Jump to content
IGNORED

At last - some unbiased commentary


Silvio Dante

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Super said:

In fairness his studs are up it's pretty reckless.

 

5 minutes ago, Super said:

In fairness his studs are up it's pretty reckless.

You could also argue that Bamford's studs were also up which anyway is irrelevant as there was no contact, sending off will be rightly overturned, Bamford has lots of history for cheating which we'll have to be aware of on Saturday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TV Tom said:

 

You could also argue that Bamford's studs were also up which anyway is irrelevant as there was no contact, sending off will be rightly overturned, Bamford has lots of history for cheating which we'll have to be aware of on Saturday

Does there have to be contact? He's reckless with studs up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, supercidered said:

Both players have their studs up. Doesn't have to be contact but Keeper should have got a Yellow and Bamford a Yellow for trying to con the Ref. 

Bamford isn't out of control though that's the difference. Not defending Bamford but does the keeper launching himself put him off balance? He'll be the only one that knows that.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Super said:

Bamford isn't out of control though that's the difference. Not defending Bamford but does the keeper launching himself put him off balance? He'll be the only one that knows that.

Bamford is in control of his instinct which is to try and con the ref i.e. cheat rather than stay on his feet which he could have. If the ball had gone to his right instead of to the covering defender, I bet he would have stayed on his feet because he would have been in on goal.

The only question is should it still be a free kick? The answer in my opinion is yes, because the keeper was reckless in that he was never getting the ball and just because there was no contact it doesn't mean no free kick. Keeper should have got a Yellow. However, Bamford should also get a Yellow for trying to con the ref.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bamford doesn't go down like a sack of spuds or roll around as if he's auditioning for the foul of the year. He is trying to play on by getting to his feet when the ref blows.

As others have said, the keeper's studs were raised (he was entitled to go for the ball and out of the area). I query the need to call PB a 'Cheat' on this occasion.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Norn Iron said:

Bamford doesn't go down like a sack of spuds or roll around as if he's auditioning for the foul of the year. He is trying to play on by getting to his feet when the ref blows.

As others have said, the keeper's studs were raised (he was entitled to go for the ball and out of the area). I query the need to call PB a 'Cheat' on this occasion.

 

He doesn't roll around but he did go down like a sack of spuds. He knew exactly what he was doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

He has previous for deceiving the officials , so I side with the keeper.

All I will add, and I take all the "out of control" arguments , if he doesn't go down would the keeper be sent off ?

Screenshot2023-10-05at10_11_53.png.a95acd6d205d682e0e94680729fee4bf.png

If Bamford would of stayed on his feet the keeper wouldn't even of got booked never mind sent off, the ref has been conned by this serial cheat

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The keeper is way out of control with studs showing, Bamford needs to sway heavily out of the way to avoid being decapitated. It's that that leads to him going to ground not any intention to con the referee. He immediately tries to get to his feet to play on. 

Reckless from Begovic deserved red card. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
1 hour ago, Super said:

Bamford isn't out of control though that's the difference. Not defending Bamford but does the keeper launching himself put him off balance? He'll be the only one that knows that.

But wouldn't have made him fall over

I wonder if his initial reaction was to go down, but in an instant realised there wasn't the contact that he was expecting?

Hence why he was up fairly instantly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

He has previous for deceiving the officials , so I side with the keeper.

All I will add, and I take all the "out of control" arguments , if he doesn't go down would the keeper be sent off ?

Screenshot2023-10-05at10_11_53.png.a95acd6d205d682e0e94680729fee4bf.png

In fairness that is somewhat out of context, that was a free for all and came about when Aston Villa forgot to play to the whistle and threw their toys out. Yes Bamford has previous but there was a bit of wider context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In fairness that is somewhat out of context, that was a free for all and came about when Aston Villa forgot to play to the whistle and threw their toys out. Yes Bamford has previous but there was a bit of wider context.

It was a free for all, but Bamford grabs someone around the throat, then throws himself down holding his face to get someone sent off.  He got booked, and got someone sent off, big advantage for the rest of the game.
I don't like Villa, thought it was funny when Leeds scored that goal, but I don't like cheats and Bamford is a proven cheat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 1960maaan said:

It was a free for all, but Bamford grabs someone around the throat, then throws himself down holding his face to get someone sent off.  He got booked, and got someone sent off, big advantage for the rest of the game.
I don't like Villa, thought it was funny when Leeds scored that goal, but I don't like cheats and Bamford is a proven cheat.

Hourihane should have had a retrospective ban too probably, it was funny but Aston Villa and their reaction was a bit disgraceful. Definitely Bamford deserved his ban but Aston Villa never seem to get quite what they deserve for their misdeeds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...