The football league show - Rusty Red

[Tookie140 0]

I didn''t watch it last night, did anyone change their minds when they saw it from a different view?

[When Saturday Comes 0]

It did look worse on the TV but still definitely not a red in my view.

[York Yellow 0]

They didnt say ANYTHING about it !

[morty 0]

I just watched it and can''t really see anything conclusive either way.Theres no doubting he was high but it doesn''t look as bad as I saw it from the Barclay yesterday, I thought it was a terrible tackle yesterday but after seeing it again I''m not so sure it warranted a straight red.

[ZLF 274]

one distant camera angle - if another one exists we might see it on late kick off?   Cant see anything to support a change in decision at an appeal though. Showed high foot and player in russells vision but little else 

 

[Herman 9,817]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

one distant camera angle - if another one exists we might see it on late kick off?   Cant see anything to support a change in decision at an appeal though. Showed high foot and player in russells vision but little else 

 

[/quote]

Yeah,not very conclusive on that video!

(If you want a bad tackle look at Virgos against Leeds[:S])

[pennywise 0]

never a red in my book..russel was making contact with the ball when there player ran into his foot .  absolute joke of  a decision [:@]

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

one distant camera angle - if another one exists we might see it on late kick off?   Cant see anything to support a change in decision at an appeal though. Showed high foot and player in russells vision but little else 

 

[/quote]

In that case Zipper you may as well ban or red card every tackle in the game, it was nothing.

[Rivvo 257]

Happened right in line with me in the City stand, didn''t even think it was a foul, Rusty was completely focussed on the ball and the saints player came from out of his view, very poor decision!

[Graham Humphrey 13]

I know Russell is no stranger to receiving cards of the red variety but he could at least get sent off for something that deserved it...!

[walks on water 0]

I know I''m biased but, there was no way that challenge warranted a straight red. It looked worse on the tele, but was not worthy of anything more than yellow.

Bad decision that changed the game. As someone else has said, you can''t really go toe to toe with Sothampton a man down ...they''re too good.

[morty 0]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

one distant camera angle - if another one exists we might see it on late kick off?   Cant see anything to support a change in decision at an appeal though. Showed high foot and player in russells vision but little else 

 

[/quote]

In that case Zipper you may as well ban or red card every tackle in the game, it was nothing.

[/quote]I wouldn''t call it nothing, my first reaction seen from the upper Barclay yesterday was that it was a shocker. It looks better on the football league show but it still looks pretty bad.I''m assuming Neil Adams didn''t see it as bad on the radio yesterday then? The facts are his foot was high and he caught the guy, the rest is down to opinion really, this is shown by people having a few different views on it in this thread.

[fleckyfan 0]

It doesn''t help that the reputations of certain players influence referees, Once players get a name for getting sent off regularly, refs watch them even closer. 

[King Klose 0]

Never a red card, it tells you all you need to know that they didnt even think it was a red card on Radio Solent!!

[morty 0]

[quote user="NCFCWebbo"]Never a red card, it tells you all you need to know that they didnt even think it was a red card on Radio Solent!![/quote]I think a lot depends on what angle you saw it from, I sit in the middle of the upper Barclay and my first opinion was that it was an awful tackle, but on watching it from a different angle on the football league show it doesn''t look as bad.

[The Great Drinkell 50]

Didn''t think it was a red card at the time, have seen it again and to be honest it looked worse on the telly, but still not red in my book. The telling sign for me was Rusty''s reaction, one of abosolute amazement. We all  know he''s no angel but the guy was stunned at the decision as were his team mates. Players act to con refs nowadays but not on this occassion .

I hope the club appeal.

[pennywise 0]

i`m sure that ref booked jahidi in the 1st half and then in the last few minutes when he bought someone down on halfway he( jahidi) went and booked someone else instead ?  [:O]

[pennywise 0]

obviously i meant the ref booked someone else not jahidi lol before the grammar police arrest me [:$]

[ncfcstar 292]

From the Jarrold, and re-watching it on TV, I have to say I am shocked and appalled by the decision.  I couldn''t believe it at the time, and still can''t.  Russell''s eyes were completely on the ball, the guy came from behind him, and the ref clearly thought Russell purposely caught him.  There is no way Russell knew the guy was there, and he was genuinely challenging for the ball.  Ridiculous decision.

[ncfcstar 292]

[quote user="pennywise "]i`m sure that ref booked jahidi in the 1st half and then in the last few minutes when he bought someone down on halfway he( jahidi) went and booked someone else instead ?  [:O][/quote]Harding got booked, but it was because he kicked the ball away, not for the challenge.

[Yellowfuture 71]

I cant  see how anyone could think it was a red card, I was sitting pretty close to the incident and it was a  yellow at worst. Whatever angle you see it from I cant believe you could interpret what happened as violent conduct.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

one distant camera angle - if another one exists we might see it on late kick off?   Cant see anything to support a change in decision at an appeal though. Showed high foot and player in russells vision but little else 

 

[/quote]

In that case Zipper you may as well ban or red card every tackle in the game, it was nothing.

[/quote]

I wouldn''t call it nothing, my first reaction seen from the upper Barclay yesterday was that it was a shocker. It looks better on the football league show but it still looks pretty bad.

I''m assuming Neil Adams didn''t see it as bad on the radio yesterday then?

The facts are his foot was high and he caught the guy, the rest is down to opinion really, this is shown by people having a few different views on it in this thread.
[/quote]

Having seen said tackle (better view than you had!) and how Adams said it wasn''t even a card, I trust my eyes, and Neil Adams opinion more than your call on this![:|]

Nothing personal.

