Phil Parkinson brands Kyle Bennett red card harsh as promising Bradford City debut cut short

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: City debutant Kyle Bennett and Preston opponent Neil Kilkenny square up before both players were dismissed by referee Stuart Attwell City debutant Kyle Bennett and Preston opponent Neil Kilkenny square up before both players were dismissed by referee Stuart Attwell

Phil Parkinson accused referee Stuart Attwell of not using his common-sense after Kyle Bennett was involved in a double sending off on his City debut.

The on-loan winger was red-carded with Preston midfielder Neil Kilkenny after just 25 minutes of last night’s goalless draw at Valley Parade.

City may look to appeal to get the potential three-game ban reduced because of the lack of force involved in their tussle.

Both players did raise their arms but Parkinson and opposite number Simon Grayson felt the official was too hasty to send them packing.

Parkinson said: “Stuart Attwell is a ref who came into the Premier League with a great fanfare. We’ve had him before and he’s always refereed well.

“But I thought he could have used his common-sense. Two of the most technical players on the pitch got brought off and it looked innocuous to me.

“If they did raise their hands, then he’ll say technically he was right. But for me refereeing is about common-sense and that’s got to prevail.

“Benno started the game really bright. He’s a terrific talent and a player I was excited to see. I knew our supporters would warm to him because he has real ability – but unfortunately it was not to be.”

Grayson added: “The ref could have given himself a bit more breathing space and thought longer about it. Yellow cards for both players would have been a fair outcome.”

The two red cards marred a lively game which saw City pick up their first clean sheet since November 2. It was a fitting comeback for Andrew Davies after nearly four months out following his knee operation.

Parkinson said: “To be out that long, not have a reserve game and then come in and play like that – my goodness me!

“It’s a great achievement. I wasn’t too happy with his mazy runs down the left wing but he was just brilliant.

“He’s a presence at the back and I thought Batesy (Matthew Bates) did well in an unorthodox position as well. While Davo’s feeling his way back in, it’s important we don’t get exposed and he knew Batesy would be strong next to him.”

Fourth-placed Preston, who have lost only twice away all season, hit the woodwork but City also had their chances. Aaron Mclean had the best on his home debut but shot straight at the keeper.

Parkinson said: “It was a bit of chess (after the sendings off). We had a gamble by leaving our front two at the top of the pitch and they went more solid.

“I thought it was two honest teams out there in difficult conditions. I’ve got to give our ground staff enormous credit because the pitch held up really well after all the rain we’ve had.”

Parkinson also handed a debut to Adam Reach and he was delighted with the Middlesbrough winger’s contribution.

The City boss said: “Adam got better and better as the game wore on. The supporters saw he’s a great athlete.

“It was difficult for him because when we went to 4-3-2 he had to stay narrow and do a job for the team. But his effort was immense and you can see he’s a confident boy.”

Meanwhile, Northampton are expected to take over Alan Connell’s contract. The deal was close to being done last night.

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:32am Wed 29 Jan 14

tyker2 says...

raise your hands to another player is a sending off offence : no arguments but Kilkenny's actions were disgraceful designed to get a player definitely sent off by feigning a knock out punch. Such antics should result in a ban of at least one more game.
raise your hands to another player is a sending off offence : no arguments but Kilkenny's actions were disgraceful designed to get a player definitely sent off by feigning a knock out punch. Such antics should result in a ban of at least one more game. tyker2

8:59am Wed 29 Jan 14

BigFigure says...

Check Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct...Sending Off offences...nothing about "raising hands is sending off offence" as people seem to think. The ref has to make a call on "violent conduct", in this case he clearly over-reacted. And now both clubs will be without a player for 3 games. Have a word and get on with it,ref
Check Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct...Sending Off offences...nothing about "raising hands is sending off offence" as people seem to think. The ref has to make a call on "violent conduct", in this case he clearly over-reacted. And now both clubs will be without a player for 3 games. Have a word and get on with it,ref BigFigure

9:36am Wed 29 Jan 14

dannbradfc says...

I for one encourage our players crossing the half way line ;-).....

decent game to watch but both teams appeared to be concentrating more on not losing the game than winning it.

Davies, Darby and Jones were great........McCardl
e was pants.

The wingers showed glimpses and i only hope that at home at least they are allowed to attack and play theire natural game and not be overly concentrating on defensive duties. They can do both.......
I for one encourage our players crossing the half way line ;-)..... decent game to watch but both teams appeared to be concentrating more on not losing the game than winning it. Davies, Darby and Jones were great........McCardl e was pants. The wingers showed glimpses and i only hope that at home at least they are allowed to attack and play theire natural game and not be overly concentrating on defensive duties. They can do both....... dannbradfc

9:40am Wed 29 Jan 14

IPWT22 says...

City should send the Fa a Video of the Goodison Elbow that was deemed a yellow card on reid and i quote "No Excessive Force was used" bennets raised hand then wouldn't even be a booking in comparison
City should send the Fa a Video of the Goodison Elbow that was deemed a yellow card on reid and i quote "No Excessive Force was used" bennets raised hand then wouldn't even be a booking in comparison IPWT22

9:59am Wed 29 Jan 14

tyker2 says...

BigFigure wrote:
Check Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct...Sending Off offences...nothing about "raising hands is sending off offence" as people seem to think. The ref has to make a call on "violent conduct", in this case he clearly over-reacted. And now both clubs will be without a player for 3 games. Have a word and get on with it,ref
in what other way could raising hands into or near an opponents head in a front on confrontational position NOT be regarded violent conduct.

THE GOODSISON INCIDENT WAS VIOLENT CONDUCT AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT OFF ....................
.... HOWEVER TWO WRONGS NEVER MADE A RIGH
[quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: Check Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct...Sending Off offences...nothing about "raising hands is sending off offence" as people seem to think. The ref has to make a call on "violent conduct", in this case he clearly over-reacted. And now both clubs will be without a player for 3 games. Have a word and get on with it,ref[/p][/quote]in what other way could raising hands into or near an opponents head in a front on confrontational position NOT be regarded violent conduct. THE GOODSISON INCIDENT WAS VIOLENT CONDUCT AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT OFF .................... .... HOWEVER TWO WRONGS NEVER MADE A RIGH tyker2

10:15am Wed 29 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

IPWT22 wrote:
City should send the Fa a Video of the Goodison Elbow that was deemed a yellow card on reid and i quote "No Excessive Force was used" bennets raised hand then wouldn't even be a booking in comparison
Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Excessive force is open to interpretation and it's for the ref/FA to decide what is excessive. Nothing will come from reviewing this decision as he did raise his hands and as anyone who watches football knows, this almost always ends in tears these days.
[quote][p][bold]IPWT22[/bold] wrote: City should send the Fa a Video of the Goodison Elbow that was deemed a yellow card on reid and i quote "No Excessive Force was used" bennets raised hand then wouldn't even be a booking in comparison[/p][/quote]Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Excessive force is open to interpretation and it's for the ref/FA to decide what is excessive. Nothing will come from reviewing this decision as he did raise his hands and as anyone who watches football knows, this almost always ends in tears these days. Farsley Bantam

10:35am Wed 29 Jan 14

pudseykid says...

Its rather good that both Managers saw things the same way...for too many refs these days, the game is about THEM, not about the game...we see too many go unpunished in the game...we also see things punished that others manage to get away with...better referring at all levels is required.
Its rather good that both Managers saw things the same way...for too many refs these days, the game is about THEM, not about the game...we see too many go unpunished in the game...we also see things punished that others manage to get away with...better referring at all levels is required. pudseykid

10:44am Wed 29 Jan 14

Bantamania says...

Knew straight away Bennett would be sent off after having a go at Kilkenny but to fall like he did Kilkenny deserved a red as well.

