It’s definitely a red...so what happens next three games?

[JamesBCFC]

1 minute ago, mozo said:

Watched it again. 1st kick, general direction of ball. 2nd kick, petulant boot to the lower back/arse, 3rd kick, petulant boot to the back of the legs

Time you booked in at the optician.

[mozo]

2 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Time you booked in at the optician.

Time you booked in at the Clinic for Objectivity Realignment 

[JamesBCFC]

2 minutes ago, mozo said:

Time you booked in at the Clinic for Objectivity Realignment 

I literally provided an image where he kicked the ball.

The third kick is also at the ball, which the player is still obstructing between his legs.

Considering the linesman, who was probably the best positioned non-partizan person said it's not a red should speak volumes.

I'm not even arguing about the red card itself, but Fam is 100% going for the ball.

[Robbored]

31 minutes ago, mozo said:

I live how Moore has gone from not good enough for this level to being the player who could play in any position!

Fam was kicking the guy in the back. There's absolutely no attempt to get the ball.

I couldn’t tell from the tv replay.

[mozo]

3 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

I literally provided an image where he kicked the ball.

The third kick is also at the ball, which the player is still obstructing between his legs.

Considering the linesman, who was probably the best positioned non-partizan person said it's not a red should speak volumes.

I'm not even arguing about the red card itself, but Fam is 100% going for the ball.

You can't 100% know his intentions, and I've been in that situation loads of times in Sunday League where you know you can't reach the ball but have a little dig anyway.

[bcfcshorey]

Play with no striker... Eliasson and Weimann on the wings and Palmer playing as a False 9.

[archie andrews]

1 hour ago, Super said:

That's dave not Rodney.... 

[NOTBLUE]

36 minutes ago, mozo said:

You can't 100% know his intentions, and I've been in that situation loads of times in Sunday League where you know you can't reach the ball but have a little dig anyway.

Go for the balls as opposed to go for the ball.

[RedM]

1 hour ago, mozo said:

You can't 100% know his intentions, and I've been in that situation loads of times in Sunday League where you know you can't reach the ball but have a little dig anyway.

You can’t know his intentions, but when he scored instead of celebrating for ages he grabbed the ball and sprinted back with it to restart the game. I didn’t have a clear view of the incident last night as I sit the Dolman side of the pitch, but maybe it was just determination/urgency to get the ball?

He didn’t go about it the right way but if Lee wanted him to show more fire and desire on the pitch then maybe Diedhiou was prepared wrongly, as although he scored a vital goal he has caused a headache too.  

[maxjak]

2 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

You need to watch it again.

He makes contact with the ball the first time, possibly the second.

The third time he only gets the player, in the legs.

Its a Yellow in my opinion, it obviously won't be rescinded......so no point appealing.  But a Red is over the top, each time he tried to kick the ball, but the player on the floor continued to trap it beneath him.  Over reaction by fourth official IMHO.

[Major Isewater]

I think Fam actually gets a raw deal because of his build .

He rarely gets fouls given in his favour and yesterday’s sending off was over the top .

It was similar to the Baker sending off v QPR ( I believe) because of his size it looked like a dangerous malicious tackle when , in fact , it was just a bit over enthusiastic. 
 

 

[AppyDAZE]

Only just seen it back. Not red, for me. Charlton players reaction was way overboard and influenced the officials.

Justice served, 98th minute. Get in!

[Garland-sweden]

5 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

If you’d seen Adelakun play for the under 23s this season, I doubt you’d be suggesting a call-up to the first team.  The guy seems all over the place, and I don’t mean that in a good way.  

Ok,  only seen him from you tube in Scunny. Sorry to hear he is not good.

[southvillekiddy]

Looking at it again and again, a few thoughts occur. The Charlton player doesn't seem to be making much effort to use his arms to get up/use the ball, instead he's not moving, with his legs over the ball it but you can still it, he's not covered it completely. If the ref. doesn't blow his whistle during all this then Fammy is entitled to go for the ball?  He could see a lot better than we can on the highlights where the ball was? Two out of the three kicks are definitely aimed at the ball under the player's legs from the side and not the player, you can see what he's trying to do. The last ones a bit iffy.

Then you have the indecision/disagreement among the 3 officials - initially the ref and linesman are saying no red.

It's the other Charlton layers steaming in that seems to be a big factor in awarding the red

So I think we have grounds for appeal

[Red-Robbo]

2 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

I think Fam actually gets a raw deal because of his build .

 

 

I think so too. And at the risk of starting yet another "R-word debate", I think big, very dark-skinned players do get more cards. It's maybe a subconscious thing, but somehow he is seen as menacing by refs: when the reality is he's a very gentlemanly player.

That said, he was daft yesterday, and that red'll never get rescinded in a million years, although I'm sure there was no violent intent.

[JamesBCFC]

11 minutes ago, southvillekiddy said:

Looking at it again and again, a few thoughts occur. The Charlton player doesn't seem to be making much effort to use his arms to get up/use the ball, instead he's not moving, with his legs over the ball it but you can still it, he's not covered it completely. If the ref. doesn't blow his whistle during all this then Fammy is entitled to go for the ball?  He could see a lot better than we can on the highlights where the ball was? Two out of the three kicks are definitely aimed at the ball under the player's legs from the side and not the player, you can see what he's trying to do. The last ones a bit iffy.

Then you have the indecision/disagreement among the 3 officials - initially the ref and linesman are saying no red.

It's the other Charlton layers steaming in that seems to be a big factor in awarding the red

So I think we have grounds for appeal

 

3 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I think so too. And at the risk of starting yet another "R-word debate", I think big, very dark-skinned players do get more cards. It's maybe a subconscious thing, but somehow he is seen as menacing by refs: when the reality is he's a very gentlemanly player.

That said, he was daft yesterday, and that red'll never get rescinded in a million years, although I'm sure there was no violent intent.

Got to agree with Robbo here.

Shouldn't have been a red IMO because there's only intent to get the ball. With the amount of cameras, etc the club will have access to they could probably provide enough evidence (especially if the referees report backs up what LJ said about it being 4th official talking ref into giving a red) to prevent the ban being extended and avoid any punishment for a "frivolous appeal", but the red wouldn't be overturned and we would be risking the "frivolous appeal" if we did challenge it.

[Up The City!]

6 hours ago, mozo said:

Watched it again. 1st kick, general direction of ball. 2nd kick, petulant boot to the lower back/arse, 3rd kick, petulant boot to the back of the legs

By the looks of it the lino raised his flag on the 1st kick and the ref blew the whistle so that confuses me as to what kick he was sent off for.

The 3rd kick I actually think he does get the ball, I think he puts his foot through under his knee and kicks it but the camera angle makes that very hard to see.