Ricardo's Report v PNE

[ricardo 7,395]

I was hoping today would be the day that I could report a turning point in the clubs fortunes and it would all be up from here on in. Unfortunately the omens weren''t good when we lost the toss and kicked the wrong way. History didn''t disappoint when we gave away a scrappy goal within 2 minutes. Its funny but we rarely ever get a result when kicking towards the River End first half, don''t ask me why, but its been the case for many years now.

There followed a 50 minute period where the team looked pretty good. I thought Bell was very good throughout and Ryan Bertrand was much improved on recent performances. At the back the Doc was also very solid. Bbut it was all flattering to decieve, a combination of good goalkeeping and Croftys usual standard of finishing left us with no value from our superior possesion. Kennedy''s goal came out of the blue really because we did nothing much in the second half. Bell''s crossing was the only thing of quality on display. I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. If the Ref is unable to use common sense and see that the Preston guy was exercising gamesmanship on our free kick then he does not deserve to be a Ref. It was a perfect example of something that should never happen; the Ref''s arbitary decision deciding the game.

I also heard a call from a guy called Drakey who commented that the playoffs were still on! Oh deary me, what possibilty do we have for change when so many of our supporters continue to live on the planet "Wishful Thinking".

I am even more convinced that nothing will improve until we have regieme change. Sorry to end on a low note but I am very disappointed tonight.

[canary cherub 1]

Many thanks Ricardo.

What do you think of Kennedy overall?  I like the sound of him and that''s his second (third?) goal.  Would he be a good signing if he can stay injury free?

I can understand how you feel about Russell''s sending off, but should it not be possible for us to hang on to a lead for 11 minutes at home?

 

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Potless Percy "]

Many thanks Ricardo.

What do you think of Kennedy overall?  I like the sound of him and that''s his second (third?) goal.  Would he be a good signing if he can stay injury free?

I can understand how you feel about Russell''s sending off, but should it not be possible for us to hang on to a lead for 11 minutes at home?

 

[/quote]

Agreed Percy, we should have been able to hang on for the win. Indeed it should not have been a case of hanging on because Preston offered very little until we went into our shell after we scored. Despite this we still had chances to wrap it up. Whatever Cureton was thinking when he squared it when open in the box I will never know.

Kennedy? yes I think he would would be a good permanent signing. He looked very comfortable alongside the Doc today. The real question is can we afford him come January.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

I was hoping today would be the day that I could report a turning point in the clubs fortunes and it would all be up from here on in. Unfortunately the omens weren''t good when we lost the toss and kicked the wrong way. History didn''t disappoint when we gave away a scrappy goal within 2 minutes. Its funny but we rarely ever get a result when kicking towards the River End first half, don''t ask me why, but its been the case for many years now.

There followed a 50 minute period where the team looked pretty good. I thought Bell was very good throughout and Ryan Bertrand was much improved on recent performances. At the back the Doc was also very solid. Bbut it was all flattering to decieve, a combination of good goalkeeping and Croftys usual standard of finishing left us with no value from our superior possesion. Kennedy''s goal came out of the blue really because we did nothing much in the second half. Bell''s crossing was the only thing of quality on display. I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. If the Ref is unable to use common sense and see that the Preston guy was exercising gamesmanship on our free kick then he does not deserve to be a Ref. It was a perfect example of something that should never happen; the Ref''s arbitary decision deciding the game.

I also heard a call from a guy called Drakey who commented that the playoffs were still on! Oh deary me, what possibilty do we have for change when so many of our supporters continue to live on the planet "Wishful Thinking".

I am even more convinced that nothing will improve until we have regieme change. Sorry to end on a low note but I am very disappointed tonight.

[/quote]

 

Pretty much agree with that Ricardo.First goal was shocking keeping.Marshall just had to come and clean everything out, but as usual cowered on his line.He looked shaky throughout,and can''t do much for the back four''s confidence. I thought that the loss of Sibierski affected us badly,and that Lupoli, not Cureton should have come on.Predictably Cureton then did very little for 45 minutes (except pass to no-one when through on goal),and our attacking threat dwindled. The number one priority in January has to be to sell him to a League One club and use the money on a target man.

