints appeal. Logic clearly deserts you on this one. And if you watch the video evidence as I have done on a dozen occasions you will see that Euell's left leg was folded back under his arse so unless he has three feet it was not a two footed challenge. It was a 50/50 challenge so the ref should of treated both players the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 17 November, 2008 Author Share Posted 17 November, 2008 keep watching it, the ref got it wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 Poor poor decision - end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 Euell went in one-footed and had his arse on the ground. Wolves player went in one-footed, but with both feet off the ground and his arse two feet above ground. There is absolutely no-way that deserved a sending off unless it was for the Wolves player - video evidence would prove both players went in for a 50-50. Saints SHOULD appeal IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever a red and white Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 how is Euell playing atm anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 how is Euell playing atm anyway? hes not, three match ban apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obelisk Posted 17 November, 2008 Share Posted 17 November, 2008 The Wolves player slid in, not 2 footed as you can clearly see in the above pic, he won the ball and then Euell came in fractionally late and caught him, if the Wolves player didnt get there 1st, Euell would have won the ball and then got caught by the wolves player, theres no way this will get reversed, if anything, he will get an extra game is Saints appeal. Logic clearly deserts you on this one. Perhaps I should have been clearer then. When I said "airborn with two feet" I was referring to the fact that neither of the feet was on the ground. The picture tells a lot but it doesn't show that the ball is actually moving towards Euell who was sliding in one footed on the ground and actually reached the ball first. If the ref wanted to get his red card out in that incident he chose the wrong player. I'm not sure what part you think that logic plays in all this other than the fact that an appeal will fall on deaf ears, something that I accept. Maybe logically the referee could have sent off neither player but, as we know, football and logic are not normally to be found in the same bed. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now