No Mad 0 Posted February 26, 2007 From N&P stand ypu would not be able to see properly because defender''s leg between you and Huckerby.Not sure what replay people are referring to but if it is the one on Canaries World suggest you may be swayed by the commentary. You really can not see clearly from the angle of the camera. Yes Huckerby went down pretty easily but IMO from my view at the game the defender made definite contact with him and not the ball. Incidentally, you could also argue that the clash between Etuhu and Marshall should have been a penalty because Etuhu got the ball and Marshall did not. There was contact - therefore penalty? May explain why Marshall stayed down? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0ridgemanddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0 Posted February 26, 2007 Whilst Huckerbys arm might have been raised when he went for goal what about the incident in the first half when Huckerby was pulled back by the throat not a foul in the refs eyes. Standard of refereeing is declining faster than NCFC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AJ 1,218 Posted February 26, 2007 Was a definate dive for certain!Hux was always going down, he was looking for it.However, his arm in the defenders face on the way through to our goal was definately a foul!Strangely the defender didn''t make a meal out of it thou, which was odd. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USAcanary 0 Posted February 26, 2007 LOL, having replayed the hilights on canaries world it was an obvious dive.Hucks is going down before the guy even puts his foot in.Hucks had no complaint to the yellow card.What worries me is that we seem this desperate to get a goal by any means. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