I was so disappointed that we sat back after Kennedy''s goal and, after Rusty''s brainlessness an equaliser was almost inevitable.For me Doc and Bell were head and shoulders above everyone else. Lita took his goal well and looked up for it, But Dejan''s injury looks very serious.Its never a good sign when a player goes down and doesn''t move at all.Couldn''t believe how much room we gave their number 10. Apart from the result my enjoyment was further impaired by sitting behind a guy who kept up a nonstop stream of inane and one-eyed nonsense throughout the game!

[arrdee 2]

Well done Dick and thanks.Ray.

[nutty nigel 7,535]

Bells delivery into the box is outstanding. If we can hold on to Kennedy they can probably get us half a dozen goals at least from set pieces. Kennedy and the Doc looked ok together after Stefanovic''s unfortunate injury. And yes we did play well for an hour but always needed another goal to lift the tension. After Russells moment of madness our brittle confidence disappeared altogether. Too often we don''t look strong enough. Is it physical strength or bottle?

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Bells delivery into the box is outstanding. If we can hold on to Kennedy they can probably get us half a dozen goals at least from set pieces. Kennedy and the Doc looked ok together after Stefanovic''s unfortunate injury. And yes we did play well for an hour but always needed another goal to lift the tension. After Russells moment of madness our brittle confidence disappeared altogether. Too often we don''t look strong enough. Is it physical strength or bottle?

[/quote]

It''s a lack of mental toughness ------ has been so for years.

And you know from where it stems, nigel.

OTBC

 

 

[zipchhorhajarh 0]

INteresting that again Kennedy has a ''momentary'' lapse in allowing Mellor too much space that along with Russell immaturity cost us two points.   Kennedy has lost his players too many times,  costly mistakes that have left us to the bottom o fthe table.

 

Unless he can cut those errors out I struggle to see why we would buy him? 

[Old Boy 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

I was hoping today would be the day that I could report a turning point in the clubs fortunes and it would all be up from here on in. Unfortunately the omens weren''t good when we lost the toss and kicked the wrong way. History didn''t disappoint when we gave away a scrappy goal within 2 minutes. Its funny but we rarely ever get a result when kicking towards the River End first half, don''t ask me why, but its been the case for many years now.

There followed a 50 minute period where the team looked pretty good. I thought Bell was very good throughout and Ryan Bertrand was much improved on recent performances. At the back the Doc was also very solid. Bbut it was all flattering to decieve, a combination of good goalkeeping and Croftys usual standard of finishing left us with no value from our superior possesion. Kennedy''s goal came out of the blue really because we did nothing much in the second half. Bell''s crossing was the only thing of quality on display. I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. If the Ref is unable to use common sense and see that the Preston guy was exercising gamesmanship on our free kick then he does not deserve to be a Ref. It was a perfect example of something that should never happen; the Ref''s arbitary decision deciding the game.

I also heard a call from a guy called Drakey who commented that the playoffs were still on! Oh deary me, what possibilty do we have for change when so many of our supporters continue to live on the planet "Wishful Thinking".

I am even more convinced that nothing will improve until we have regieme change. Sorry to end on a low note but I am very disappointed tonight.

[/quote]Mmmm.... where to start? "Good goalkeeping" - like when Marshall rushed off his line in the second minute and gift-wrapped a gola for Preston? As for Kennedy''s goal being out of the blue - you admitted that we had superior possession, so one of those statements is wrong. The free kick was beautifully worked (how often can we say that?) - Croft and Bell deceived PNE really well, Bell put a fantastic ball in, and Kennedy was just where he needed to be. Bell''s close control was outstanding, not just his crossing, and more than a match for Hux in terms of effectiveness. Clingan was fantastic - moving the ball quickly and incisively. Sibierski and Lita were very dangerous in combination. Admittedly there were major flaws and individual mistakes, but if you can''t stomach them you shouldn''t go to games - anywhere. All in all a good game, until the 80th minute. I should check the bottom of your glass - there''s a hole in it.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Old Boy"][quote user="ricardo"]

I was hoping today would be the day that I could report a turning point in the clubs fortunes and it would all be up from here on in. Unfortunately the omens weren''t good when we lost the toss and kicked the wrong way. History didn''t disappoint when we gave away a scrappy goal within 2 minutes. Its funny but we rarely ever get a result when kicking towards the River End first half, don''t ask me why, but its been the case for many years now.

