Jem Caracan

[Jim Smith 2,610]

Oh the irony of this little gem from the same no-mark who could have broken Korey''s leg on saturday. Talking about the Holty tackle:

"But midfielder Jem Karacan, who wasted a chance to win it for Reading late on, was less ­sympathetic.

He said: “If Harte’s foot had been planted he could have broken it, but thankfully he got out of the way. The marks on his leg show how bad it could have been.”

His tackle on Smith was much worse. At that point i don''t blame Lambo for losing it. You could see the ref say to martin that he hadn''t given a free kick as Caracan got the ball. Utter joke.

 

[Brendo 0]

Well the fact of the matter is, that Holt''s challenge was a foul, and Caracan''s wasn''t. Jem won the ball (albeit with a very hard, and dangerous challenge), where as Holt did not win the ball. No, it wasn''t a red, and I don''t see how Holt''s challenge could''ve broke a leg? [:S]

[morty 0]

Marks on Harte''s leg???Really!!??

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

[quote user="Brendo "]Well the fact of the matter is, that Holt''s challenge was a foul, and Caracan''s wasn''t. Jem won the ball (albeit with a very hard, and dangerous challenge), where as Holt did not win the ball. No, it wasn''t a red, and I don''t see how Holt''s challenge could''ve broke a leg? [:S]
[/quote]

If it''s a dangerous tackle it''s a foul and potentially a red card regardless of whether he won the ball, I personally don''t think it was a red but at the very least a free kick in our favour and possibly a yellow.

Grant Holt pulled out of a tackle, he made contact but very minimal and although it was a foul i''m not sure it was even a yellow. If anything Holt should be praised for having the presence of mind to realise that he was going in hard and not going to win the ball so therefore pulled out.

[Year of the tiger 66]

[quote user="Brendo "]Well the fact of the matter is, that Holt''s challenge was a foul, and Caracan''s wasn''t. Jem won the ball (albeit with a very hard, and dangerous challenge), where as Holt did not win the ball. No, it wasn''t a red, and I don''t see how Holt''s challenge could''ve broke a leg? [:S][/quote]

Are you for real? If dear Jem won the ball, how come the award from the idiot ref was a throw TO Reading. It was a foul & a def yellow, end of.

Incidentally I''ve just watched it in slow motion..have you?

[Year of the tiger 66]

Oh and I''ve alos just watched Holt''s tackle again & guess what Harte''s leg was planted so god knows what Mr Karacan is talking about

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Brendo "]Well the fact of the matter is, that Holt''s challenge was a foul, and Caracan''s wasn''t. Jem won the ball (albeit with a very hard, and dangerous challenge), where as Holt did not win the ball. No, it wasn''t a red, and I don''t see how Holt''s challenge could''ve broke a leg? [:S]
[/quote]

Jem, eh.

Pal of yours?

OTBC

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="Brendo "]Well the fact of the matter is, that Holt''s challenge was a foul, and Caracan''s wasn''t. Jem won the ball (albeit with a very hard, and dangerous challenge), where as Holt did not win the ball. No, it wasn''t a red, and I don''t see how Holt''s challenge could''ve broke a leg? [:S]
[/quote]

What game did you watch? [:^)]

That in itself is a cardable offence [:|]

[E Block Loyal 0]

[quote user="Brendo "]Well the fact of the matter is, that Holt''s challenge was a foul, and Caracan''s wasn''t. Jem won the ball (albeit with a very hard, and dangerous challenge), where as Holt did not win the ball. No, it wasn''t a red, and I don''t see how Holt''s challenge could''ve broke a leg? [:S]
[/quote]

No, the fact of the matter is that you are talking absolute nonsense yet again. How is it not a foul? He got nowhere near the ball.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Brendo "]Well the fact of the matter is, that Holt''s challenge was a foul, and Caracan''s wasn''t. Jem won the ball (albeit with a very hard, and dangerous challenge), where as Holt did not win the ball. No, it wasn''t a red, and I don''t see how Holt''s challenge could''ve broke a leg? [:S]
[/quote]

 

Still, any attention is good attention, isn''t it Brenda?

[CharlieFarlie 0]

[quote user="morty"]Marks on Harte''s leg???

