broodje Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 20 minutes ago, Slack Bladder said: For a player who seems to be held together by sellotape and porridge, I thought he got stuck in tonight. Fair play to the lad Seems like the porridge has now begun to dry out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firstdivision Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Joe needs to be careful. There’s a fragile fine line these days between a good tackle and an aggressive one. Some refs will have seen that last night and have it their minds in future. As I’ve said before, there’s a difference between what we want the laws to be and what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Joe “Crash Bang” Williams. And we also have Taylor Gardner-Hitman. The key to the dark art is to carry it out without being detected or blamed as the instigator. Seems like they’re learning fast. The Watford players are probably already enquiring about gum-shields and any other available protective measures. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphindevon Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 I think we can finally put to bed the myth that some were peddling until a few weeks ago that he’ll never be able to play Saturday/midweek/Saturday. He’s been on fire this last month. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry R Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 People still talking about him like he's always injured. He's played 55 games since the start of last season. He had one terrible year of injuries, but the rest of his career has been pretty normal. He's putting in Marvin Elliott-like performances and has been one of our best players this season. Really hope we sign him up to a new deal. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 35 minutes ago, MarcusX said: No chance Williams will get a retrospective ban, it wasn’t THAT bad. No it wasn’t. We have to remember this was a PL side who - as with them all - go down at the merest touch and always try to make any contact look as bad as possible. I coughed in the first half and Ings fell over. The ref seemed to tire of their Tom Daley antics in the second half, having given them umpteen soft free kicks in tbe first. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shauntaylor85 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 44 minutes ago, MarcusX said: No chance Williams will get a retrospective ban, it wasn’t THAT bad. TGH maybe though, only realised how bad it was when I watched the highlights back, silly really but luckily we got away with a couple tonight I saw it at the time and was relieved the ref or linesman missed it. Defo red card, silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuber Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 10 hours ago, Ron W said: Always used to think teams who went up from this league had a horrible CDM. A Shaun Derry type. Not saying we’re going to win the league, but we’ve got that position filled at least. Finally got his legs back and he’s the player we thought we were buying. This is they key thing for me. Before tonight I thought his legs were gone, but in the last few weeks he's found that missing yard of pace - turns out it may have been match sharpness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 1 minute ago, Shauntaylor85 said: I saw it at the time and was relieved the ref or linesman missed it. Defo red card, silly. I think both are reds in the modern game sadly, but Williams one wasn’t properly violent or intentional that anyone would get involved with a retrospective ban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Couldn’t see it earlier in the thread, this is the incident: For me, that’s a VAR red but not a red if you get my drift. He gets the ball and the ball influences his follow through onto Ings. Slowed down, it looks worse - but I think it’s one that isn’t given as a foul without VAR (as it correctly wasn’t). Id say we got away with one but more about the moronic way VAR is utilised as opposed to getting away with a bad challenge. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 2 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said: Couldn’t see it earlier in the thread, this is the incident: For me, that’s a VAR red but not a red if you get my drift. He gets the ball and the ball influences his follow through onto Ings. Slowed down, it looks worse - but I think it’s one that isn’t given as a foul without VAR (as it correctly wasn’t). Id say we got away with one but more about the moronic way VAR is utilised as opposed to getting away with a bad challenge. With VAR it's an easy red but i actually thought yellow was right he went for the ball and won the ball just unfortunate with the follow through. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 55 minutes ago, MarcusX said: No chance Williams will get a retrospective ban, it wasn’t THAT bad. TGH maybe though, only realised how bad it was when I watched the highlights back, silly really but luckily we got away with a couple tonight He’s banned for next Friday anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 11 hours ago, Ivorguy said: Long long time since we have had a player like Williams I loved it Changed your tune from the Millwall game then, where you wanted him fined and dropped for his behaviour? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidered abroad Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 57 minutes ago, Baldyman said: I do believe that after many years we’ve found our new Gerry Gow !!! Starting to remind me so much of our legendary scrapper !! And also showing us why we recruited him from Wigan to dominate the defensive and ball winning midfield. Any player in that position is prone to red/yellow cards as a split second mistiming can often happen. From Ginger Peacock, Gerry Gow, Tommy Doherty we need a like midfielder to go places we haven't been for a very long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The turtle Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 10 hours ago, old_eastender said: He could easily have collected a yellow for the challenge on Ings in the 1st half. Great to see the crunching tackles, but he needs to keep them clean. Thought Matty James played well too, calm and assured. A yellow? He's lucky it wasn't a red (it reminded me of wolves 2017 red card) You just can't follow through studs up like that any more. He may take the ball first but it was so reckless. He's lucky the referee appears to have missed it, and there was no VAR. In a VAR world that's a red 9.5/10. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 10 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said: Couldn’t see it earlier in the thread, this is the incident: For me, that’s a VAR red but not a red if you get my drift. He gets the ball and the ball influences his follow through onto Ings. Slowed down, it looks worse - but I think it’s one that isn’t given as a foul without VAR (as it correctly wasn’t). Id say we got away with one but more about the moronic way VAR is utilised as opposed to getting away with a bad challenge. I agree. For me it’s not a red. I actually even think it may not be a red with VAR. Usually to satisfy a red there are a few things that need to happen A) Is the player out of control B) Are there 2 feet off the ground C) Are the studs up D) Is it a straight leg E) Is it over the top of the ball None of those definitions are met with Williams’ tackle. Its 1-footed, when contact is made with the ball he doesn’t have a straight leg, his studs aren’t showing and it’s not high He contacts the ball low, it’s just the angle his foot comes off of the ball which takes his foot higher and into Ings but the velocity of the tackle has already been taken out of the challenge as the ball was contacted first and took all of the ‘power’ out of the tackle. That wouldn’t have hurt the opponent. They compared it to Gusto’s challenge for Chelsea on the post-match analysis. For reference, Gusto’s was a yellow. Gusto has a straight leg, studs up and makes no contact with the ball. Williams’ tackle was a hard but fair one. And I don’t think VAR sends him off as it hasn’t met any 1 of the 5 thresholds above. Both pics below are the point of contact …… 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The turtle Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 17 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said: Couldn’t see it earlier in the thread, this is the incident: For me, that’s a VAR red but not a red if you get my drift. He gets the ball and the ball influences his follow through onto Ings. Slowed down, it looks worse - but I think it’s one that isn’t given as a foul without VAR (as it correctly wasn’t). Id say we got away with one but more about the moronic way VAR is utilised as opposed to getting away with a bad challenge. The ball influences because he catches the top of the ball. It's a very very poor challenge in the modern game. It should have been a red in game. We are fortunate the ref missed it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 7 minutes ago, Harry said: I agree. For me it’s not a red. I actually even think it may not be a red with VAR. Usually to satisfy a red there are a few things that need to happen A) Is the player out of control B) Are there 2 feet off the ground C) Are the studs up D) Is it a straight leg E) Is it over the top of the ball None of those definitions are met with Williams’ tackle. Its 1-footed, when contact is made with the ball he doesn’t have a straight leg, his studs aren’t showing and it’s not high He contacts the ball low, it’s just the angle his foot comes off of the ball which takes his foot higher and into Ings but the velocity of the tackle has already been taken out of the challenge as the ball was contacted first and took all of the ‘power’ out of the tackle. That wouldn’t have hurt the opponent. They compared it to Gusto’s challenge for Chelsea on the post-match analysis. For reference, Gusto’s was a yellow. Gusto has a straight leg, studs up and makes no contact with the ball. Williams’ tackle was a hard but fair one. And I don’t think VAR sends him off as it hasn’t met any 1 of the 5 thresholds above. Both pics below are the point of contact …… Point of contact is irrelevant. His foot goes over the top. It’s dangerous. It’s a red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 9 hours ago, Davefevs said: Tackles get the crowd going, he made a few tonight. Was