Preston came with a great away record but i thought they were there for the taking IF we had put a bit more pressure on them. In the end a fair result though, but I wasn't that impressed with Preston.

McArdle had his worse game in a City shirt, and Bates looked completely lost at left back.....especially when going forward.....he had no idea where to put himself......I think that's why Davies went forward a lot down the left, especially in the second half. Impressed by Bennett in the short time he was on the pitch, and Reach improved throughout the game and looks a good addition to the squad. Thought McLoughlin looked jittery again though. Davies & Jones were superb and Darby had his usual steady game. Hanson & Mclean......not convinced this is going to work!!

A decent point, but where oh where is the next win coming from!!
Knew straight away Bennett would be sent off after having a go at Kilkenny but to fall like he did Kilkenny deserved a red as well. Preston came with a great away record but i thought they were there for the taking IF we had put a bit more pressure on them. In the end a fair result though, but I wasn't that impressed with Preston. McArdle had his worse game in a City shirt, and Bates looked completely lost at left back.....especially when going forward.....he had no idea where to put himself......I think that's why Davies went forward a lot down the left, especially in the second half. Impressed by Bennett in the short time he was on the pitch, and Reach improved throughout the game and looks a good addition to the squad. Thought McLoughlin looked jittery again though. Davies & Jones were superb and Darby had his usual steady game. Hanson & Mclean......not convinced this is going to work!! A decent point, but where oh where is the next win coming from!! Bantamania

11:04am Wed 29 Jan 14

TheCoach says...

I'm affraid McArdle is a bit of a one trick pony, don't get me wrong, the guy's effort goes without question but in all fairness his distribution is one dimensional, the headers he wins generally go anywhere, when he wins the ball at his feet it's generally a punt upto Hanson (or last night, a pass to their centre forward!!:))

I hate knocking the guy because hes put in some immense performances over the past 18 months and scored some big goals but I feel we just need a bit more. Davo is in a different league but I think he needs a bit more assurance around him.

I thought Bates 'did a job' at LB. At the end of the day he's a centre half, you can't expect the same attacking threat you get with Meredith.

Bennett looked good before his dismissal, pathetic effort from the ref but thought he did well to send kilkenny off for his part. At least this evened it up. Otherwise I thought the ref didn't have a bad game.

Can't help but feel last night had Reid been on the wing with the space Reach had in the 2nd half he would have skinned their full back. Reach looked good with some nice touches but just looked to lack a yard to actually get past the defender. But still looks a handy addition.

All in all an improved perfomance on a heavy surface, onwards and upwards!!
I'm affraid McArdle is a bit of a one trick pony, don't get me wrong, the guy's effort goes without question but in all fairness his distribution is one dimensional, the headers he wins generally go anywhere, when he wins the ball at his feet it's generally a punt upto Hanson (or last night, a pass to their centre forward!!:)) I hate knocking the guy because hes put in some immense performances over the past 18 months and scored some big goals but I feel we just need a bit more. Davo is in a different league but I think he needs a bit more assurance around him. I thought Bates 'did a job' at LB. At the end of the day he's a centre half, you can't expect the same attacking threat you get with Meredith. Bennett looked good before his dismissal, pathetic effort from the ref but thought he did well to send kilkenny off for his part. At least this evened it up. Otherwise I thought the ref didn't have a bad game. Can't help but feel last night had Reid been on the wing with the space Reach had in the 2nd half he would have skinned their full back. Reach looked good with some nice touches but just looked to lack a yard to actually get past the defender. But still looks a handy addition. All in all an improved perfomance on a heavy surface, onwards and upwards!! TheCoach

12:09pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Rambo says...

In the replay Kilkenny actually falls to the ground after being shoved by another Preston player, which makes it even more farcical.
In the replay Kilkenny actually falls to the ground after being shoved by another Preston player, which makes it even more farcical. Rambo

12:52pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Victor Clayton says...

get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS!
get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS! Victor Clayton

12:57pm Wed 29 Jan 14

KnightMcCall says...

Bantamania wrote:
Knew straight away Bennett would be sent off after having a go at Kilkenny but to fall like he did Kilkenny deserved a red as well.

Preston came with a great away record but i thought they were there for the taking IF we had put a bit more pressure on them. In the end a fair result though, but I wasn't that impressed with Preston.

McArdle had his worse game in a City shirt, and Bates looked completely lost at left back.....especially when going forward.....he had no idea where to put himself......I think that's why Davies went forward a lot down the left, especially in the second half. Impressed by Bennett in the short time he was on the pitch, and Reach improved throughout the game and looks a good addition to the squad. Thought McLoughlin looked jittery again though. Davies & Jones were superb and Darby had his usual steady game. Hanson & Mclean......not convinced this is going to work!!

A decent point, but where oh where is the next win coming from!!
The next Wynne will come from Wales.
[quote][p][bold]Bantamania[/bold] wrote: Knew straight away Bennett would be sent off after having a go at Kilkenny but to fall like he did Kilkenny deserved a red as well. Preston came with a great away record but i thought they were there for the taking IF we had put a bit more pressure on them. In the end a fair result though, but I wasn't that impressed with Preston. McArdle had his worse game in a City shirt, and Bates looked completely lost at left back.....especially when going forward.....he had no idea where to put himself......I think that's why Davies went forward a lot down the left, especially in the second half. Impressed by Bennett in the short time he was on the pitch, and Reach improved throughout the game and looks a good addition to the squad. Thought McLoughlin looked jittery again though. Davies & Jones were superb and Darby had his usual steady game. Hanson & Mclean......not convinced this is going to work!! A decent point, but where oh where is the next win coming from!![/p][/quote]The next Wynne will come from Wales. KnightMcCall

1:03pm Wed 29 Jan 14

minkiebantam says...

Overall, a good performance by the team. Yes Mcardle and Bates had a crazy 10mins, Mclean should have buried his one on one chance and a Ref of Attwell's ability should have used his common sense and not been too rash with the red cards, Spoilt a great game IMO. Kilkenny's "Platoon style" fall to the ground like he had been shot in the face, probably made the refs decision for him. At least he was Consistent in sending both off.
The best part of last night was of coarse having the mighty Davo back. Jeez, how we have missed him. For his 1st game back, he was immense!! with some fantastic blocks and runs to block off the real threat of the ball over the top, which to be fair to Preston they used extremly well.
In addition to that, You can see why preston have not leaked too many goals. They were solid at the back and did well at dealing with set pieces.
A well done to the new lads as well, Reach grew into the game and Bennett looks a promising player, (When he gets back!).
Anyway, THE WOLVES ARE COMING!!
Come on City, keep up this kind of performance and we will be there or there abouts come May.
CTID!!
Overall, a good performance by the team. Yes Mcardle and Bates had a crazy 10mins, Mclean should have buried his one on one chance and a Ref of Attwell's ability should have used his common sense and not been too rash with the red cards, Spoilt a great game IMO. Kilkenny's "Platoon style" fall to the ground like he had been shot in the face, probably made the refs decision for him. At least he was Consistent in sending both off. The best part of last night was of coarse having the mighty Davo back. Jeez, how we have missed him. For his 1st game back, he was immense!! with some fantastic blocks and runs to block off the real threat of the ball over the top, which to be fair to Preston they used extremly well. In addition to that, You can see why preston have not leaked too many goals. They were solid at the back and did well at dealing with set pieces. A well done to the new lads as well, Reach grew into the game and Bennett looks a promising player, (When he gets back!). Anyway, THE WOLVES ARE COMING!! Come on City, keep up this kind of performance and we will be there or there abouts come May. CTID!! minkiebantam

1:05pm Wed 29 Jan 14

KnightMcCall says...