Really!!??
[/quote]

 

Yes apparently his ties to hold his socks up were too tight [;)]

[chicken 0]

Having watched the replay a few times it looks like Holt made contact but not with a lot of force and not with his studs.

The comment the other player makes is rubbish because the ball is off the ground and Holt and Harte clash legs in the air pretty much and Holt clearly tries to pull out of it. Contact looks to have been around the shin pad area as well - thats the worse acting, when they clutch the shin pad!

The real point here is consistancy. If Holt''s was deemed to have been red for being dangerous then so should the other because it was far worse, with more force and studs showing.

For me Holt''s challenge is barely a yellow and the other is a yellow as well, if he had not won the ball (which in in my opinion he was trying to do, wasn''t malicious) he would have been off.

Consistancy is the biggest issue with refs because they have to be making a similar decision on similar incidents.

The biggest problem with this was that the red card was totally uncalled for as Holt hard hardly been a bustling as he has done in other games and it turned the game on its head. It took the momentum out of us and gave them a reason to push on in the second half.

Yes ten men can still win matches but it destroyed our game plan. We tend to be quick on building counter attacks, especially with people like MacNamee - its harder to do that with one less player and MacNamee having less freedom to push on, it also leaves us more vulnerable to the counter attack.

If it had been Martin or a midfielder that had been sent off it would probably not have changed the game that much, having said that Martin did a superb job of leading the line and deserves credit for it, had he had been a bit luckier we would have had justice at the death with a nearly very well taken header.

Not to be but then this league has been harsh to us in terms of decisions for many a season now. The season we went down there was a consecutive run of games with stonewall penalty apeals turned down.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="Brendo "]Well the fact of the matter is, that Holt''s challenge was a foul, and Caracan''s wasn''t. Jem won the ball (albeit with a very hard, and dangerous challenge), where as Holt did not win the ball. No, it wasn''t a red, and I don''t see how Holt''s challenge could''ve broke a leg? [:S]
[/quote]

Where does this nonsense that if a player wins the ball it can''t be a foul come from?   If a player ends up with the ball after fouling an opponent then it is a foul.  The end does not justify the means in football anymore than in life.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Interesting that former players e.g., Worthington and the ex Reading captain (can''t remember hsi name) on SKY didn''t think Holt should have been sent off nor did Claridge on the BBC Football League Show. 

The ref was also wrong when he booked Mills (Reading centre back).

[chicken 0]

Highlights are on the beeb website now. Quite clearly is a foul, ref doesn''t even allow play to continue but Holt isn''t that late and the only real contact he makes with Harte is his toe on his shin pad.

I think the red should be recinded altogether, no malice in it and it turned the game on its head.

[norfolkchance1 0]

Karakan''s comments make about as much sense as something Fabien Wilnis might have said.

[chicken 0]

Can anyone else see yet another irony here?

The appeal will probably involve asking the referee whether he wishes to recind the red card, by now he has probably seen the highlights of the game.

So whilst they wont allow a 4th official with access to TV replays on matchdays, they will use it in cases of red card appeals which does not change the result of the game thus effected by the booking.

FIFA - get it sorted out NOW!

[Nexus_Canary 1,206]

[quote user="morty"]Marks on Harte''s leg???Really!!??[/quote]Yeh, he is refering to the bruising caused on Harte''s leg by the pressure of the socks / shin guard the poor little flower.

[Herman 11,136]

According to the Sun''s report he took out Matt Gill[:S]

[Brendo 0]

Hold up. Wait. Are you guys serious? You are denying that the guy won the ball against Korey? Yeah, leg was high [:(] but he did win the ball.

[Year of the tiger 66]

Why was it your throw then? It WAS a worse tackle than Holt''s ..end of & for him to condemn Holty''s tackle was hypocritical. Perhaps they''re afraid Mr Harte might gain (regain?) a reputation for play acting

[Year of the tiger 66]

Just watched it 10 more times in super slowmo. Korey''s foot gets to the ball, Karacan then gets his ankle...his studs poss brushed the ballafter Korey played it, it did not change the way the ball was spinning or direction....so yes I am disputing dear Jemmy won the ball