There followed a 50 minute period where the team looked pretty good. I thought Bell was very good throughout and Ryan Bertrand was much improved on recent performances. At the back the Doc was also very solid. Bbut it was all flattering to decieve, a combination of good goalkeeping and Croftys usual standard of finishing left us with no value from our superior possesion. Kennedy''s goal came out of the blue really because we did nothing much in the second half. Bell''s crossing was the only thing of quality on display. I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. If the Ref is unable to use common sense and see that the Preston guy was exercising gamesmanship on our free kick then he does not deserve to be a Ref. It was a perfect example of something that should never happen; the Ref''s arbitary decision deciding the game.

I also heard a call from a guy called Drakey who commented that the playoffs were still on! Oh deary me, what possibilty do we have for change when so many of our supporters continue to live on the planet "Wishful Thinking".

I am even more convinced that nothing will improve until we have regieme change. Sorry to end on a low note but I am very disappointed tonight.

[/quote]Mmmm.... where to start? "Good goalkeeping" - like when Marshall rushed off his line in the second minute and gift-wrapped a gola for Preston? As for Kennedy''s goal being out of the blue - you admitted that we had superior possession, so one of those statements is wrong. The free kick was beautifully worked (how often can we say that?) - Croft and Bell deceived PNE really well, Bell put a fantastic ball in, and Kennedy was just where he needed to be. Bell''s close control was outstanding, not just his crossing, and more than a match for Hux in terms of effectiveness. Clingan was fantastic - moving the ball quickly and incisively. Sibierski and Lita were very dangerous in combination. Admittedly there were major flaws and individual mistakes, but if you can''t stomach them you shouldn''t go to games - anywhere. All in all a good game, until the 80th minute. I should check the bottom of your glass - there''s a hole in it.[/quote]Good heavens, what planet are you from?As for Kennedy''s goal being out of the blue - you admitted that we had

superior possession, so one of those statements is wrong. No it isn''t. You can dominate possession without creating any chances, which is what we did for the first part of the second half.  The goal was out of the blue as it was our first meaningful effort of the 2nd half.Bell''s close control was outstanding, not

just his crossing, and more than a match for Hux in terms of

effectiveness. That''s an astounding thing to say.  Bell does not have the pace to cut through or open up a defence and suggesting he can be the new Huckerby is nonsense.  His dead ball delivery and crossing was excellent, though I don''t recall that being part of Huckerby''s game either.All in all a

good game, until the 80th minute. A good game in terms of what?  Quality of football?  Quality of Norwich performance?  Or was it just a jolly nice day out?

[nutty nigel 7,535]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Old Boy"][quote user="ricardo"]

I was hoping today would be the day that I could report a turning point in the clubs fortunes and it would all be up from here on in. Unfortunately the omens weren''t good when we lost the toss and kicked the wrong way. History didn''t disappoint when we gave away a scrappy goal within 2 minutes. Its funny but we rarely ever get a result when kicking towards the River End first half, don''t ask me why, but its been the case for many years now.

There followed a 50 minute period where the team looked pretty good. I thought Bell was very good throughout and Ryan Bertrand was much improved on recent performances. At the back the Doc was also very solid. Bbut it was all flattering to decieve, a combination of good goalkeeping and Croftys usual standard of finishing left us with no value from our superior possesion. Kennedy''s goal came out of the blue really because we did nothing much in the second half. Bell''s crossing was the only thing of quality on display. I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. If the Ref is unable to use common sense and see that the Preston guy was exercising gamesmanship on our free kick then he does not deserve to be a Ref. It was a perfect example of something that should never happen; the Ref''s arbitary decision deciding the game.

I also heard a call from a guy called Drakey who commented that the playoffs were still on! Oh deary me, what possibilty do we have for change when so many of our supporters continue to live on the planet "Wishful Thinking".

I am even more convinced that nothing will improve until we have regieme change. Sorry to end on a low note but I am very disappointed tonight.

[/quote]
Mmmm.... where to start? "Good goalkeeping" - like when Marshall rushed off his line in the second minute and gift-wrapped a gola for Preston? As for Kennedy''s goal being out of the blue - you admitted that we had superior possession, so one of those statements is wrong. The free kick was beautifully worked (how often can we say that?) - Croft and Bell deceived PNE really well, Bell put a fantastic ball in, and Kennedy was just where he needed to be. Bell''s close control was outstanding, not just his crossing, and more than a match for Hux in terms of effectiveness. Clingan was fantastic - moving the ball quickly and incisively. Sibierski and Lita were very dangerous in combination. Admittedly there were major flaws and individual mistakes, but if you can''t stomach them you shouldn''t go to games - anywhere. All in all a good game, until the 80th minute.