Bennet had to go. We keep begging for consistency from Refs and raising your hands into someone's face SHOULD be a red card offence. NOt sure it merits a three game ban but the ref was right to send him off (that is the ludicrous FA rules though). I wonder if Kilkenny would have stayed on the pitch if he had stayed on his feet. I thought the ref did us a favour sending them both off.

As for the game, I thought it was poor from us. No penetration at all despite some encouraging displays from Darby (What does he have to do to get a MOM), Davies and Bates. Only Reach did much in front of the back four with McCardle looking very shaky. Jones worked very hard but he didn't create enough.

Preston are a strong and well organised team though and made it difficult for us to find space. I thought on the balance of play, we were lucky to get a draw.
Bennet had to go. We keep begging for consistency from Refs and raising your hands into someone's face SHOULD be a red card offence. NOt sure it merits a three game ban but the ref was right to send him off (that is the ludicrous FA rules though). I wonder if Kilkenny would have stayed on the pitch if he had stayed on his feet. I thought the ref did us a favour sending them both off. As for the game, I thought it was poor from us. No penetration at all despite some encouraging displays from Darby (What does he have to do to get a MOM), Davies and Bates. Only Reach did much in front of the back four with McCardle looking very shaky. Jones worked very hard but he didn't create enough. Preston are a strong and well organised team though and made it difficult for us to find space. I thought on the balance of play, we were lucky to get a draw. KnightMcCall

1:07pm Wed 29 Jan 14

theoutsider says...

In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.
In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?. theoutsider

1:13pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Victor Clayton says...

theoutsider wrote:
In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.
he has moved on i think.
[quote][p][bold]theoutsider[/bold] wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.[/p][/quote]he has moved on i think. Victor Clayton

1:28pm Wed 29 Jan 14

theoutsider says...

Who's moved on? ..we know Connell's gone if that what you getting at but had it been Connell on the bench I could fathom it. But hauling off McLean our new striker in need of confidence, game time, managers belief etc.. and sticking on Oli Mc what McLean going to make of that. He should have finished the game; as I say unless he was injured. Just before he was subed McLean had a great chance. Preston's defender could never really settle with Hans and McLean pressing. Then Parky shouts come in No21 ? baffled me did we want to win it or settle for a draw.
Who's moved on? ..we know Connell's gone if that what you getting at but had it been Connell on the bench I could fathom it. But hauling off McLean our new striker in need of confidence, game time, managers belief etc.. and sticking on Oli Mc what McLean going to make of that. He should have finished the game; as I say unless he was injured. Just before he was subed McLean had a great chance. Preston's defender could never really settle with Hans and McLean pressing. Then Parky shouts come in No21 ? baffled me did we want to win it or settle for a draw. theoutsider

1:28pm Wed 29 Jan 14

BigFigure says...

Check out the video of the incident....handbags all day long. And to cap it all Kilkenny falls over after being pulled back by one of his own players. Two reds? World's gone mad.
Check out the video of the incident....handbags all day long. And to cap it all Kilkenny falls over after being pulled back by one of his own players. Two reds? World's gone mad. BigFigure

1:30pm Wed 29 Jan 14

-HCK3R- says...

Maybe the emphasis should be on the fact Its now 10 games since a win instead of another "the ref was terrible" story......
Maybe the emphasis should be on the fact Its now 10 games since a win instead of another "the ref was terrible" story...... -HCK3R-

1:43pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

-HCK3R- wrote:
Maybe the emphasis should be on the fact Its now 10 games since a win instead of another "the ref was terrible" story......
Maybe if someone had said at the start of the season, "we won't lose to either Preston or Sheff U" they'd have been laughed at.

Maybe the emphasis should be we are firmly in mid table.
[quote][p][bold]-HCK3R-[/bold] wrote: Maybe the emphasis should be on the fact Its now 10 games since a win instead of another "the ref was terrible" story......[/p][/quote]Maybe if someone had said at the start of the season, "we won't lose to either Preston or Sheff U" they'd have been laughed at. Maybe the emphasis should be we are firmly in mid table. Prisoner Cell Block A

1:47pm Wed 29 Jan 14

TheCoach says...

Victor Clayton wrote:
theoutsider wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.
he has moved on i think.
Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson.

James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.
[quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theoutsider[/bold] wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.[/p][/quote]he has moved on i think.[/p][/quote]Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away. TheCoach

1:47pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Joke decision for me, no more than a push away, never a sending off ...deary me looking at what goes on at corners and free kicks in the penalty box says it all, makes you wonder where common sense has gone.

Good point for me...onwards and upwards!!!!!
Joke decision for me, no more than a push away, never a sending off ...deary me looking at what goes on at corners and free kicks in the penalty box says it all, makes you wonder where common sense has gone. Good point for me...onwards and upwards!!!!! bcfc1903

2:13pm Wed 29 Jan 14

KnightMcCall says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
Joke decision for me, no more than a push away, never a sending off ...deary me looking at what goes on at corners and free kicks in the penalty box says it all, makes you wonder where common sense has gone.

Good point for me...onwards and upwards!!!!!
I agree that a lot is wrong in the way that games are referreed but sending off Bennett was not wrong. The other stuff (and there is a long list) should not be happening.
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: Joke decision for me, no more than a push away, never a sending off ...deary me looking at what goes on at corners and free kicks in the penalty box says it all, makes you wonder where common sense has gone. Good point for me...onwards and upwards!!!!![/p][/quote]I agree that a lot is wrong in the way that games are referreed but sending off Bennett was not wrong. The other stuff (and there is a long list) should not be happening. KnightMcCall

2:58pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Waynus1971 says...

Rambo wrote:
In the replay Kilkenny actually falls to the ground after being shoved by another Preston player, which makes it even more farcical.
Is that true?? When it happened, I said that it looked like their other player had actually caught Kilkenny and sent him sprawling; not Bennett, but nobody near me saw it that way.

Wow, I actually feel relieved as I thought my eyes were playing tricks
[quote][p][bold]Rambo[/bold] wrote: In the replay Kilkenny actually falls to the ground after being shoved by another Preston player, which makes it even more farcical.[/p][/quote]Is that true?? When it happened, I said that it looked like their other player had actually caught Kilkenny and sent him sprawling; not Bennett, but nobody near me saw it that way. Wow, I actually feel relieved as I thought my eyes were playing tricks Waynus1971

3:16pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Waynus1971 says...

I agree with KMcC on this (always a first). Parkinson needs to stop criticising referees as this will not go unnoticed. I believe I read something earlier this week that he has spoken to an assessor and, having been told that we should/could have had 2 spot kicks against Sheffield United, he strongly criticises the ref.

Now he is asking the ref to stop following rules. At the end of the day, whether the force was excessive or not, raising a hand towards an opponent is SEEN as excessive and referees will always look at that as a reason to send someone off.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the rule/interpretration of the rule, but as it stands, it is in place and Bennett broke it. The ref (and anyone who knows me, will know I can't stand Stuart TWattwell)but had no choice really. I do acknowledge the arguments that more force is used when defending set-pieces, but they are more fould to prevent an opponent gaining an advantage, rather than 2 players 'squaring up to each other'.