delighted when we signed him…such a shame his first two years were blighted / wasted. Imho he played pretty well last season too, but had minutes managed. That’s allowed him the opportunity to gradually build that robustness up. His recent performances have been very good. Certainly gonna make for some interesting discussions re contracts! He must be really enjoying this spell, nice one Joe. ~~~~~ oh, yeah, and Matty James wasn’t far behind tonight either. I know big tackles (Oo-er) will always get the crowd going. I think you’re the first person to mention Matty James. He had a great game sat in, which allows Williams to go and menace further forward 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveF Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 20 minutes ago, Harry said: I agree. For me it’s not a red. I actually even think it may not be a red with VAR. Usually to satisfy a red there are a few things that need to happen A) Is the player out of control B) Are there 2 feet off the ground C) Are the studs up D) Is it a straight leg E) Is it over the top of the ball None of those definitions are met with Williams’ tackle. Its 1-footed, when contact is made with the ball he doesn’t have a straight leg, his studs aren’t showing and it’s not high He contacts the ball low, it’s just the angle his foot comes off of the ball which takes his foot higher and into Ings but the velocity of the tackle has already been taken out of the challenge as the ball was contacted first and took all of the ‘power’ out of the tackle. That wouldn’t have hurt the opponent. They compared it to Gusto’s challenge for Chelsea on the post-match analysis. For reference, Gusto’s was a yellow. Gusto has a straight leg, studs up and makes no contact with the ball. Williams’ tackle was a hard but fair one. And I don’t think VAR sends him off as it hasn’t met any 1 of the 5 thresholds above. Both pics below are the point of contact …… It's definitely a red these days... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Most of the time that would be a red card with VAR - they're not entirely consistent, but there have been 4/5 pretty identical tackles this season, and all but one (the Gusto one this weekend) have been reds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogkev Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Joe Williams was a monster last night, the sort of display that gets your blood pumping and fires up the crowd. He was lucky though not to get a red card, in the modern game, it was a minor miracle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnheadbcfc Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 1 hour ago, Shauntaylor85 said: I wonder if both he and TGH will get a retro ban. Prob not Williams as the ref saw it but TGH was ridiculous, I would discipline for that internally, he could have cost us the game. You have to keep your cool. Christ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 21 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Point of contact is irrelevant. His foot goes over the top. It’s dangerous. It’s a red. I’m not sure sure. If you take that view then you are refereeing the consequences of the event and not the event itself. The consequences of the event are that the foot contacts the opponents shin pad. But how it got there is relevant as to whether the tackle itself is considered reckless. It doesn’t meet any of the thresholds I mentioned. It’s not high, it’s not studs up, it’s not two footed, it’s not a straight leg, he’s not out of control. If it meets even 1 of those thresholds then I’d agree it should be a red, but it doesn’t meet any of those. We can’t have refs making decisions based on the consequences of the tackle. They just judge the tackle itself. Yes, there ends up being contact, but that’s due to the way the foot slides off the ball. The consequences could have been bad but the tackle itself would not be deemed reckless or out of control. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Both challenges Williams is aggressive but he plays the ball. I think it was last week a similar one in the Prem was deemed Yellow. The one on Benrahma is harder to see , but he plays the ball and I don't think he catches the man. The one on Ings he is aggressive, plays the ball but momentum takes his foot over the top of the ball. I think yellow for both, but I doubt he makes the 2nd one if he's booked for the earlier one. Ref could have prevented that by giving the obvious foul on Tanner seconds before. The problem is you can't say for definite what VAR are thinking, we've seen some very strange decisions and very little consistency . The Ings could easily be Red but we've seen them not upgraded from a yellow, and this wasn't even deemed a foul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 43 minutes ago, Harry said: I agree. For me it’s not a red. I actually even think it may not be a red with VAR. Usually to satisfy a red there are a few things that need to happen A) Is the player out of control B) Are there 2 feet off the ground C) Are the studs up D) Is it a straight leg E) Is it over the top of the ball None of those definitions are met with Williams’ tackle. Its 1-footed, when contact is made with the ball he doesn’t