Sportscene

BigBadJohn said:
If it's anything like the radio they'll focus on the James Sands incident and ignore the fact we mauled them for 90minutes. Not even worth listening to, the pundits they employ don't even know the rules. It's a joke of an organisation.
Click to expand...

They will focus on:

Sands should have received 2nd yellow.

Tav should maybe have had yellow for pull back.



They won't focus on:

2 potential yellows for RC players on Tillman as he broke away before our first goal.

2nd yellow for their defender who hacked down Kent and didn't try play ball.

Clear handball for penalty claim.
 
Prso09 said:
Mcfadden certain its a sending off as opposed to last week when he could understand why collum sent off lundstram when it clearly wasnt a sending off
Click to expand...
Yes rhis c unting f enian bastard is always on hand these days to give his intelligent unbiased oinion, you know something i would have some respect from him if he sat with a green and grey to on with thesellic view folded under his arm
 
Pumpkin pubes jizzin at the discussion on Sands' decision, he doesn't know the rules about penalties either, an absolute c*nt of a man, at least McFadden understands a non supporting arm hitting the ball intentional or not is a penalty, some decision you get some you don't. I don't expect balanced discussion anytime on the programme tbh.
 
About ten minutes talking about Sands and how he should have been sent off. 30 seconds denying a stonewall penalty, the failed trialist stating that the handball wasn't deliberate...(it doesn't have to be). That pasty w@nk mcfadden saying it could have been given as opposed to saying, it was a stonewaller!!

Brushed over the absolute dominance of our play. That BBC apology is looking pretty fvcking thin, time to fvck them off for good.
 
You dont have to watch it to know what they would do. Nothing about the fact he shouldnt have already been on a booking, nothing about the 2 yellows the Ross County player shouldve got when on a booking, dismissive of the penalty and 10 minutes forensically going over the Sands incident while having a circle wank.
 
Aye Ready 1872 said:
About ten minutes talking about Sands and how he should have been sent off. 30 seconds denying a stonewall penalty, the failed trialist stating that the handball wasn't deliberate...(it doesn't have to be). That pasty w@nk mcfadden saying it could have been given as opposed to saying, it was a stonewaller!!

Brushed over the absolute dominance of our play. That BBC apology is looking pretty fvcking thin, time to fvck them off for good.
Click to expand...
It'll come next week
 
Stewart frothing at the mouth about Sands. 100% it’s a red. Just as 100% Lundstrum wasn’t a red last week. One decision influences the game and one doesn’t yet Stewart is more excited at the one that wouldn’t make any difference
 
dh1963 said:
Because the ref didn't give a foul, can the Compliance Officer intervene and ask for a retrospective red?
Or is that only for violent conduct?

Let's be honest, it was a sending off.
Click to expand...
Short answer, no.

Doesn't fall in to the remit of the CO.
 
Who in the f*ck cares. Never watch it, don’t care what they do or don’t say. None of them have an opinion I’m interested in hearing. And I don’t read much of what’s said on here about them. Because, did I say, I don’t care?
 
insanicdrunk said:
Believe it is only violent conduct or serious foul play.

I thought it was a booking earlier, but Sands heads it back to the keeper.
Click to expand...

dh1963 said:
Because the ref didn't give a foul, can the Compliance Officer intervene and ask for a retrospective red?
Or is that only for violent conduct?

Let's be honest, it was a sending off.
Click to expand...
Lets be honest if they can get anything on any Rangers player they will
 
RWL12 said:
They will focus on:

Sands should have received 2nd yellow.

Tav should maybe have had yellow for pull back.



They won't focus on:

2 potential yellows for RC players on Tillman as he broke away before our first goal.

2nd yellow for their defender who hacked down Kent and didn't try play ball.

Clear handball for penalty claim.
Click to expand...
Wright wrestled to the ground with no booking
 
Theresa May said:
It wasn't a yellow, but that's also irrelevant.

The second one was a red card in itself. Sands was last man and pulled the boy down. By the rules, that's that's straight red.
Click to expand...

No such rule as last man was done away with years ago and too far out for goal scoring opportunity. Was only a yellow card. Ref saw it and didn’t give anything. Sands has been watching videos of Ramos and learning the black arts of defending.
 
They should have had at least another 4 yellow cards 1 of them a second for their 14 who got taken off half time, and 2 possible straight reds reds

Didn’t show Wright getting rugby tackled

Didn’t dwell on the deliberate elbow on King think it may have been the same guy who elbowed Sands. Strange its only a deserved red when it’s Morelos raising his arm.

One replay on the Goldson penalty claim

don’t even know what the6 said about the blatant hand ball penalty we should have got.
 
Gies peace ffs every other week the filth get away with murder and not a word said,I become suspicious of posters asking for us to be retrospectively punished very suspicious.
dh1963 said:
Because the ref didn't give a foul, can the Compliance Officer intervene and ask for a retrospective red?
Or is that only for violent conduct?

Let's be honest, it was a sending off.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top