Try Again coatpile

4 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Sounds like tonight the biggest issue we had was scoring despite numerous good chances.

Goes to show again that we had to bring someone in last month and failed to do us. Will most likely cost us more than once between now and the end of the season.

Edit: was there a reason Mebude wasn’t involved tonight?

Mebude couldn't play because he wasn't our player when the first match happened. There were some recent Forest signings in the same boat I believe 

Thanks for posting! Perhaps not the time for analysing the comments at the end though... 

Hadn't been able to look at sport today until now. Was just checking the BBC website and saw that from the (I'm sure very scientific) player ratings from fans he was the best from Bournemouth (6.36).

Let's see if it changes, especially after MOTD

8 minutes ago, phantom said:

That's a very sensible and logical answer, and certainly makes sense @Try Again coatpile

 

Thank you!! Not often I get that response to something I say 

2 hours ago, phantom said:

I thought this was an odd statement for the club to make 

Often players are just referred to as not being fit etc (just look at the silence around Tomas Kalas) 

I wonder whether it's because she's in hospital and so likely to be seen by the public there and so it's known it's not 'a football injury', whereas other injuries, like Tomas Kalas', are treated in house and so details don't need to be given. This way the club have helped to explain a bit and cut down wild speculation, without giving too many details?

Wishing her a speedy recovery (and for her family) and thanks to all the great folk in our hospitals

2 hours ago, Roger Red Hat said:

Was it?

I think so, but then he saw it was going in so he just let it carry on. I think he could have reached it and controlled it if that had been necessary 

I actually got to go tonight! Amazed how things changed when Scott came on. Went past a couple of people quickly and you could see the confidence drain out of Wycombe and they started getting nervous and backing off. They brought on someone who looked like a regular first teamer who tried clogging him thinking that would put him off - which obviously was not the case! Then Antoine came on and they got even more scared and couldn't handle him and Tommy together. Thought it was so funny watching them trying to get the ball of Antoine in the corner at the end...

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Mate that particular point has been done to death hasn't it? It was a red. Rule 12 covers it. Key part is:

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

There's then a list, one of which is "serious foul play". That is defined as follows:

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

I am quite satisfied that the Sykes tackle fits the above. It was a fair red card.

As to Pearson agreeing, or at least having "no complaints" with the red. That's in his Sky post match interview. First question, at the following link.

This is the bit that bugs me most about the cut of the sky YouTube - it makes it look like he's complaining about the decision he isn't actually complaining about (also the one that the majority of replies on here seem to agree was at least reasonable) and deflecting away from the ones that he and we are - some of which we have a letter of apology for. (If I wanted reporting like that I'd watch the political news)

Just watched the clip of Nige on the Sky Sports YouTube channel (with comments by David James) - very interesting the way they've cut it... They've not included the bit about the letter re the Hull game and sort of given the impression it was all about the sending off last night. Thought that was v. poor (though perhaps not totally unexpected from Sky).

10 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I am disappointed that there won't be any standard coverage of these games, I have enjoyed watching them.

I do wonder whether the club feel that learning your trade in front of a handful of people at the HPC is preferable to the youngsters being given a wider audience and opening them to criticism or too much praise at a vulnerable part of their career.

There are always those who are quick to write off a kid or demand his inclusion, based on one game.

Thanks for posting PSR.

I think those last two paras are a really important point - it's less likely that social media reactions get out of hand this way.

(Also, the Premier League academy scouts will at least have to get off their backsides if they want to pick up our latest crop of brilliant youngsters...)

Would it be possible to make an estimate from figures that have been given and issue a provisional punishment that would be looked at again if they cooperate properly by a given date?

On 18/03/2021 at 14:39, Alan Dicks said:

True... I was born and raised in Fishponds, been City all my life along with quite a few other reds.

I’m a fishponds boy too, thankfully my dad is from Bishopsworth and had a season ticket, so I was saved from turning to the blue side... Did used to go to the speedway sometimes though. Don’t think there was any lasting damage!

I don't post much, but just wanted to say how much I appreciate everything that goes into this thread. I may not understand all of the technicalities, but it's great to get an insight into how the outside constraints on finances work, and how the governance follows (or mostly doesn't!!) on from that. I can't imagine there are many forums (fora!!?!) with this level of discussion. Thanks again, TAc