have a straight leg, his studs aren’t showing and it’s not high He contacts the ball low, it’s just the angle his foot comes off of the ball which takes his foot higher and into Ings but the velocity of the tackle has already been taken out of the challenge as the ball was contacted first and took all of the ‘power’ out of the tackle. That wouldn’t have hurt the opponent. They compared it to Gusto’s challenge for Chelsea on the post-match analysis. For reference, Gusto’s was a yellow. Gusto has a straight leg, studs up and makes no contact with the ball. Williams’ tackle was a hard but fair one. And I don’t think VAR sends him off as it hasn’t met any 1 of the 5 thresholds above. Both pics below are the point of contact …… It’s a fair argument, but we’ve all seen many instances now where the follow through (intentional or just momentum) has gone high and that’s got the player in trouble. I don’t necessarily agree with it, because I think it’s impossible to make a tackle like that and not have any follow through - if you really want to stamp that out you’d have to remove slide tackles which is silly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 14 minutes ago, Harry said: I’m not sure sure. If you take that view then you are refereeing the consequences of the event and not the event itself. The consequences of the event are that the foot contacts the opponents shin pad. But how it got there is relevant as to whether the tackle itself is considered reckless. It doesn’t meet any of the thresholds I mentioned. It’s not high, it’s not studs up, it’s not two footed, it’s not a straight leg, he’s not out of control. If it meets even 1 of those thresholds then I’d agree it should be a red, but it doesn’t meet any of those. We can’t have refs making decisions based on the consequences of the tackle. They just judge the tackle itself. Yes, there ends up being contact, but that’s due to the way the foot slides off the ball. The consequences could have been bad but the tackle itself would not be deemed reckless or out of control. VAR look at the incident slowed down, we've all seen it, they look at slo-mo and still images (they shouldn't, but they do) If you shows the referee on the field this image below, on a screen at the side of the pitch (which they would) then it's an instant red: FWIW I think it meets several of your criteria... It is high (half way up the leg), it is studs up, evidence is in the picture. How can he be in control when he's full off the ground? So not in control either. Glad it isn't a red, but in today's rules, it is. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) 9 minutes ago, MarcusX said: It’s a fair argument, but we’ve all seen many instances now where the follow through (intentional or just momentum) has gone high and that’s got the player in trouble. I don’t necessarily agree with it, because I think it’s impossible to make a tackle like that and not have any follow through - if you really want to stamp that out you’d have to remove slide tackles which is silly. I must admit I don’t have the evidence to present here and now, but those instances where reds have been given based on the follow through / momentum, how many of those had 1 or more of the thresholds I mentioned. Even if 1 of those is met then a red would be given. It may be that in many of the ‘momentum’ cases, they may have deemed a straight leg or a studs up etc… Edited January 17 by Harry 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 10 minutes ago, Coxy27 said: VAR look at the incident slowed down, we've all seen it, they look at slo-mo and still images (they shouldn't, but they do) If you shows the referee on the field this image below, on a screen at the side of the pitch (which they would) then it's an instant red: FWIW I think it meets several of your criteria... It is high (half way up the leg), it is studs up, evidence is in the picture. How can he be in control when he's full off the ground? So not in control either. Glad it isn't a red, but in today's rules, it is. They don’t just show the still pic though. They do show the lead up to it as well. Let’s take the Calvert Lewin one last week. It was a straight leg and the studs were showing. It got rescinded. There are 2 elements there (straight leg, studs up) which the original decision was influenced by. Joe’s tackle doesn’t have any of the required thresholds. Yes, it does have a minimal consequence, but decisions aren’t based on consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severn Beach Pigeon Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Coxy27 said: VAR look at the incident slowed down, we've all seen it, they look at slo-mo and still images (they shouldn't, but they do) If you shows the referee on the field this image below, on a screen at the side of the pitch (which they would) then it's an instant red: FWIW I think it meets several of your criteria... It is high (half way up the leg), it is studs up, evidence is in the picture. How can he be in control when he's full off the ground? So not in control either. Glad it isn't a red, but in today's rules, it is. The still you're showing is after his foot has gone up over the ball though. So not a judgement on what the actual tackle was, but a judgement on