PP should concentrate on his own performance instead of reviewing the referee's. Darby was doing well on our right and put in some quality crosses. Why the h3ll did PP take off Mclean, who was still playing down the middle and replace him with McBurnie and then tell him to stay right? And when it was obvious that Doyle was blowing out of his 4r5e, why Ravenhill come on instead of Atkinson?
I agree with KMcC on this (always a first). Parkinson needs to stop criticising referees as this will not go unnoticed. I believe I read something earlier this week that he has spoken to an assessor and, having been told that we should/could have had 2 spot kicks against Sheffield United, he strongly criticises the ref. Now he is asking the ref to stop following rules. At the end of the day, whether the force was excessive or not, raising a hand towards an opponent is SEEN as excessive and referees will always look at that as a reason to send someone off. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the rule/interpretration of the rule, but as it stands, it is in place and Bennett broke it. The ref (and anyone who knows me, will know I can't stand Stuart TWattwell)but had no choice really. I do acknowledge the arguments that more force is used when defending set-pieces, but they are more fould to prevent an opponent gaining an advantage, rather than 2 players 'squaring up to each other'. PP should concentrate on his own performance instead of reviewing the referee's. Darby was doing well on our right and put in some quality crosses. Why the h3ll did PP take off Mclean, who was still playing down the middle and replace him with McBurnie and then tell him to stay right? And when it was obvious that Doyle was blowing out of his 4r5e, why Ravenhill come on instead of Atkinson? Waynus1971

3:18pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

TheCoach wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
theoutsider wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.
he has moved on i think.
Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson.

James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.
I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him.
[quote][p][bold]TheCoach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theoutsider[/bold] wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.[/p][/quote]he has moved on i think.[/p][/quote]Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.[/p][/quote]I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him. Prisoner Cell Block A

3:24pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
I agree with KMcC on this (always a first). Parkinson needs to stop criticising referees as this will not go unnoticed. I believe I read something earlier this week that he has spoken to an assessor and, having been told that we should/could have had 2 spot kicks against Sheffield United, he strongly criticises the ref.

Now he is asking the ref to stop following rules. At the end of the day, whether the force was excessive or not, raising a hand towards an opponent is SEEN as excessive and referees will always look at that as a reason to send someone off.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the rule/interpretration of the rule, but as it stands, it is in place and Bennett broke it. The ref (and anyone who knows me, will know I can't stand Stuart TWattwell)but had no choice really. I do acknowledge the arguments that more force is used when defending set-pieces, but they are more fould to prevent an opponent gaining an advantage, rather than 2 players 'squaring up to each other'.

PP should concentrate on his own performance instead of reviewing the referee's. Darby was doing well on our right and put in some quality crosses. Why the h3ll did PP take off Mclean, who was still playing down the middle and replace him with McBurnie and then tell him to stay right? And when it was obvious that Doyle was blowing out of his 4r5e, why Ravenhill come on instead of Atkinson?
First of all, haha at your name for Atwell, secondly, they had started to get the upper hand down the middle and Atkinson is more attck minded than Ravenhill, I don't think PP wanted *us *McArdle to be exposed any more than necessary. He wasn't happy at Davies wandering down the left wing late on for the same reason, never mind his recent injury.

I think with Bates at LB and Davies back it may be time for McHugh to come in alongside Davies. We're not going up and doubt we'll go down, time to get the lad fully toughened for a regular first team spot next season.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: I agree with KMcC on this (always a first). Parkinson needs to stop criticising referees as this will not go unnoticed. I believe I read something earlier this week that he has spoken to an assessor and, having been told that we should/could have had 2 spot kicks against Sheffield United, he strongly criticises the ref. Now he is asking the ref to stop following rules. At the end of the day, whether the force was excessive or not, raising a hand towards an opponent is SEEN as excessive and referees will always look at that as a reason to send someone off. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the rule/interpretration of the rule, but as it stands, it is in place and Bennett broke it. The ref (and anyone who knows me, will know I can't stand Stuart TWattwell)but had no choice really. I do acknowledge the arguments that more force is used when defending set-pieces, but they are more fould to prevent an opponent gaining an advantage, rather than 2 players 'squaring up to each other'. PP should concentrate on his own performance instead of reviewing the referee's. Darby was doing well on our right and put in some quality crosses. Why the h3ll did PP take off Mclean, who was still playing down the middle and replace him with McBurnie and then tell him to stay right? And when it was obvious that Doyle was blowing out of his 4r5e, why Ravenhill come on instead of Atkinson?[/p][/quote]First of all, haha at your name for Atwell, secondly, they had started to get the upper hand down the middle and Atkinson is more attck minded than Ravenhill, I don't think PP wanted *us *McArdle to be exposed any more than necessary. He wasn't happy at Davies wandering down the left wing late on for the same reason, never mind his recent injury. I think with Bates at LB and Davies back it may be time for McHugh to come in alongside Davies. We're not going up and doubt we'll go down, time to get the lad fully toughened for a regular first team spot next season. Prisoner Cell Block A

3:47pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

KnightMcCall wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
Joke decision for me, no more than a push away, never a sending off ...deary me looking at what goes on at corners and free kicks in the penalty box says it all, makes you wonder where common sense has gone.

Good point for me...onwards and upwards!!!!!
I agree that a lot is wrong in the way that games are referreed but sending off Bennett was not wrong. The other stuff (and there is a long list) should not be happening.
It was a shocking decision, for most of the match the guy had a decent game but this interpretation made a mockery of the game, don't understand where the game is going if the ref interprets that push as violent conduct. It's not a game I want to watch if it's sanitized to such a degree, that's for sure. When I think of some of the assaults on Reid this season it put Attwell.s decision into context. I am not going hammer him for his past decisions as he's human and will make mistakes, but this sort of over the top interpretation does him no favours, I don't even think gently shoving a player can be interpreted as violent conduct, but then again I'm no referee.
[quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: Joke decision for me, no more than a push away, never a sending off ...deary me looking at what goes on at corners and free kicks in the penalty box says it all, makes you wonder where common sense has gone. Good point for me...onwards and upwards!!!!![/p][/quote]I agree that a lot is wrong in the way that games are referreed but sending off Bennett was not wrong. The other stuff (and there is a long list) should not be happening.[/p][/quote]It was a shocking decision, for most of the match the guy had a decent game but this interpretation made a mockery of the game, don't understand where the game is going if the ref interprets that push as violent conduct. It's not a game I want to watch if it's sanitized to such a degree, that's for sure. When I think of some of the assaults on Reid this season it put Attwell.s decision into context. I am not going hammer him for his past decisions as he's human and will make mistakes, but this sort of over the top interpretation does him no favours, I don't even think gently shoving a player can be interpreted as violent conduct, but then again I'm no referee. bcfc1903

4:10pm Wed 29 Jan 14

KnightMcCall says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
KnightMcCall wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
Joke decision for me, no more than a push away, never a sending off ...deary me looking at what goes on at corners and free kicks in the penalty box says it all, makes you wonder where common sense has gone.

Good point for me...onwards and upwards!!!!!
I agree that a lot is wrong in the way that games are referreed but sending off Bennett was not wrong. The other stuff (and there is a long list) should not be happening.
It was a shocking decision, for most of the match the guy had a decent game but this interpretation made a mockery of the game, don't understand where the game is going if the ref interprets that push as violent conduct. It's not a game I want to watch if it's sanitized to such a degree, that's for sure. When I think of some of the assaults on Reid this season it put Attwell.s decision into context. I am not going hammer him for his past decisions as he's human and will make mistakes, but this sort of over the top interpretation does him no favours, I don't even think gently shoving a player can be interpreted as violent conduct, but then again I'm no referee.
I agree to a large extent but if the sending off is wrong then it is a problem with the football authorities rather than with Atwell. What I want most from refs is for decisions to be consistent and the players are pretty aware that putting your hand into an opponents face is a red card.

What it does suggest is that Bennett may as well have punched him properly as he would still have only received a 3 match ban...

