I didn't mean to start a gayoff

All I was saying was I thought it was a bit of a soft red. Certainly more of a red than Holt's at Reading though which cost us two points and God knows I'm not complaining!

Posted By: Old Man on November 28th 2010 at 14:34:52

Message Thread

That was a soft sending off. Payback for Reading, maybe. (n/m) (NCFC) - Old Man, Nov 28, 14:19:46
- was a blatant red (NCFC) - SCC 28, Nov 28, 14:21:03
  - i don't think it was a clear goalscoring opportunity (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, Nov 28, 14:24:22
    - however, it's not for the referee to judge a players pace. Through on goal, straight red (n/m) (NCFC) - double hipness, Nov 28, 14:27:06
      - well, rule doesn't say anything about last man (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, Nov 28, 14:28:40
        
        last man IS a clear goalscoring opp ffs (NCFC) - SCC 28, Nov 28, 14:32:03
        
        I didn't mean to start a gayoff (NCFC) - Old Man, Nov 28, 14:34:52
    - his pace seemed fine for the first goal (NCFC) - SCC 28, Nov 28, 14:26:08
  - hmmm.........I think if Ward would have gone for that...... (NCFC) - usacanary, Nov 28, 14:24:18
    - i'd have had no complaints (NCFC) - SCC 28, Nov 28, 14:27:04
  - I think he had a bit to do to score from there - not complaining (NCFC) - Old Man, Nov 28, 14:24:11
    - same as pens for fouls in the box when no danger (NCFC) - SCC 28, Nov 28, 14:27:52

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.