the outcome of an unfortunate bounce off of the ball. Edited January 17 by transfer reader 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natchfever Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Joe is showing us why he was signed in the first place. Rotten luck with injuries now has half a season to win a new deal here or somewhere else (apologies if he has more on his contract) He may of course fancy a move back up the M6 and he will surely have suitors. Based on recent form we should snap him up if possible but the staff will have a better idea of his ability to play at that level say 3 out of 4 matches than us. Lastly, would be a red with VAR imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 14 minutes ago, Harry said: They don’t just show the still pic though. They do show the lead up to it as well. Let’s take the Calvert Lewin one last week. It was a straight leg and the studs were showing. It got rescinded. There are 2 elements there (straight leg, studs up) which the original decision was influenced by. Joe’s tackle doesn’t have any of the required thresholds. Yes, it does have a minimal consequence, but decisions aren’t based on consequence. 3 minutes ago, transfer reader said: The still you're showing is after his foot has gone up over the ball though. So not a judgement on what the actual tackle was, but a judgement on the outcome of an unfortunate bounce off of the ball. You're both using logic and rational reasoning - something which referees are discouraged from using. We'll never know - but I'm pretty confident 80% of the time (as there's never total consistency) - the referee would have just looked at a few replays and that still image and sent him off. I don't disagree with either of you - but I just think a referee would. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 12 minutes ago, transfer reader said: The still you're showing is after his foot has gone up over the ball though. So not a judgement on what the actual tackle was, but a judgement on the outcome of an unfortunate bounce off of the ball. It doesn’t matter. Did you see Bobby Thomas (Cov) v KDH (Leicester) last week? Follow through / what happens next is very relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 3 minutes ago, Coxy27 said: You're both using logic and rational reasoning - something which referees are discouraged from using. We'll never know - but I'm pretty confident 80% of the time (as there's never total consistency) - the referee would have just looked at a few replays and that still image and sent him off. I don't disagree with either of you - but I just think a referee would. I agree. It’s definitely one which could have gone either way if var reviewed. However, regarding logic and rationale. Thats exactly why it wouldn’t be a red for me. It’s almost robotic, hence why we always say that they are taking the emotion out of it. If the Var reviewer looks at that and does his job properly (ie following the exact protocols and removing any emotion or consequence) then they’d say “not high upon initial contact, 1 foot, not studs up, not a straight leg and not out of control”. Of course, I can 100% understand the argument FOR a red here. But I just think it doesn’t meet the robotic process they would consider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 4 minutes ago, Davefevs said: It doesn’t matter. Did you see Bobby Thomas (Cov) v KDH (Leicester) last week? Follow through / what happens next is very relevant. But that wasn’t a red. On that Thomas tackle, it does appear a silly decision at first. But when you look again, there are a number of the thresholds I’ve described. He’s off the floor (ie out of control), it’s high, it’s studs up and it’s a straight leg. in this case, regardless of him contacting the ball first, he was out of control and endangering an opponent. There are 4 of the thresholds met. Williams had none of those met. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 1 minute ago, Harry said: But that wasn’t a red. Fair, although that might’ve been a bit of double-jeopardy. My points is about follow through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 4 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Fair, although that might’ve been a bit of double-jeopardy. My points is about follow through. Yes. That probs was double jeopardy rule. Re the follow through though. The very fact that Bobby Thomas was off the floor, high, studs up means the follow through is out of control. Williams follow through is merely a consequence of ball contact - he was never deemed out of control on the tackle itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severn Beach Pigeon Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 22 minutes ago, Davefevs said: It doesn’t matter. Did you see Bobby Thomas (Cov) v KDH (Leicester) last week? Follow through / what happens next is very relevant. Gusto Chelsea Vs Fulham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 16 minutes ago, Harry said: Yes. That probs was double jeopardy rule. Re the follow through though. The very fact that Bobby Thomas was off the floor, high, studs up means the follow through is out of control. Williams follow through is merely a consequence of ball contact - he was