The fact that some of the "tackles" we have witnessed on Reid and Wells in recent months don't even get yellow cards is ridiculous butTyker is right though; "two wrongs don't make a right!".
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: Joke decision for me, no more than a push away, never a sending off ...deary me looking at what goes on at corners and free kicks in the penalty box says it all, makes you wonder where common sense has gone. Good point for me...onwards and upwards!!!!![/p][/quote]I agree that a lot is wrong in the way that games are referreed but sending off Bennett was not wrong. The other stuff (and there is a long list) should not be happening.[/p][/quote]It was a shocking decision, for most of the match the guy had a decent game but this interpretation made a mockery of the game, don't understand where the game is going if the ref interprets that push as violent conduct. It's not a game I want to watch if it's sanitized to such a degree, that's for sure. When I think of some of the assaults on Reid this season it put Attwell.s decision into context. I am not going hammer him for his past decisions as he's human and will make mistakes, but this sort of over the top interpretation does him no favours, I don't even think gently shoving a player can be interpreted as violent conduct, but then again I'm no referee.[/p][/quote]I agree to a large extent but if the sending off is wrong then it is a problem with the football authorities rather than with Atwell. What I want most from refs is for decisions to be consistent and the players are pretty aware that putting your hand into an opponents face is a red card. What it does suggest is that Bennett may as well have punched him properly as he would still have only received a 3 match ban... The fact that some of the "tackles" we have witnessed on Reid and Wells in recent months don't even get yellow cards is ridiculous butTyker is right though; "two wrongs don't make a right!". KnightMcCall

4:20pm Wed 29 Jan 14

TheCoach says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
TheCoach wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
theoutsider wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.
he has moved on i think.
Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.
I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him.
Don't be silly, Hanson was a yard and a half clear, the lad caught him, went passed him and took the ball off him all in the space of 2 yards.

You aren't trying to suggest James has a turn of pace are you!!
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheCoach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theoutsider[/bold] wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.[/p][/quote]he has moved on i think.[/p][/quote]Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.[/p][/quote]I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, Hanson was a yard and a half clear, the lad caught him, went passed him and took the ball off him all in the space of 2 yards. You aren't trying to suggest James has a turn of pace are you!! TheCoach

4:45pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

TheCoach wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
TheCoach wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
theoutsider wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.
he has moved on i think.
Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.
I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him.
Don't be silly, Hanson was a yard and a half clear, the lad caught him, went passed him and took the ball off him all in the space of 2 yards.

You aren't trying to suggest James has a turn of pace are you!!
We saw it differently, he would probably have outpaced him but he was on James' inside and JH turned into him rather than going outside him with his right, so he could catch him there instead.
[quote][p][bold]TheCoach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheCoach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theoutsider[/bold] wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.[/p][/quote]he has moved on i think.[/p][/quote]Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.[/p][/quote]I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, Hanson was a yard and a half clear, the lad caught him, went passed him and took the ball off him all in the space of 2 yards. You aren't trying to suggest James has a turn of pace are you!![/p][/quote]We saw it differently, he would probably have outpaced him but he was on James' inside and JH turned into him rather than going outside him with his right, so he could catch him there instead. Prisoner Cell Block A

4:48pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bettyswollocks says...

theoutsider wrote:
In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.
McLean was knackered. He had a chance to run at their defence a few minutes before he was subbed but had to stop and pass it to Reach. He'd run himself into the ground.

Darby was clear MoM for me, did the job of 2 players incredibly well for most of the game, Davies close second.
[quote][p][bold]theoutsider[/bold] wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.[/p][/quote]McLean was knackered. He had a chance to run at their defence a few minutes before he was subbed but had to stop and pass it to Reach. He'd run himself into the ground. Darby was clear MoM for me, did the job of 2 players incredibly well for most of the game, Davies close second. bettyswollocks

4:51pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
TheCoach wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
TheCoach wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
theoutsider wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.
he has moved on i think.
Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.
I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him.
Don't be silly, Hanson was a yard and a half clear, the lad caught him, went passed him and took the ball off him all in the space of 2 yards. You aren't trying to suggest James has a turn of pace are you!!
We saw it differently, he would probably have outpaced him but he was on James' inside and JH turned into him rather than going outside him with his right, so he could catch him there instead.
That is exactly how I saw it. It wasn't a leg race that Hanson lost, he just made the wrong decision which meant the defender was able to nick the ball off him.
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheCoach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheCoach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theoutsider[/bold] wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.[/p][/quote]he has moved on i think.[/p][/quote]Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.[/p][/quote]I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, Hanson was a yard and a half clear, the lad caught him, went passed him and took the ball off him all in the space of 2 yards. You aren't trying to suggest James has a turn of pace are you!![/p][/quote]We saw it differently, he would probably have outpaced him but he was on James' inside and JH turned into him rather than going outside him with his right, so he could catch him there instead.[/p][/quote]That is exactly how I saw it. It wasn't a leg race that Hanson lost, he just made the wrong decision which meant the defender was able to nick the ball off him. Farsley Bantam

4:58pm Wed 29 Jan 14

TheCoach says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
TheCoach wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
TheCoach wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
theoutsider wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.
he has moved on i think.
Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.
I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him.
Don't be silly, Hanson was a yard and a half clear, the lad caught him, went passed him and took the ball off him all in the space of 2 yards. You aren't trying to suggest James has a turn of pace are you!!
We saw it differently, he would probably have outpaced him but he was on James' inside and JH turned into him rather than going outside him with his right, so he could catch him there instead.
That is exactly how I saw it. It wasn't a leg race that Hanson lost, he just made the wrong decision which meant the defender was able to nick the ball off him.
I take it back then, but I do expect to see JH change his name to Usain in the near future on the back of this analysis!!!
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheCoach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheCoach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theoutsider[/bold] wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.[/p][/quote]he has moved on i think.[/p][/quote]Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.[/p][/quote]I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, Hanson was a yard and a half clear, the lad caught him, went passed him and took the ball off him all in the space of 2 yards. You aren't trying to suggest James has a turn of pace are you!![/p][/quote]We saw it differently, he would probably have outpaced him but he was on James' inside and JH turned into him rather than going outside him with his right, so he could catch him there instead.[/p][/quote]That is exactly how I saw it. It wasn't a leg race that Hanson lost, he just made the wrong decision which meant the defender was able to nick the ball off him.[/p][/quote]I take it back then, but I do expect to see JH change his name to Usain in the near future on the back of this analysis!!! TheCoach

5:06pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

KnightMcCall wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
KnightMcCall wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
Joke decision for me, no more than a push away, never a sending off ...deary me looking at what goes on at corners and free kicks in the penalty box says it all, makes you wonder where common sense has gone.

Good point for me...onwards and upwards!!!!!
I agree that a lot is wrong in the way that games are referreed but sending off Bennett was not wrong. The other stuff (and there is a long list) should not be happening.
It was a shocking decision, for most of the match the guy had a decent game but this interpretation made a mockery of the game, don't understand where the game is going if the ref interprets that push as violent conduct. It's not a game I want to watch if it's sanitized to such a degree, that's for sure. When I think of some of the assaults on Reid this season it put Attwell.s decision into context. I am not going hammer him for his past decisions as he's human and will make mistakes, but this sort of over the top interpretation does him no favours, I don't even think gently shoving a player can be interpreted as violent conduct, but then again I'm no referee.
I agree to a large extent but if the sending off is wrong then it is a problem with the football authorities rather than with Atwell. What I want most from refs is for decisions to be consistent and the players are pretty aware that putting your hand into an opponents face is a red card.

What it does suggest is that Bennett may as well have punched him properly as he would still have only received a 3 match ban...

The fact that some of the "tackles" we have witnessed on Reid and Wells in recent months don't even get yellow cards is ridiculous butTyker is right though; "two wrongs don't make a right!".
I've just had a quick look at the replay on C&A KM, as I thought last night Bennett does very little, a tap on the chest, Kilkenny who seems to instigate the incident by pushing Bennett around the shoulder neck area makes it look like he's been pole axed when tapped on the chest, absolute joke, can only think Attwell thinks there is a punch thrown by Bennett. So basically the ref has made a poor decision based on play acting. If on the other hand all he saw was the slight contact to Kilkenny's chest, then again it's a poor decision because I cannot believe the Fa means there violent conduct rules interpreted in such a way. There may be an appeal from BCFC. From what I saw last night Attwell has the makings of a decent ref, but he needs to cut out OTT decisions and show a little more common sense,.