I should check the bottom of your glass - there''s a hole in it.
[/quote]

Good heavens, what planet are you from?

As for Kennedy''s goal being out of the blue - you admitted that we had superior possession, so one of those statements is wrong.

No it isn''t. You can dominate possession without creating any chances, which is what we did for the first part of the second half.  The goal was out of the blue as it was our first meaningful effort of the 2nd half.

Bell''s close control was outstanding, not just his crossing, and more than a match for Hux in terms of effectiveness.

That''s an astounding thing to say.  Bell does not have the pace to cut through or open up a defence and suggesting he can be the new Huckerby is nonsense.  His dead ball delivery and crossing was excellent, though I don''t recall that being part of Huckerby''s game either.

All in all a good game, until the 80th minute.

A good game in terms of what?  Quality of football?  Quality of Norwich performance?  Or was it just a jolly nice day out?


[/quote]

Why is it neccessary to compare Bell to Huckerby, they are different players entirely. Bell is the player we have now. His delivery is better than we have had for years. In the short time he has been fit he has created three goals and if he stays fit will create many more.

It''s not fair on Bell and it''s not fair on Huckerby so why do it?

 

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

[quote user="Old Boy"]

I should check the bottom of your glass - there''s a hole in it.
[/quote]

Given your ridiculous assessment of yesterday''s "good game", one could say the same for your footballing knowledge.

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. If the Ref is unable to use common sense and see that the Preston guy was exercising gamesmanship on our free kick then he does not deserve to be a Ref. It was a perfect example of something that should never happen; the Ref''s arbitary decision deciding the game.

[/quote]

If you used your common sense Ricardo, you would realise that it is totally unacceptable for any player to raise his hands to the face of the opposition, if you like that sort of stuff you should start following rugby. The referee got that one spot on.

What is more frustating is that Russell must have half expected it. [:@]

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="TCF"][quote user="ricardo"]

I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. If the Ref is unable to use common sense and see that the Preston guy was exercising gamesmanship on our free kick then he does not deserve to be a Ref. It was a perfect example of something that should never happen; the Ref''s arbitary decision deciding the game.

[/quote]

If you used your common sense Ricardo, you would realise that it is totally unacceptable for any player to raise his hands to the face of the opposition, if you like that sort of stuff you should start following rugby. The referee got that one spot on.

What is more frustating is that Russell must have half expected it. [:@]

[/quote]

 

Totally agree. Even Roeder didn''t try to defend it. Raise your hands to a player''s face and you go, simple as. The players know that, and the fact that it was actually our kick makes it even more stupid.

I couldn''t believe the"expert" behind me, who , having kept up a constant stream of drivel to his long suffering girlfriend throughout the game, berated the ref on the basis that it shouldn''t be a sending off "because its not like the Preston player was hurt or anything".  Oh my God!!!!!!!

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="TCF"][quote user="ricardo"]

I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. If the Ref is unable to use common sense and see that the Preston guy was exercising gamesmanship on our free kick then he does not deserve to be a Ref. It was a perfect example of something that should never happen; the Ref''s arbitary decision deciding the game.

[/quote]

If you used your common sense Ricardo, you would realise that it is totally unacceptable for any player to raise his hands to the face of the opposition, if you like that sort of stuff you should start following rugby. The referee got that one spot on.

What is more frustating is that Russell must have half expected it. [:@]

[/quote]

I beg to disagree. The fact that raising the hands to push somebody away is a sending off offence under the letter of the law does not make it either sensible or desirable. If it is done as a provocation or a punch then I would agree but that is not what happened yesterday.

The Preston player was the instigator of the entire incident yet walks away without any censure.Is that compatible with natural justice? I don''t think so but you are entitled to your opinion.

In high scoring games like basketball and in some respects even Rugby, it is not so important when you lose a man. In football it is often that one goal or one incident decides a game. Therefore a referee''s decision has a far greater impact on the result. If you think the Russell incident warranted a sending off then fair enough but I have seen far worse go unpunished. I prefer to see the result decided by the players, not the man with the whistle.

[Largey 0]

Although he is a numpty for getting sent off, top laugh of the match was seeing Russell in a Derby sandwich, only for the 2 Derby clowns to fall over each other, and Russell given the FK!