never deemed out of control on the tackle itself. We won’t agree on this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) Joe Williams turned it into a game the opposition didn't want. That's always a good thing. But, by today's standards, he got lucky with the ref. In fact, we all got lucky with the ref - we got one who allowed a proper contest to develop and one who treated both sides as equals. Early in the game Cornet fell over under pressure trying to buy a cheap free kick and the ref just waved play on - i thought we might have half a chance when that happened. Fair play to him. But for me, Matty James was our best player by a country mile. "If you can keep your head while all about you..." wrote Mr Kipling as he baked his exceedingly good cakes. Well James certainly did that - every other player spent the game giving the ball away, he didn't. In the right place at the right time all the time, breaking up play, keeping it simple, always passing to a red shirt, cool, composed and committed. Not a foot out of place all night. If the rest of our boys had his pass completion rate we'd be a heck of a team. Edited January 17 by Merrick's Marvels 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozo Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 1 hour ago, Coxy27 said: VAR look at the incident slowed down, we've all seen it, they look at slo-mo and still images (they shouldn't, but they do) If you shows the referee on the field this image below, on a screen at the side of the pitch (which they would) then it's an instant red: FWIW I think it meets several of your criteria... It is high (half way up the leg), it is studs up, evidence is in the picture. How can he be in control when he's full off the ground? So not in control either. Glad it isn't a red, but in today's rules, it is. I'm pretty sure that if the shoe was on the other foot (boot on the other shin?) we would be outraged if Ings got away with that tackle. I think we got lucky with that one, and with the TGH one too. But you need a bit of luck and a lot of effort to beat a Prem team and that's what happened. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 24 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said: Joe Williams turned it into a game the opposition didn't want. That's always a good thing. But, by today's standards, he got lucky with the ref. In fact, we all got lucky with the ref - we got one who allowed a proper contest to develop and one who treated both sides as equals. Early in the game Cornet fell over under pressure trying to buy a cheap free kick and the ref just waved play on - i thought we might have half a chance when that happened. Fair play to him. But for me, Matty James was our best player by a country mile. "If you can keep your head while all about you..." wrote Mr Kipling as he baked his exceedingly good cakes. Well James certainly did that - every other player spent the game giving the ball away, he didn't. In the right place at the right time all the time, breaking up play, keeping it simple, always passing to a red shirt, cool, composed and committed. Not a foot out of place all night. If the rest of our boys had his pass completion rate we'd be a heck of a team. Yep, and refs have been told to let a bit more go this season (referring to Cornet incident). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 If there was VAR then it's highly probable Williams gets sent off for it, however both teams were fully aware before the game kicked off that there was no VAR. Without it, players do have a bit more license to throw in some dark arts and be a bit more robust in the tackle. West Ham could've come and had a scrap if they wanted, but they didn't. So that's their problem, not ours. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 54 minutes ago, Davefevs said: We won’t agree on this one Tackles like the JW on Ings are subjective and to me it was a heavy tackle that initially got the ball with Williams foot sliding up from the ball and catching Ings who went down like he’d been shot - a mamby pandy reaction in my opinion. It was a good refereeing decision. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midred Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 The decision shouldn't be based on the consequence of a tackle but judging by the "performances" that some "world class" players put on after a tackle I'm not entirely sure that referees aren't persuaded to go for the headlines! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 35 minutes ago, Robbored said: Tackles like the JW on Ings are subjective and to me it was a heavy tackle that initially got the ball with Williams foot sliding up from the ball and catching Ings who went down like he’d been shot - a mamby pandy reaction in my opinion. It was a good refereeing decision. No idea what you are on about that was a nasty one on Ings i doubt he was making the most of anything. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltshoveller Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 For the first 140 odd years of the FA Cup that was a great tackle Season 2023/24 FA Cup wit VAR it is a red card I have to say imo the first 140 years got it right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.