Tyker right, that's a bridge too far lol.
[quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: Joke decision for me, no more than a push away, never a sending off ...deary me looking at what goes on at corners and free kicks in the penalty box says it all, makes you wonder where common sense has gone. Good point for me...onwards and upwards!!!!![/p][/quote]I agree that a lot is wrong in the way that games are referreed but sending off Bennett was not wrong. The other stuff (and there is a long list) should not be happening.[/p][/quote]It was a shocking decision, for most of the match the guy had a decent game but this interpretation made a mockery of the game, don't understand where the game is going if the ref interprets that push as violent conduct. It's not a game I want to watch if it's sanitized to such a degree, that's for sure. When I think of some of the assaults on Reid this season it put Attwell.s decision into context. I am not going hammer him for his past decisions as he's human and will make mistakes, but this sort of over the top interpretation does him no favours, I don't even think gently shoving a player can be interpreted as violent conduct, but then again I'm no referee.[/p][/quote]I agree to a large extent but if the sending off is wrong then it is a problem with the football authorities rather than with Atwell. What I want most from refs is for decisions to be consistent and the players are pretty aware that putting your hand into an opponents face is a red card. What it does suggest is that Bennett may as well have punched him properly as he would still have only received a 3 match ban... The fact that some of the "tackles" we have witnessed on Reid and Wells in recent months don't even get yellow cards is ridiculous butTyker is right though; "two wrongs don't make a right!".[/p][/quote]I've just had a quick look at the replay on C&A KM, as I thought last night Bennett does very little, a tap on the chest, Kilkenny who seems to instigate the incident by pushing Bennett around the shoulder neck area makes it look like he's been pole axed when tapped on the chest, absolute joke, can only think Attwell thinks there is a punch thrown by Bennett. So basically the ref has made a poor decision based on play acting. If on the other hand all he saw was the slight contact to Kilkenny's chest, then again it's a poor decision because I cannot believe the Fa means there violent conduct rules interpreted in such a way. There may be an appeal from BCFC. From what I saw last night Attwell has the makings of a decent ref, but he needs to cut out OTT decisions and show a little more common sense,. Tyker right, that's a bridge too far lol. bcfc1903

5:52pm Wed 29 Jan 14

BigFigure says...

Victor Clayton wrote:
get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS!
No he didn't! Check the many video clips....
[quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS![/p][/quote]No he didn't! Check the many video clips.... BigFigure

6:36pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Pablo says...

I wanted to watch the replay before commenting. It merely confirms the view I had last night that I could understand why the ref sent Bennett off. Kilkenny's actions were deplorable but I can't see any point in appealing. It's a big shame as the lad showed promise.

Most posters have identified the best performances but I think Preston edged it. We just don't seem to carry a threat up top. I'm not sure what's happened to Clarkson but, It's too much to expect Ollie to be our back up striker choice at seventeen. I wonder whether PP might take a punt on Lee Gregory if Connell has actually left the club.

An amazing performance by Davo to come back with such an accomplished display after a long lay off.
I wanted to watch the replay before commenting. It merely confirms the view I had last night that I could understand why the ref sent Bennett off. Kilkenny's actions were deplorable but I can't see any point in appealing. It's a big shame as the lad showed promise. Most posters have identified the best performances but I think Preston edged it. We just don't seem to carry a threat up top. I'm not sure what's happened to Clarkson but, It's too much to expect Ollie to be our back up striker choice at seventeen. I wonder whether PP might take a punt on Lee Gregory if Connell has actually left the club. An amazing performance by Davo to come back with such an accomplished display after a long lay off. Pablo

6:59pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Pablo wrote:
I wanted to watch the replay before commenting. It merely confirms the view I had last night that I could understand why the ref sent Bennett off. Kilkenny's actions were deplorable but I can't see any point in appealing. It's a big shame as the lad showed promise.

Most posters have identified the best performances but I think Preston edged it. We just don't seem to carry a threat up top. I'm not sure what's happened to Clarkson but, It's too much to expect Ollie to be our back up striker choice at seventeen. I wonder whether PP might take a punt on Lee Gregory if Connell has actually left the club.

An amazing performance by Davo to come back with such an accomplished display after a long lay off.
I'd have given Bennett a yellow and also a yellow for Kilkenny for instigating the tussle by pushing at Bennetts neck and feigning injury, he'd have got a serious lecture about his future conduct in the game. The idea that violent conduct rules were written by the fa to be interpreted by referees as red card offences for taps on the chest is ludicrous.

Can't see Gregory coming to BCFC either but Davies was indeed immense, loved the mazy run down the wing, a massive boost for BCFC having him back in the team.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: I wanted to watch the replay before commenting. It merely confirms the view I had last night that I could understand why the ref sent Bennett off. Kilkenny's actions were deplorable but I can't see any point in appealing. It's a big shame as the lad showed promise. Most posters have identified the best performances but I think Preston edged it. We just don't seem to carry a threat up top. I'm not sure what's happened to Clarkson but, It's too much to expect Ollie to be our back up striker choice at seventeen. I wonder whether PP might take a punt on Lee Gregory if Connell has actually left the club. An amazing performance by Davo to come back with such an accomplished display after a long lay off.[/p][/quote]I'd have given Bennett a yellow and also a yellow for Kilkenny for instigating the tussle by pushing at Bennetts neck and feigning injury, he'd have got a serious lecture about his future conduct in the game. The idea that violent conduct rules were written by the fa to be interpreted by referees as red card offences for taps on the chest is ludicrous. Can't see Gregory coming to BCFC either but Davies was indeed immense, loved the mazy run down the wing, a massive boost for BCFC having him back in the team. bcfc1903

7:39pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Victor Clayton says...

BigFigure wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS!
No he didn't! Check the many video clips....
Did his hand make contact with head?
[quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS![/p][/quote]No he didn't! Check the many video clips....[/p][/quote]Did his hand make contact with head? Victor Clayton

7:43pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Pablo says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
I wanted to watch the replay before commenting. It merely confirms the view I had last night that I could understand why the ref sent Bennett off. Kilkenny's actions were deplorable but I can't see any point in appealing. It's a big shame as the lad showed promise.

Most posters have identified the best performances but I think Preston edged it. We just don't seem to carry a threat up top. I'm not sure what's happened to Clarkson but, It's too much to expect Ollie to be our back up striker choice at seventeen. I wonder whether PP might take a punt on Lee Gregory if Connell has actually left the club.

An amazing performance by Davo to come back with such an accomplished display after a long lay off.
I'd have given Bennett a yellow and also a yellow for Kilkenny for instigating the tussle by pushing at Bennetts neck and feigning injury, he'd have got a serious lecture about his future conduct in the game. The idea that violent conduct rules were written by the fa to be interpreted by referees as red card offences for taps on the chest is ludicrous.

Can't see Gregory coming to BCFC either but Davies was indeed immense, loved the mazy run down the wing, a massive boost for BCFC having him back in the team.
I'm not disagreeing with you re what you'd have done ( and what the common sense action should have been) but I can understand the ref's response as he saw the incident. I wasn't as incensed as many fans were.

