Comments on: The FA are spineless wankers!

By: Radgie

Radgie — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:49:31 +0000

Reread my comments and place emphasis on the words ‘looks’ and ‘appears’. I’m not saying that is what happened, I am saying that is what COULD be interpreted by viewing the video evidence.

And given that (TheAntiMegson agrees it is inconclusive) then both the ref and the FA have no option but to stand by the original decision. Doesn’t make that original decision right, it just means there is insufficient evidence to prove it wrong.

By: TheAntiMegson

TheAntiMegson — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:15:55 +0000

@URED
I concur. I saw it from the best angle possible, from the Family block in the Main Stand. I’ve seen the video replay it’s totally inconclusive but as I saw it, the fall happend AFTER Kelvin headed the ball back. Then there was the histrionics from Malvin Kamara on floor rolling around like he was on fire! Kamara was never going to ge the ball he was behind Kelvin all the way.
It was just a weird situation that turned the game from a dour knock about into one of the best I’ve seen in a while.
Shame for Kelvin though.

By: URED

URED — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:02:55 +0000

Radgie, no you’re wrong.
If you had the benefit of seeing the incident from the Trent End, as I did, you would see the Huddersfield player pulling Wilson’s shirt and when he realised he wasn’t going to get the ball he dramatically tumbled to the ground. 9.5 for the dive but a penalty it was not !!

By: Radgie

Radgie — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:35:47 +0000

“What Mr Taylor thought he saw in a fleeting moment would probably have been corrected with the hindsight of video replay, but currently he does not have that assistance”.

Thats not strictly correct. Mr Taylor has had the opportunity to review the video evidence (post match) and rescind the red card. He did that and stuck by his decision. The FA have done the same.

And if you watch the replay, it is very easy to see why. It looks for all the world like there is contact with Kelvin holding back Kamara, even appearing to be pulling on his shirt.

So it looks like the ref got it right with the red card. What he got wrong was the award of a penalty as the offence started outside the box.

By: Phil

Phil — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:44:45 +0000

The action of the F.A. in defending Mr Taylor’s ruling would be considered perjury if it had been stated in court. The people at the F.A. are worse than the referee who misjudged the situation. They have told lies to cover for their inept attempt to produce good refereeing in the U.K. The standard of the men in black is reaching an all time low and the responsibility lies with the people who run the game. If nothing can be done to produce referees capable of mainly accurate decisions then it must be time to introduce video replays to assist them. What Mr Taylor thought he saw in a fleeting moment would probably have been corrected with the hindsight of video replay, but currently he does not have that assistance. If a game changing decision has to be made, regarding a sending off, a penalty or a dubious goal then video replay is the only clear way forward. It is too late to rescind a red card when a game is over, as the match result stands.

In the instance of the Huddersfield game the decision lifted the Forest players into a battling mood and the Huddersfield manager would equally be in his rights to complain that this action could have cost him the game. As it is Forest are without a team regular player for their next game. Who knows how that will influence the result?

P.S. Is this the same F.A. who selects England managers and then sack them because they were not good enough? The statement made about the selectors in Rugby fits the F.A. “They are a bunch of old farts” and I for one would add the word “CHEATS”.
Like a knackered old horse it is about time that they were all shot.