[King Klose 0]

I sit in the upper Barclay too and I don''t think it warranted a red. His foot was slightly high, but the guy came from behind. What else is he meant to do in that position? Just leave the ball and let it fall whether he''s under pressure or not? On Radio Norfolk afterwards someone mentioned that he should never had his foot that high, but I compare it to Elliot Wards overhead goal against Sheff Wed last week, you may have not seen it, or Nelson''s overhead away at Hartlepool earlier this season, surely they should''ve been penalised...

[ncfcstar 292]

[quote user="NCFCWebbo"]I sit in the upper Barclay too and I don''t think it warranted a red. His foot was slightly high, but the guy came from behind. What else is he meant to do in that position? Just leave the ball and let it fall whether he''s under pressure or not? On Radio Norfolk afterwards someone mentioned that he should never had his foot that high, but I compare it to Elliot Wards overhead goal against Sheff Wed last week, you may have not seen it, or Nelson''s overhead away at Hartlepool earlier this season, surely they should''ve been penalised...[/quote]The thing is, his foot wasn''t really that high.  He''d brought it up to bring the ball down with no intention, in my opinion, of hurting some guy who was coming in from the blind side.  If Russell had done that when no-one else was around, it would have been a simple piece of ball control, but because the Saints player decides to run into his boot he gets sent off.  It''s truly bizzare.

[morty 0]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="morty"][quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

one distant camera angle - if another one exists we might see it on late kick off?   Cant see anything to support a change in decision at an appeal though. Showed high foot and player in russells vision but little else 

 

[/quote]

In that case Zipper you may as well ban or red card every tackle in the game, it was nothing.

[/quote]I wouldn''t call it nothing, my first reaction seen from the upper Barclay yesterday was that it was a shocker. It looks better on the football league show but it still looks pretty bad.I''m assuming Neil Adams didn''t see it as bad on the radio yesterday then? The facts are his foot was high and he caught the guy, the rest is down to opinion really, this is shown by people having a few different views on it in this thread.[/quote]

Having seen said tackle (better view than you had!) and how Adams said it wasn''t even a card, I trust my eyes, and Neil Adams opinion more than your call on this![:|]

Nothing personal.

[/quote]Lol, whenever anyone ever says "nothing personal" I have my doubts.You are missing the point here, its all about the angle you saw it from, from where I sat it looked bad, and I have already conceded that it looked less bad from the camera angle. Neil Adams doesn''t sit with me so he saw it from a different angle and therefore had a different opinion.[:)]

[morty 0]

[quote user="NCFCWebbo"]I sit in the upper Barclay too and I don''t think it warranted a red. His foot was slightly high, but the guy came from behind. What else is he meant to do in that position? Just leave the ball and let it fall whether he''s under pressure or not? On Radio Norfolk afterwards someone mentioned that he should never had his foot that high, but I compare it to Elliot Wards overhead goal against Sheff Wed last week, you may have not seen it, or Nelson''s overhead away at Hartlepool earlier this season, surely they should''ve been penalised...[/quote]All about opinions I guess, he caught the guy in the chest so theres no doubt that his foot was high.It was one of those where I wasn''t looking directly at it, I think I glanced over to the left wing to anticipate where Rusty was going to pass it, my eyes flick back, high foot, guy goes down in a heap.My initial thought was that he had caught the guy in the face, hence my opinion at the time.

[King Klose 0]

Yeah thats what I think too. He was just bringing the ball down with no intention of hurting the opponent. Never a red card in a million years and, although Soton were the better side, we were just getting back into the game I felt when that happened and it really knocked the stuffing out of us.

[King Klose 0]

Yes Morty I agree his foot was high but my point is he didnt think anyone was round him and there was no intention, thats why I compare it to an overhead kick by for example Elliot Ward and Mickey Nelson, they should be penalised as their foot was high even though they had no intention of hurting anyone...

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="morty"][quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

one distant camera angle - if another one exists we might see it on late kick off?   Cant see anything to support a change in decision at an appeal though. Showed high foot and player in russells vision but little else 

 

[/quote]

In that case Zipper you may as well ban or red card every tackle in the game, it was nothing.

[/quote]

I wouldn''t call it nothing, my first reaction seen from the upper Barclay yesterday was that it was a shocker. It looks better on the football league show but it still looks pretty bad.

I''m assuming Neil Adams didn''t see it as bad on the radio yesterday then?

The facts are his foot was high and he caught the guy, the rest is down to opinion really, this is shown by people having a few different views on it in this thread.
[/quote]

Having seen said tackle (better view than you had!) and how Adams said it wasn''t even a card, I trust my eyes, and Neil Adams opinion more than your call on this![:|]

Nothing personal.

[/quote]

Lol, whenever anyone ever says "nothing personal" I have my doubts.

You are missing the point here, its all about the angle you saw it from, from where I sat it looked bad, and I have already conceded that it looked less bad from the camera angle. Neil Adams doesn''t sit with me so he saw it from a different angle and therefore had a different opinion.

[:)]
[/quote]

Thats why I value all opions, yourself included.

Further to this, Lambert implied on CW that we will be appealling against the decision.

[morty 0]

[quote user="NCFCWebbo"]Yes Morty I agree his foot was high but my point is he didnt think anyone was round him and there was no intention, thats why I compare it to an overhead kick by for example Elliot Ward and Mickey Nelson, they should be penalised as their foot was high even though they had no intention of hurting anyone...[/quote]Its a tricky one, as I reckon the ref will be able to justify his action through interpretation of the rules.You are always on dodgy ground as soon as your foot is high, what the appeal will hinge on is the intent on carrying out violent conduct. If we can prove that there was no intent then the red will be reduced to a yellow.