As things stand, if we're chasing a game, who have we got to bring on to get us a goal? We need someone content to come, initially, as a squad player. This probably means a lower league player with an eye for a goal, who wouldn't want big bucks. With eighteen goals this season, from 23 appearances, and on our doorstep, I'd say he fits the bill.
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: I wanted to watch the replay before commenting. It merely confirms the view I had last night that I could understand why the ref sent Bennett off. Kilkenny's actions were deplorable but I can't see any point in appealing. It's a big shame as the lad showed promise. Most posters have identified the best performances but I think Preston edged it. We just don't seem to carry a threat up top. I'm not sure what's happened to Clarkson but, It's too much to expect Ollie to be our back up striker choice at seventeen. I wonder whether PP might take a punt on Lee Gregory if Connell has actually left the club. An amazing performance by Davo to come back with such an accomplished display after a long lay off.[/p][/quote]I'd have given Bennett a yellow and also a yellow for Kilkenny for instigating the tussle by pushing at Bennetts neck and feigning injury, he'd have got a serious lecture about his future conduct in the game. The idea that violent conduct rules were written by the fa to be interpreted by referees as red card offences for taps on the chest is ludicrous. Can't see Gregory coming to BCFC either but Davies was indeed immense, loved the mazy run down the wing, a massive boost for BCFC having him back in the team.[/p][/quote]I'm not disagreeing with you re what you'd have done ( and what the common sense action should have been) but I can understand the ref's response as he saw the incident. I wasn't as incensed as many fans were. As things stand, if we're chasing a game, who have we got to bring on to get us a goal? We need someone content to come, initially, as a squad player. This probably means a lower league player with an eye for a goal, who wouldn't want big bucks. With eighteen goals this season, from 23 appearances, and on our doorstep, I'd say he fits the bill. Pablo

9:25pm Wed 29 Jan 14

jamiejoe says...

We need more goals ... hope the team start firing them in soon

and ...

hopefully more clean sheets now

and some wins!!!
We need more goals ... hope the team start firing them in soon and ... hopefully more clean sheets now and some wins!!! jamiejoe

9:48pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Victor Clayton says...

Victor Clayton wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS!
No he didn't! Check the many video clips....
Did his hand make contact with head?
I have just seen the clips and he didn't exactly slap him across the face to be fair. Although it was a bit of handbags he did swing an arm at his head and then push/ slap him on the chin. Their players was as bad and there should be no complaints from either player imo.
[quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS![/p][/quote]No he didn't! Check the many video clips....[/p][/quote]Did his hand make contact with head?[/p][/quote]I have just seen the clips and he didn't exactly slap him across the face to be fair. Although it was a bit of handbags he did swing an arm at his head and then push/ slap him on the chin. Their players was as bad and there should be no complaints from either player imo. Victor Clayton

5:42am Thu 30 Jan 14

Melbourne Bantam says...

Just strange to see "referee" and "common sense" in the same sentence !!
Just strange to see "referee" and "common sense" in the same sentence !! Melbourne Bantam

8:20am Thu 30 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

tyker2 wrote:
BigFigure wrote: Check Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct...Sending Off offences...nothing about "raising hands is sending off offence" as people seem to think. The ref has to make a call on "violent conduct", in this case he clearly over-reacted. And now both clubs will be without a player for 3 games. Have a word and get on with it,ref
in what other way could raising hands into or near an opponents head in a front on confrontational position NOT be regarded violent conduct. THE GOODSISON INCIDENT WAS VIOLENT CONDUCT AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT OFF .................... .... HOWEVER TWO WRONGS NEVER MADE A RIGH
Thank you to BigFigure for applying the most relevant contribution.

The referee had to decide whether Bennett, in swinging his arm away and/or pushing Kilnenny, was guilty of violent conduct. It is an entirely subjective test.

Based on my interpretation, the initial 'swing' was not an attempt to land a blow but, unfortunately, the possibility existed that he could have made contact.

I think what really cooked his goose was the handbags incident that followed. Kilkenny appears to have walked for simulation and it seems the referee had no option to even the score up in those circumstances.

It can be forgotten that referees, too, can get caught in the heat of the moment. In this instance, I think that Attwell cannot be blamed exclusively as he was probably annoyed by what he had just seen.
[quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: Check Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct...Sending Off offences...nothing about "raising hands is sending off offence" as people seem to think. The ref has to make a call on "violent conduct", in this case he clearly over-reacted. And now both clubs will be without a player for 3 games. Have a word and get on with it,ref[/p][/quote]in what other way could raising hands into or near an opponents head in a front on confrontational position NOT be regarded violent conduct. THE GOODSISON INCIDENT WAS VIOLENT CONDUCT AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT OFF .................... .... HOWEVER TWO WRONGS NEVER MADE A RIGH[/p][/quote]Thank you to BigFigure for applying the most relevant contribution. The referee had to decide whether Bennett, in swinging his arm away and/or pushing Kilnenny, was guilty of violent conduct. It is an entirely subjective test. Based on my interpretation, the initial 'swing' was not an attempt to land a blow but, unfortunately, the possibility existed that he could have made contact. I think what really cooked his goose was the handbags incident that followed. Kilkenny appears to have walked for simulation and it seems the referee had no option to even the score up in those circumstances. It can be forgotten that referees, too, can get caught in the heat of the moment. In this instance, I think that Attwell cannot be blamed exclusively as he was probably annoyed by what he had just seen. Michael Clayton

9:32am Thu 30 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

TheCoach wrote:
Farsley Bantam wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
TheCoach wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
TheCoach wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
theoutsider wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.
he has moved on i think.
Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.
I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him.
Don't be silly, Hanson was a yard and a half clear, the lad caught him, went passed him and took the ball off him all in the space of 2 yards. You aren't trying to suggest James has a turn of pace are you!!
We saw it differently, he would probably have outpaced him but he was on James' inside and JH turned into him rather than going outside him with his right, so he could catch him there instead.
That is exactly how I saw it. It wasn't a leg race that Hanson lost, he just made the wrong decision which meant the defender was able to nick the ball off him.
I take it back then, but I do expect to see JH change his name to Usain in the near future on the back of this analysis!!!
Not James (Alan WELLS) Hanson then? :)
[quote][p][bold]TheCoach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheCoach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheCoach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theoutsider[/bold] wrote: In Parky I Trust ..but has anyone the foggiest why he thought McBurnie for McLean was a good idea?. If it had been Connell coming on fair enough but for all McBurnies potential - its for the moment only that..potential. By taking off McLean any attacking threat was ended. Or was he injured ?.[/p][/quote]he has moved on i think.[/p][/quote]Bringing McBurnie on was a good move, he looked lively and had some good touches, only problem was he came on for McLean and not Hanson. James had the touch of a baby elephant last night and the pace to match. He caused no problem for the defence at all. They knew they could give him 2 yard head start because they could catch him everytime. He had one chance late on when through on goal and their lad caught him within 2 strides. Had this been McLean or McBurnie then I think they could have least had the opportunity to get a shot away.[/p][/quote]I know the incident you mean and disagree, the lad took the ball off him as he tried to turn inside him, not outpace him.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, Hanson was a yard and a half clear, the lad caught him, went passed him and took the ball off him all in the space of 2 yards. You aren't trying to suggest James has a turn of pace are you!![/p][/quote]We saw it differently, he would probably have outpaced him but he was on James' inside and JH turned into him rather than going outside him with his right, so he could catch him there instead.[/p][/quote]That is exactly how I saw it. It wasn't a leg race that Hanson lost, he just made the wrong decision which meant the defender was able to nick the ball off him.[/p][/quote]I take it back then, but I do expect to see JH change his name to Usain in the near future on the back of this analysis!!![/p][/quote]Not James (Alan WELLS) Hanson then? :) Prisoner Cell Block A

9:33am Thu 30 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Pablo wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
I wanted to watch the replay before commenting. It merely confirms the view I had last night that I could understand why the ref sent Bennett off. Kilkenny's actions were deplorable but I can't see any point in appealing. It's a big shame as the lad showed promise.

