Mangle Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 PATHETIC PATHETIC PATHETIC. West Ham lost their appeal after an independent arbitrator rejected their appeal over Andy Carrols red card. An embarrassment. Flores rolled over 3 times clutching his face after taking a slight knock to his forehead. He blatantly cheated. It's ok the ref made a mistake. He has to react in the moment and with the cheat rolling around on the floor, he gets fooled. But after the luxury of review, it is clear what happened. Crazy decision. Children would have made a better job of it. Makes me sick. Football is played by cheats and run by fools. Sadly, I've said that before and I'll say it again. Sad day for football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Manning Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Mangle, please read the LOAF, it states to strike or attempt to strike, you do not have to make any contact so it`s irrelevant that the player goes down holding his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighairydave Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 But B Manning did Andy Carroll mean to strike or attempt to? I don't think so personally and can see why people are enraged by the decision! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Mr Manning, you miss the point. Flores was disgraceful. Blatant cheating. Plus, surely any strike or attempted strike has to be intentional? I am not getting at the ref, indeed I am supportive of the ref, this is a player problem, and the fools that run football. Remember Rooneys elbow of a Stoke player a couple of years back. No action. Complete rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppit Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 The sending off was correct but Flores should be suspended and fined for simulation, Carroll swung his arm, whether he made contact or not is irrelevant as Manning says, but Flores' reaction was a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianmooreshead Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Predictable response from Mr Manning In his world the ref never gets it wrong Florez conned Howard Webb. Webbs our ( alleged ) top ref. The blazers can't seen to be casting doubt on his ability when he's our flag bearer in the world cup One day decisions such as these will be reviewed post match and corrected accordingly Sadly that won't help West Ham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somersetspur Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 PATHETIC PATHETIC PATHETIC. West Ham lost their appeal after an independent arbitrator rejected their appeal over Andy Carrols red card. An embarrassment. Flores rolled over 3 times clutching his face after taking a slight knock to his forehead. He blatantly cheated. It's ok the ref made a mistake. He has to react in the moment and with the cheat rolling around on the floor, he gets fooled. But after the luxury of review, it is clear what happened. Crazy decision. Children would have made a better job of it. Makes me sick. Football is played by cheats and run by fools. Sadly, I've said that before and I'll say it again. Sad day for football. Dont go worrying to much,about Wet Spam and Carroll. Think your team might be getting a few headlines,this weekend.lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Manning Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Brianmoorshead, all I have done is quote the appropriate law, now if the referee deemed it as intentional then he was correct. Now I completely agree that Florez over reacted and in my humble opinion deserved a yellow card for simulation, but that is not the point in Law the offence is to strike or attempt to strike, so in reality contact does not have to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Intentional. duuuuuuuu. What a waste of ******* time even discussing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianmooreshead Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Howard Webb obviously thought that Carroll intended to strike Flores I don't agree. And listening to all the people in the game and the press all week, I didn't hear one person who agreed with Webbs interpretation But it was a foregone conclusion that the suits would agree with him ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Manning Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Well not quite correct there, in fact Graham Poll in his comments in the Mail on Sunday agree`d with Howard Webb`s decision. so that is at least one person. I am not sure why people try to get at me on this because if you read my post`s I have not agreed or disagreed with the decision, all I have done is to quote the LOAF which covered this incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Why not comment on the decision then. In any case, it's not the refs fault, HE WAS CONNED BY CHEATING. Do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieb Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 florres made a meal of it for sure but at the time when it happened to me it looked that carroll was looking for him yes [ florre] he should also have been booked but to me the intent was there to do some damage by carrol so at normal speed i think the ref was right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Yes at normal speed etc etc. Flores conned the ref. THE POINT IS THE APPEAL FAILED! Why? Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Keane is GOD!!! Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 yes at normal speed etc etc. Flores conned the ref. THE POINT IS THE APPEAL FAILED! Why? Pathetic.The appeal failed because Carrol intentionally went to elbow the player. Right decision in my opinion. He caught Florres whether it was slight or not, i cant see how you can be surprised?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 What do you think of the reaction of Flores? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 And no he didn't. But that is a matter of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Recall Rooney's intentional elbow of the Stoke player do you Rob? Credit to the Stoke player for not going down like he'd been shot, but that allowed Rooney to get away with it. Perhaps he should have played dead and Rooney would probably have been banned. But that's not right is it. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Darren Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 The fa were never going to go against Webb. They say he's our best when in reality he's a jumped up copper and believes he's more important than he is. Flores should be cited for his reaction. There's been far worse than what Carroll done that has gone unpunished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasa Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 A ref once unintentionally elbowed Robbie Savage in the face. Pure accident with natural movement of his arm. What's the difference? Has he been given a 3 match ban from refereeing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Mr Manning. I assume Belamy will be red carded once the game is reviewed today after his intentional petty strike of an opponents neck/head off the ball, and perhaps also Toure too for his girlie kick out (assuming intentional kicking is treated the same as striking)? Otherwise, how can it be justified that Carroll is sitting out, banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheolderIgetthebetterIwas Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Bollocks, bollocks and bollocks, bunch of fecking fairies rolling around like they've been shot. They all need to man up, from the players to the FA - mans game - get on with it , they're ruining it. Simple solution ... send the cheats off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Manning Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 Mangle, If in his report the referee states that he did not see the incident then you should be correct in that assumption, but that is only my personal opinion. PS blimey we agree !. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac rosenberg Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think Mr Manning and Mr Webb were right. Carroll's brutal Neanderthal face registered distinct aggression. :)West Ham will do better if they use Cole instead anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 So, Toure's intentional kick of an opponent was obviously not hard enough. Agreed Mr Manning? The LOAF, according to what you say above, says "to strike or attempt to strike"......and you go on to say that you do not even have to make any contact. So, assuming that kicking someone is counted the same as striking someone, although Toure intentionally kicked an opponent, and made contact, no action is necessary is because he did not kick the opponent hard enough. Well.....?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Eddy Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 I kicked out at a player during a game and missed by a mile, but! still got booked. cost me a quid, shows you how long ago that was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Manning Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Mangle, I have not seen any action resulting from that kick, but in my opinion he should have been given a red card and if the FA are using retrospective evidence he should still have been given a ban. i hope that settles my personal position on the subject. PS I have just seen the article in the paper and really It`s beyond belief, how on earth those ex referee`s arrived at that decision I cannot begin to imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Keane is GOD!!! Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 I dont think its got anything to do with manning up. The point is,the ref thinks that Carrol intentionally went to elbow florres. They dont base their judgement on how the opponent reacts. In my opinion i genuinely think that Carrol intentionally went to elbow the player.Then, if im correct the ref got it right sending him off, protects other players from maybe a similar incident that may of ended up with some one with a fractured skull or broken nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Perhaps such rulings need a panel of 12 good men from a Divisions at least two away from the match in which the incidents occurs. After all, we are talking about TV games and every match in all 4 top Divs are now covered by cameras. Twelve players are sent incidents to adjudicate on, not knowing who else has been sent the same incident, so no conferring please. A 10-2 majority to overturn a decision would be required so as to not favour a fellow player. It can't be any worse than having those who are paid by the FA to sit on their hands, and do bugger all to make the game a better one to watch and partake in. As for the great big lumbering Wet Spam forward, you can see by his movements that he had no intention to strike the opponent, they had tangled and Carroll was turning to appeal to the Ref, the opponent was accidentally caught and made a 7 course banquet out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Yes the referee made a big mistake but he gave what he thinks he saw. Unfortunately all Carroll is guilty of is swinging his arms as his body rotated, he did not have a clue where Flores was after he had been fouled so the red card should have been rescinded. Flores once again collapses in a heap holding his face when his arm never reached his face it caught him on the top of the head. Unfortunately the powers to be are reluctant not to go against a referee. If that is the case then they should be doing another job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Rob, he did near take Flores's girlie ponytail clean off, so on seconds thoughts, he had to go. Seriously though, you're in the minority here, it was a nothing incident completely mishandled by idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Keane is GOD!!! Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Mangs, that is what sets us apart. We all see things differently, whether right or wrong, i dont think you/me/anybody can start to undermine a refs decision. He seen it one way,and acted to the letter of the law. Now, if Carrol had jumped up, elbowed florres eyeball out and not got punished, you would be on here slating the ref for failing in his job.So basically he is'nt going to win?Why not start giving retrospective penalties or docking points for all the shirt pulling and smothering that goes on at corners, that refs dont punish.My point is, why dont we just let refs get on with their jobs,all these talking points are what make the game what it is.Also you know the old saying " Under every pony tail, theres an arsehole!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 uhh, I have not slated the ref. The ref was conned by a cheat. Although you disagree, and believe that the incident merited a red card, and you are in a very small minority there, I still think that the cheating by Flores should be punished. You do not think so I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Keane is GOD!!! Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 uhh, I have not slated the ref. The ref was conned by a cheat. Although you disagree, and believe that the incident merited a red card, and you are in a very small minority there, I still think that the cheating by Flores should be punished. You do not think so I guess?How did he cheat? He got caught by Carrols elbow!The ref does not send a player off because someone rolls around on the ground, he seen the elbow. How can you judge florres pain threshhold, some people can take a dig and others are more suseptible(?)to go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Keane is GOD!!! Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 I just watched it again, so in your opinion, you dont think that Caroll takes a swing at the player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheolderIgetthebetterIwas Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 I was caught twice when playing with a flailing arm/elbow, rubbed my noggin - and said - I'll have you - you fecker. Didn't fall down, didn't roll around on the ground - just got on with it. Bunch of pussies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bemerzzz Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 The fact Flores overreacted is irrelevant. It cannot be deemed simulation as it is not, it is exaggeration. (Still not a red card mind you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Darren Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Did he get caught in the face (what he was holding when he went down) or on top of head. That's what mangle is talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Keane is GOD!!! Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Did he get caught in the face (what he was holding when he went down) or on top of head. That's what mangle is talking aboutEither way, in my opinion, it was done with intent. So whether its the face/head/chest etc he has to go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Keane is GOD!!! Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 I was caught twice when playing with a flailing arm/elbow, rubbed my noggin - and said - I'll have you - you fecker. Didn't fall down, didn't roll around on the ground - just got on with it. Bunch of pussies.Different era now older!! Im old school too, revenge on the pitch was part of the game back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Manning Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Roy, at least we had the sense to wait a while and do it while the ref wasn`t looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Feigning injury. Cheating. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Only Carroll will know what he "intended". I do not think that he intended to elbow Flores. They were tangled, and the big guy that he is, decided to use his weight at continuing to untangle. I am sure he was not concerned about any contact with Flores, but at the same time, he does not appear, to me, to intentionally try to elbow him. It's "6 of one and half a dozen of the other". I think if he had intentionally tried to elbow him, it would have been obvious, and his arm would have been bent. Tell me, since you watched it again, how many times did Flores roll over on the ground, clutching his face (which had not be involved in any contact)? Was that justified? Was it necessary? Was it real? Was it done in an attempt to con the referee into believing that he had been smashed in the face and really hurt? Was it done to try to get Carroll sent off? These are simple questions....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Manning Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Mangle, no I have not counted how many times he rolled over, that does not concern me( I also agree he made a meal of it,) fact Carroll swung an arm backwards, it contacted his opponent, the referee had a good close view of the incident and his decision was a red card. Now this playacting occurs not only at the top games but also to me in my grass root football and I hope I read it correctly and take the correct action, note the words " I hope" because I can be deceived as well as the next referee. I have had instances where a player deliberately runs into a defender in the box goes down theatrically screaming for a penalty and guess what, it`s me who " bottles it" and gets grief from all their team and manager etc, but I can assure you I will continue to make those difficult decisions regardless of the crap that is heading my way, the day i cannot make decisions is the day I hang up my boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Keane is GOD!!! Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 Mangle, you are missing the point completely. Florres action had no bearing on the decision. Its as simple as this, if the ref does not see it, he cannot give it! If he missed the elbow, do you seriously think that he sent him off cos a player rolled around on the ground a few times. They aint even entangled when the elbow is flung, florres is on the way to the floor as he rode on carolls back to win the header.It was nt done in an attempt to con the ref, he was actually hit! I cant see how anyone can defend Caroll??Ok,Let me ask you this, Overmars in the 99 fa cup semi where he got Keane sent off, he is diving through the air physically looking to see if the ref is watching, then rolls for about 10 mins. Did you think back then that overmars should be done for cheating?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Darren Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 If Flores gets on with it without rolling round then Carroll probably doesn't get went off cos the ref will think he's not done anything. Rolling round on the floor is an act of trying to con the ref, simples. No other reason for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 Don't think I'm missing the point Rob. Please answer my questions, they're easy! To answer yours, yes, Overmars was a cheat. Just because he plays for Arsenal, I am not going to defend him. I despise cheats and cheating. Seriously, come on, seriously, Flores was not hurt. I know you know it, and for some reason you are avoiding that. I don't give 2 fuccks about Carroll. I'm not a fan of his, but the ref was conned. You know it. If Flores did not react at all, Carroll would not have been red carded. It's Rivaldo all over. Anyway, those questions..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Manning Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 Mangle, the referee was not conned, Howard Webb reacted to the arm being moved backwards and striking his opponent, now we cannot argue about that because he had a close and unobstructed view of the incident and the red card was his decision from what he saw. I completely agree that Flores overeacted but it still does not change the fact that Carroll`s arm struck Flores on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangle Posted February 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 Ok. I take your point. I don't agree, but it is a fair point, but I believe in what I said a few posts ago. So, lets say we agree to disagree about Carroll. Lets turn our attention to the cheating Flores (again - my opinion!). Can you answer these questions:- 1. How many times did Flores roll over on the ground, clutching his face (which had not be involved in any contact)? 2. Was that justified? 3. Was it necessary? 4. Was it real (was he in excruciating pain necessitating that reaction)? 5. Was it done in an attempt to con the referee into believing that he had been smashed in the face and really hurt? 6. Was it done to try to get Carroll sent off? Simple questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Manning Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Morning Mangle ( no footie again today for me ! ) I will try to answer your questions with my own personal opinion, 1. No idea did not bother to count, 2. No rolling around was not justified, but players seem to think it`s the thing to do. 3. No exaggeration/simulation was necessary, 4. Not in my opinion, 5. You would need to ask the player about his intentions, I would not attempt to second guess. 6. Exactly the same answer as above. Simple answers I hope, but they are my honest thoughts. As I have already posted players at all levels try to influence the referee but I can assure you any referee with reasonable experience is not taken in by all the theatrics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now