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Largey"]Although he is a numpty for getting sent off, top laugh of the match was seeing Russell in a Derby sandwich, only for the 2 Derby clowns to fall over each other, and Russell given the FK![/quote]

 

Even funnier is that you think we were playing Derby yesterday.

[Largey 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="Largey"]Although he is a numpty for getting sent off, top laugh of the match was seeing Russell in a Derby sandwich, only for the 2 Derby clowns to fall over each other, and Russell given the FK![/quote]

 

Even funnier is that you think we were playing Derby yesterday.

[/quote]

 

I just said the exact same thing to a mate on MSN, dont know why I thought Derby.

 

I stand corrected!

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="TCF"][quote user="ricardo"]

I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. If the Ref is unable to use common sense and see that the Preston guy was exercising gamesmanship on our free kick then he does not deserve to be a Ref. It was a perfect example of something that should never happen; the Ref''s arbitary decision deciding the game.

[/quote]

If you used your common sense Ricardo, you would realise that it is totally unacceptable for any player to raise his hands to the face of the opposition, if you like that sort of stuff you should start following rugby. The referee got that one spot on.

What is more frustating is that Russell must have half expected it. [:@]

[/quote]

 

Totally agree. Even Roeder didn''t try to defend it. Raise your hands to a player''s face and you go, simple as. The players know that, and the fact that it was actually our kick makes it even more stupid.

I couldn''t believe the"expert" behind me, who , having kept up a constant stream of drivel to his long suffering girlfriend throughout the game, berated the ref on the basis that it shouldn''t be a sending off "because its not like the Preston player was hurt or anything".  Oh my God!!!!!!!

[/quote]yeah - its not the nonsense your captain should get into - especially when you''re leading in a must win game,,,preston we''re there for the taking...rusty let the side down big time,,,

[Binky 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="TCF"][quote user="ricardo"]

I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. [/quote]

If you used your common sense Ricardo, you would realise that it is totally unacceptable for any player to raise his hands to the face of the opposition, if you like that sort of stuff you should start following rugby. The referee got that one spot on.

What is more frustating is that Russell must have half expected it. [:@]

[/quote]

Even Roeder didn''t try to defend it. Raise your hands to a player''s face and you go, simple as. The players know that, and the fact that it was actually our kick makes it even more stupid.

I couldn''t believe the"expert" behind me, who , having kept up a constant stream of drivel to his long suffering girlfriend throughout the game, berated the ref on the basis that it shouldn''t be a sending off "because its not like the Preston player was hurt or anything".  Oh my God!!!!!!!

[/quote]

Spot on TCF & Beaus- sadly. Couldn''t understand Neil Adams'' comment suggetsing it''s a silly law either. With so much (money) at stake it''s no surprise that fair play is not always adhered to. So if you didn''t have this law, how much pressure would you allow someone to exert in physical contact with an opponent''s face? A flick, a brush, a wave - but what if the pointed finger makes contact accidentally with an eye? Suggesting contact is Ok if no-one is actually hurt is like saying it''s OK to broadcast obscenities if no-one hears them. The law is simple, plain and clear. It avoids any grey areas. Russell is paid a lot of money to adhere to the laws. He didn''t. End of story.

 

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Binky"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="TCF"][quote user="ricardo"]

I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. [/quote]

If you used your common sense Ricardo, you would realise that it is totally unacceptable for any player to raise his hands to the face of the opposition, if you like that sort of stuff you should start following rugby. The referee got that one spot on.

What is more frustating is that Russell must have half expected it. [:@]

[/quote]

Even Roeder didn''t try to defend it. Raise your hands to a player''s face and you go, simple as. The players know that, and the fact that it was actually our kick makes it even more stupid.

I couldn''t believe the"expert" behind me, who , having kept up a constant stream of drivel to his long suffering girlfriend throughout the game, berated the ref on the basis that it shouldn''t be a sending off "because its not like the Preston player was hurt or anything".  Oh my God!!!!!!!

[/quote]

Spot on TCF & Beaus- sadly. Couldn''t understand Neil Adams'' comment suggetsing it''s a silly law either. With so much (money) at stake it''s no surprise that fair play is not always adhered to. So if you didn''t have this law, how much pressure would you allow someone to exert in physical contact with an opponent''s face? A flick, a brush, a wave - but what if the pointed finger makes contact accidentally with an eye? Suggesting contact is Ok if no-one is actually hurt is like saying it''s OK to broadcast obscenities if no-one hears them. The law is simple, plain and clear. It avoids any grey areas. Russell is paid a lot of money to adhere to the laws. He didn''t. End of story.

 

[/quote]

Its an abject charter for Gamesmanship. In any Civil or Criminal court of law provocation is taken into account.

The only thing this law avoids is natural justice.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Binky"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="TCF"][quote user="ricardo"]

I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. [/quote]

If you used your common sense Ricardo, you would realise that it is totally unacceptable for any player to raise his hands to the face of the opposition, if you like that sort of stuff you should start following rugby. The referee got that one spot on.

What is more frustating is that Russell must have half expected it. [:@]

[/quote]

Even Roeder didn''t try to defend it. Raise your hands to a player''s face and you go, simple as. The players know that, and the fact that it was actually our kick makes it even more stupid.

I couldn''t believe the"expert" behind me, who , having kept up a constant stream of drivel to his long suffering girlfriend throughout the game, berated the ref on the basis that it shouldn''t be a sending off "because its not like the Preston player was hurt or anything".  Oh my God!!!!!!!

[/quote]

Spot on TCF & Beaus- sadly. Couldn''t understand Neil Adams'' comment suggetsing it''s a silly law either. With so much (money) at stake it''s no surprise that fair play is not always adhered to. So if you didn''t have this law, how much pressure would you allow someone to exert in physical contact with an opponent''s face? A flick, a brush, a wave - but what if the pointed finger makes contact accidentally with an eye? Suggesting contact is Ok if no-one is actually hurt is like saying it''s OK to broadcast obscenities if no-one hears them. The law is simple, plain and clear. It avoids any grey areas. Russell is paid a lot of money to adhere to the laws. He didn''t. End of story.

 

[/quote]

Its an abject charter for Gamesmanship. In any Civil or Criminal court of law provocation is taken into account.

The only thing this law avoids is natural justice.

[/quote]

 

With respect, Ricardo, that''s a different argument. The issue is that the law (whatever it''s rights or wrongs ) is clear .I know it, you know it and Rusty knows it.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Binky"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="TCF"][quote user="ricardo"]

I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. [/quote]

If you used your common sense Ricardo, you would realise that it is totally unacceptable for any player to raise his hands to the face of the opposition, if you like that sort of stuff you should start following rugby. The referee got that one spot on.

What is more frustating is that Russell must have half expected it. [:@]

[/quote]

Even Roeder didn''t try to defend it. Raise your hands to a player''s face and you go, simple as. The players know that, and the fact that it was actually our kick makes it even more stupid.

I couldn''t believe the"expert" behind me, who , having kept up a constant stream of drivel to his long suffering girlfriend throughout the game, berated the ref on the basis that it shouldn''t be a sending off "because its not like the Preston player was hurt or anything".  Oh my God!!!!!!!

[/quote]

Spot on TCF & Beaus- sadly. Couldn''t understand Neil Adams'' comment suggetsing it''s a silly law either. With so much (money) at stake it''s no surprise that fair play is not always adhered to. So if you didn''t have this law, how much pressure would you allow someone to exert in physical contact with an opponent''s face? A flick, a brush, a wave - but what if the pointed finger makes contact accidentally with an eye? Suggesting contact is Ok if no-one is actually hurt is like saying it''s OK to broadcast obscenities if no-one hears them. The law is simple, plain and clear. It avoids any grey areas. Russell is paid a lot of money to adhere to the laws. He didn''t. End of story.

 

[/quote]

Its an abject charter for Gamesmanship. In any Civil or Criminal court of law provocation is taken into account.

The only thing this law avoids is natural justice.

[/quote]

 

With respect, Ricardo, that''s a different argument. The issue is that the law (whatever it''s rights or wrongs ) is clear .I know it, you know it and Rusty knows it.

[/quote]

I invite you to examine this scenario Bes.

You are walking down Riverside to the match. A chap walks up behind you and grabs you round the neck. You push him away just as a nearby PC Plod turns round. You are frog marched to the Hurry Up wagon and miss the match.

At your hearing on Monday morning you shout to the Magistrate,"Never mind the provocation, you''ve got me bang to rights Guv. I know it, you know it and even old Ricardo at Trowse knows it. I deserve the the full majesty of the law while my provocative assailant walks away scot free".

No?

I thought not.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Binky"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="TCF"][quote user="ricardo"]

I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. [/quote]

If you used your common sense Ricardo, you would realise that it is totally unacceptable for any player to raise his hands to the face of the opposition, if you like that sort of stuff you should start following rugby. The referee got that one spot on.

What is more frustating is that Russell must have half expected it. [:@]

[/quote]

Even Roeder didn''t try to defend it. Raise your hands to a player''s face and you go, simple as. The players know that, and the fact that it was actually our kick makes it even more stupid.

I couldn''t believe the"expert" behind me, who , having kept up a constant stream of drivel to his long suffering girlfriend throughout the game, berated the ref on the basis that it shouldn''t be a sending off "because its not like the Preston player was hurt or anything".  Oh my God!!!!!!!

[/quote]

Spot on TCF & Beaus- sadly. Couldn''t understand Neil Adams'' comment suggetsing it''s a silly law either. With so much (money) at stake it''s no surprise that fair play is not always adhered to. So if you didn''t have this law, how much pressure would you allow someone to exert in physical contact with an opponent''s face? A flick, a brush, a wave - but what if the pointed finger makes contact accidentally with an eye? Suggesting contact is Ok if no-one is actually hurt is like saying it''s OK to broadcast obscenities if no-one hears them. The law is simple, plain and clear. It avoids any grey areas. Russell is paid a lot of money to adhere to the laws. He didn''t. End of story.

 

[/quote]

Its an abject charter for Gamesmanship. In any Civil or Criminal court of law provocation is taken into account.

The only thing this law avoids is natural justice.

[/quote]

 

With respect, Ricardo, that''s a different argument. The issue is that the law (whatever it''s rights or wrongs ) is clear .I know it, you know it and Rusty knows it.

[/quote]

I invite you to examine this scenario Bes.

You are walking down Riverside to the match. A chap walks up behind you and grabs you round the neck. You push him away just as a nearby PC Plod turns round. You are frog marched to the Hurry Up wagon and miss the match.

At your hearing on Monday morning you shout to the Magistrate,"Never mind the provocation, you''ve got me bang to rights Guv. I know it, you know it and even old Ricardo at Trowse knows it. I deserve the the full majesty of the law while my provocative assailant walks away scot free".

No?

I thought not.

[/quote]

 

Sorry, don''t buy that one. If the law said that a push in the face is a definite offence, you''d get done. I suspect what you mean is that in such a case there would be shades of grey admissable in court, which , as I said, is a different argument.I''m not defending the black and white nature of the rule, or arguing that the Preston player shouldn''t get off scot free, just saying that If we all know the law and it''s interpretation by refs, Rusty hasn''t got a leg to stand on.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Binky"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="TCF"][quote user="ricardo"]

I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. [/quote]

If you used your common sense Ricardo, you would realise that it is totally unacceptable for any player to raise his hands to the face of the opposition, if you like that sort of stuff you should start following rugby. The referee got that one spot on.

What is more frustating is that Russell must have half expected it. [:@]

[/quote]

Even Roeder didn''t try to defend it. Raise your hands to a player''s face and you go, simple as. The players know that, and the fact that it was actually our kick makes it even more stupid.

I couldn''t believe the"expert" behind me, who , having kept up a constant stream of drivel to his long suffering girlfriend throughout the game, berated the ref on the basis that it shouldn''t be a sending off "because its not like the Preston player was hurt or anything".  Oh my God!!!!!!!

[/quote]

Spot on TCF & Beaus- sadly. Couldn''t understand Neil Adams'' comment suggetsing it''s a silly law either. With so much (money) at stake it''s no surprise that fair play is not always adhered to. So if you didn''t have this law, how much pressure would you allow someone to exert in physical contact with an opponent''s face? A flick, a brush, a wave - but what if the pointed finger makes contact accidentally with an eye? Suggesting contact is Ok if no-one is actually hurt is like saying it''s OK to broadcast obscenities if no-one hears them. The law is simple, plain and clear. It avoids any grey areas. Russell is paid a lot of money to adhere to the laws. He didn''t. End of story.

 

[/quote]

Its an abject charter for Gamesmanship. In any Civil or Criminal court of law provocation is taken into account.

The only thing this law avoids is natural justice.

[/quote]

 

With respect, Ricardo, that''s a different argument. The issue is that the law (whatever it''s rights or wrongs ) is clear .I know it, you know it and Rusty knows it.

[/quote]

I invite you to examine this scenario Bes.

You are walking down Riverside to the match. A chap walks up behind you and grabs you round the neck. You push him away just as a nearby PC Plod turns round. You are frog marched to the Hurry Up wagon and miss the match.

At your hearing on Monday morning you shout to the Magistrate,"Never mind the provocation, you''ve got me bang to rights Guv. I know it, you know it and even old Ricardo at Trowse knows it. I deserve the the full majesty of the law while my provocative assailant walks away scot free".

No?

I thought not.

[/quote]

 

Sorry, don''t buy that one. If the law said that a push in the face is a definite offence, you''d get done. I suspect what you mean is that in such a case there would be shades of grey admissable in court, which , as I said, is a different argument.I''m not defending the black and white nature of the rule, or arguing that the Preston player shouldn''t get off scot free, just saying that If we all know the law and it''s interpretation by refs, Rusty hasn''t got a leg to stand on.

[/quote]

Someone once said "Laws are made for the guidance of wise men and the strict observance of fools".

I would suggest that Saturdays decision epitomised the latter while ignoring the former.

In plain language, it might be the law but it sure as hell aint justice.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Binky"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="TCF"][quote user="ricardo"]

I listened to Neil Adams on the stroll back to Trowse and have to disagree with his conclusion that the ref had no choice in sending Russell off. [/quote]

If you used your common sense Ricardo, you would realise that it is totally unacceptable for any player to raise his hands to the face of the opposition, if you like that sort of stuff you should start following rugby. The referee got that one spot on.

What is more frustating is that Russell must have half expected it. [:@]

[/quote]

Even Roeder didn''t try to defend it. Raise your hands to a player''s face and you go, simple as. The players know that, and the fact that it was actually our kick makes it even more stupid.

I couldn''t believe the"expert" behind me, who , having kept up a constant stream of drivel to his long suffering girlfriend throughout the game, berated the ref on the basis that it shouldn''t be a sending off "because its not like the Preston player was hurt or anything".  Oh my God!!!!!!!

[/quote]

Spot on TCF & Beaus- sadly. Couldn''t understand Neil Adams'' comment suggetsing it''s a silly law either. With so much (money) at stake it''s no surprise that fair play is not always adhered to. So if you didn''t have this law, how much pressure would you allow someone to exert in physical contact with an opponent''s face? A flick, a brush, a wave - but what if the pointed finger makes contact accidentally with an eye? Suggesting contact is Ok if no-one is actually hurt is like saying it''s OK to broadcast obscenities if no-one hears them. The law is simple, plain and clear. It avoids any grey areas. Russell is paid a lot of money to adhere to the laws. He didn''t. End of story.

 

[/quote]

Its an abject charter for Gamesmanship. In any Civil or Criminal court of law provocation is taken into account.

The only thing this law avoids is natural justice.

[/quote]

 

With respect, Ricardo, that''s a different argument. The issue is that the law (whatever it''s rights or wrongs ) is clear .I know it, you know it and Rusty knows it.

[/quote]

I invite you to examine this scenario Bes.

You are walking down Riverside to the match. A chap walks up behind you and grabs you round the neck. You push him away just as a nearby PC Plod turns round. You are frog marched to the Hurry Up wagon and miss the match.

At your hearing on Monday morning you shout to the Magistrate,"Never mind the provocation, you''ve got me bang to rights Guv. I know it, you know it and even old Ricardo at Trowse knows it. I deserve the the full majesty of the law while my provocative assailant walks away scot free".

No?

I thought not.

[/quote]

 

Sorry, don''t buy that one. If the law said that a push in the face is a definite offence, you''d get done. I suspect what you mean is that in such a case there would be shades of grey admissable in court, which , as I said, is a different argument.I''m not defending the black and white nature of the rule, or arguing that the Preston player shouldn''t get off scot free, just saying that If we all know the law and it''s interpretation by refs, Rusty hasn''t got a leg to stand on.

[/quote]

Someone once said "Laws are made for the guidance of wise men and the strict observance of fools".

I would suggest that Saturdays decision epitomised the latter while ignoring the former.

In plain language, it might be the law but it sure as hell aint justice.

[/quote]

 

And there we finally agree![Y]

[ricardo 7,395]

Thank you for that enjoyable discussion Bes.

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Thank you for that enjoyable discussion Bes.

 

[/quote]

 

Enjoyed it too. You are a gentleman sir!