Most posters have identified the best performances but I think Preston edged it. We just don't seem to carry a threat up top. I'm not sure what's happened to Clarkson but, It's too much to expect Ollie to be our back up striker choice at seventeen. I wonder whether PP might take a punt on Lee Gregory if Connell has actually left the club.

An amazing performance by Davo to come back with such an accomplished display after a long lay off.
I'd have given Bennett a yellow and also a yellow for Kilkenny for instigating the tussle by pushing at Bennetts neck and feigning injury, he'd have got a serious lecture about his future conduct in the game. The idea that violent conduct rules were written by the fa to be interpreted by referees as red card offences for taps on the chest is ludicrous.

Can't see Gregory coming to BCFC either but Davies was indeed immense, loved the mazy run down the wing, a massive boost for BCFC having him back in the team.
I'm not disagreeing with you re what you'd have done ( and what the common sense action should have been) but I can understand the ref's response as he saw the incident. I wasn't as incensed as many fans were.

As things stand, if we're chasing a game, who have we got to bring on to get us a goal? We need someone content to come, initially, as a squad player. This probably means a lower league player with an eye for a goal, who wouldn't want big bucks. With eighteen goals this season, from 23 appearances, and on our doorstep, I'd say he fits the bill.
Gregory, It would be a gamble like all signings, someone we'd have to pay a fee for I think, can't see it myself, think it's more likely that if we did get a forward in, it would be a loan to replace Connell, first priority is the acquisition of a left full back.

I can't understand the referee's decision regarding Bennett, the whole incident seemed so innocuous, yes, the reaction of the player didn't help, In the cold light of day I'm guessing Attwell got conned.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: I wanted to watch the replay before commenting. It merely confirms the view I had last night that I could understand why the ref sent Bennett off. Kilkenny's actions were deplorable but I can't see any point in appealing. It's a big shame as the lad showed promise. Most posters have identified the best performances but I think Preston edged it. We just don't seem to carry a threat up top. I'm not sure what's happened to Clarkson but, It's too much to expect Ollie to be our back up striker choice at seventeen. I wonder whether PP might take a punt on Lee Gregory if Connell has actually left the club. An amazing performance by Davo to come back with such an accomplished display after a long lay off.[/p][/quote]I'd have given Bennett a yellow and also a yellow for Kilkenny for instigating the tussle by pushing at Bennetts neck and feigning injury, he'd have got a serious lecture about his future conduct in the game. The idea that violent conduct rules were written by the fa to be interpreted by referees as red card offences for taps on the chest is ludicrous. Can't see Gregory coming to BCFC either but Davies was indeed immense, loved the mazy run down the wing, a massive boost for BCFC having him back in the team.[/p][/quote]I'm not disagreeing with you re what you'd have done ( and what the common sense action should have been) but I can understand the ref's response as he saw the incident. I wasn't as incensed as many fans were. As things stand, if we're chasing a game, who have we got to bring on to get us a goal? We need someone content to come, initially, as a squad player. This probably means a lower league player with an eye for a goal, who wouldn't want big bucks. With eighteen goals this season, from 23 appearances, and on our doorstep, I'd say he fits the bill.[/p][/quote]Gregory, It would be a gamble like all signings, someone we'd have to pay a fee for I think, can't see it myself, think it's more likely that if we did get a forward in, it would be a loan to replace Connell, first priority is the acquisition of a left full back. I can't understand the referee's decision regarding Bennett, the whole incident seemed so innocuous, yes, the reaction of the player didn't help, In the cold light of day I'm guessing Attwell got conned. bcfc1903

9:59am Thu 30 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

Victor Clayton wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote: get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS!
No he didn't! Check the many video clips....
Did his hand make contact with head?
I have just seen the clips and he didn't exactly slap him across the face to be fair. Although it was a bit of handbags he did swing an arm at his head and then push/ slap him on the chin. Their players was as bad and there should be no complaints from either player imo.
As I mentioned, his arm was swinging but I think that if he had intended to do damage, he would have made sure that he clobbered him.
[quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS![/p][/quote]No he didn't! Check the many video clips....[/p][/quote]Did his hand make contact with head?[/p][/quote]I have just seen the clips and he didn't exactly slap him across the face to be fair. Although it was a bit of handbags he did swing an arm at his head and then push/ slap him on the chin. Their players was as bad and there should be no complaints from either player imo.[/p][/quote]As I mentioned, his arm was swinging but I think that if he had intended to do damage, he would have made sure that he clobbered him. Michael Clayton

10:37am Thu 30 Jan 14

Scargutt2 says...

Meanwhile, in Bournemouth the 'ambitious one' was failing to score in front of an astounding 7,000 fans.
Meanwhile, in Bournemouth the 'ambitious one' was failing to score in front of an astounding 7,000 fans. Scargutt2

11:08am Thu 30 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

Scargutt2 wrote:
Meanwhile, in Bournemouth the 'ambitious one' was failing to score in front of an astounding 7,000 fans.
City failed to score on Tuesday. That is what matters. Wells is history.
[quote][p][bold]Scargutt2[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile, in Bournemouth the 'ambitious one' was failing to score in front of an astounding 7,000 fans.[/p][/quote]City failed to score on Tuesday. That is what matters. Wells is history. Michael Clayton

12:38pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Scargutt2 wrote:
Meanwhile, in Bournemouth the 'ambitious one' was failing to score in front of an astounding 7,000 fans.
But did assist for their goal.
[quote][p][bold]Scargutt2[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile, in Bournemouth the 'ambitious one' was failing to score in front of an astounding 7,000 fans.[/p][/quote]But did assist for their goal. Prisoner Cell Block A

12:49pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

Victor Clayton wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote: get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS!
No he didn't! Check the many video clips....
Did his hand make contact with head?
I have just seen the clips and he didn't exactly slap him across the face to be fair. Although it was a bit of handbags he did swing an arm at his head and then push/ slap him on the chin. Their players was as bad and there should be no complaints from either player imo.
QUOTE: "He didn't exactly slap him across the face".

So what you are saying is that he did not slap him? You could be a politician!
[quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS![/p][/quote]No he didn't! Check the many video clips....[/p][/quote]Did his hand make contact with head?[/p][/quote]I have just seen the clips and he didn't exactly slap him across the face to be fair. Although it was a bit of handbags he did swing an arm at his head and then push/ slap him on the chin. Their players was as bad and there should be no complaints from either player imo.[/p][/quote]QUOTE: "He didn't exactly slap him across the face". So what you are saying is that he did not slap him? You could be a politician! Michael Clayton

9:38pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Victor Clayton says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote: get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS!
No he didn't! Check the many video clips....
Did his hand make contact with head?
I have just seen the clips and he didn't exactly slap him across the face to be fair. Although it was a bit of handbags he did swing an arm at his head and then push/ slap him on the chin. Their players was as bad and there should be no complaints from either player imo.
QUOTE: "He didn't exactly slap him across the face".

So what you are saying is that he did not slap him? You could be a politician!
Tbh, I don't know what to call it. What would you?
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: get a grip Parkinson. he slapped him across the face for FFS![/p][/quote]No he didn't! Check the many video clips....[/p][/quote]Did his hand make contact with head?[/p][/quote]I have just seen the clips and he didn't exactly slap him across the face to be fair. Although it was a bit of handbags he did swing an arm at his head and then push/ slap him on the chin. Their players was as bad and there should be no complaints from either player imo.[/p][/quote]QUOTE: "He didn't exactly slap him across the face". So what you are saying is that he did not slap him? You could be a politician![/p][/quote]Tbh, I don't know what to call it. What would you? Victor Clayton

11:59pm Fri 31 Jan 14

London bcfc says...

Brian Mac got the sack!!
Yes!!!
Brian Mac got the sack!! Yes!!! London bcfc

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree