The football league show - Rusty Red

[? 20]

Neither Nelson nor Ward planted their studs in another man''s chest. And in the action of an overhead kick, it''s extremely difficult to do so.

Rusty wasn''t going for an overhead kick, was he? He led with his studs, and it''s that which makes it dangerous play. And hence, a red.

[Flinty 0]

how many mins in is it on iplayer? thanks

Flinty

[King Klose 0]

How was Russell meant to know he was going to ''''plant'''' his studs in they guy, there was NO intention, hence it wasnt a red...

The debate is how high is foot was, there was no intention and he didnt know where the opponent was.

[? 20]

Dear oh dear, do i have to say it again?

Intent doesn''t come into it.

If a player lunges in with a double footed challenge and ends up breaking another player''s leg, it''s a red card, yes? Regardless of intent!

Just like if a player plants his studs into another player''s chest, it''s a red card, regardless of intent. Because whether or not he meant to do it, his foot shouldn''t be that high when other players are around him, and he shouldn''t be leading with his studs. I believe that the rules of the game class it as ''dangerous play''. And, yes, it''s punishable by a red card.

Geez, it''s not that hard to work out chap.

[Branston Pickle 3,656]

It''s interesting that you had your opinion of Rusty''s tackle that you do Morty, I too sit in the middle of the upper barclay and saw it totally differently. For me, Russell clearly only had eyes for bringing the ball down/keeping the attack going and didn''t even appear aware of an opponent being there. There was no intent at all and any clash was accidental, a yellow at worst; imo the card was hugely influenced by the reaction of the Saints player who went down as if shot, and didn''t move.

[Caramac 0]

? You''re a bit pompous aren''t you? I was side on yesterday to the sending off - the Saints player was a good two-three yards behind and blindside of Russell when he went to play the ball. Because the ball was bouncing high Russell''s foot was raised to get the ball. There''s no way that it''s a card of either colour.

As to the penalty shout, it would have been given as a foul outside of the box so should have been a penalty.

That said we were absolutely played off the park, but sending off was disappointing as we were just beginning to get a toe hold.

[? 20]

Evidently you''re wrong, Caramac. Y''know, seeing as the ref gave him a red for it, an'' all that.

I''ve got no doubt if the challenge had been on one of our players then there''d be plenty more of you agreeing with the decision. But some people just can''t be objective, eh? Nevermind.

And as for being pompous, well, maybe. I am what i am!

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

I dont feel it was a red, a yellow yes but not a red. I wonder what City fans would have been saying had the roles been reversed and it was Russell on the other end of that foul and the ref gave a yellow....admit it, you would be doing your nuts.

[Ghost of Davie Ross 0]

Just to throw my threepennyworth in I felt it was a ridiculous decision. It was a 50/50 ball and Rusty was perfectly entitled to go for it. What was he supposed to do? Stand back and say after you mate? It is the sort of challenge that happens in every game and usually the worst that is given is a yellow card. The ref was too quick to get his card out and should have given himself more time.

[? 20]

What was he supposed to do? Erm... head it, maybe? As opposed to ramming his studs into the other guy''s chest...

Typical Rusty, i''m afraid. He''s had a super season so far, but clearly still has that idiotic streak that can make him a liability at times.

[Ghost of Davie Ross 0]

He was going for the ball. Sorry mate we will have to agree to disagree here but most City fans feel it was the wrong decision.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

We are all biase on here about should it be red or not, but todays papers and tv were mixed in their opinion, some said deserved, some said harsh, for me it was a yellow.

[? 20]

Aye, it''s a game of opinions, afterall.

Here''s to hoping that i''m wrong in my judgement and it gets rescinded!

[Ghost of Davie Ross 0]

You are entitled to your opinion and I have no problem with that. The board would be very dull if it was otherwise! I doubt the card will be rescinded though as they very rarely are.

[Guest]

Posted this in another thread but it''s probably more appropriate here.

I really don''t think the red will be rescinded. Usually if there''s any hint

the foul could''ve been punishable by a card (yellow or red), they''re

left to stand. Then there''s the danger of the infamous "frivolous

appeal" and them wacking an extra game on the ban if they feel the

appeal had little prospect of success. Of course that shouldn''t happen

but you never know how the panel will see it.Whatever happens, Russell will almost certainly miss Tuesday since the appeal wouldn''t be heard until midweek.

[? 20]

If we appeal, doesn''t it free him up to play until it''s heard? So he''d be okay for Tuesday?

[Arthur Whittle 0]

Yes, remember Rio Ferdinand got to play in the League Cup semi against Man City because he made a crap appeal...he blatantly smashed someone in the face, but appealed so he could play in that game.

On the subject of Rio Ferdinand, we all know that John Terry was sacked as England captain because of a string of affairs, many that have made the papers im sure, but what example is it to have Rio Ferdinand as England captain, when he was banned for refusing to take a drugs test because he still had cocaine in his system and was banned for 6 months???

[Branston Pickle 3,656]

I think it is true that if we appeal he is clear to play until the appeal is heard. The chances aren''t great of it being revoked, though - there was a Binner this season who everyone thought was extremely hard done by to get sent off, I believe even the oppo manager said as much, but his ban was increased on appeal for being ''frivolous'' or somesuch.

Is all a load of carp, basically - the FA won''t want to admit to the ref making a mistake unless the ref admits it himself.

That said, I guess it is worth the appeal if we think we''re in the right: missing a player for 3 games is fairly hard, but it (normally) only gets increased by 1 game if they turn it down, so it is probably worth the gamble. We have Hughes et al in reserve, so Rusty''s position is reasonably covered.

[Guest]

Just looked into it - you''re right. Jon Stead was sent off on Boxing Day at Palace but due to the appeal was allowed to play (and score two goals) against QPR two days later. In the end the appeal was rejected, deemed frivolous and he got a four game ban! So I guess we can either take the suspension for three relatively kind* looking games on paper, or risk losing him for one or possibly two of the very tough* looking games in March if the appeal is rejected.*Yes I know they''re all "tough" at this stage but you know what I mean.

[King Klose 0]

Completely disagree with what you say ''?''. Intent does come into it and your interpretation I believe is false. Anyway lets agree to disagree.

[King Klose 0]

Oh and how was Russell meant to know where the guy was, when he was 2 or 3 yards BEHIND him. Oh yeah there''s real intent there when he cant even see him [^o)]...geez!