By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
If you want to remove this post from the board index, just click the hide post icon below. To hide all our news posts click the ignore user icon under the avatar.
0
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 20:58 - Apr 1 with 3777 views
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 20:40 - Apr 1 by EllDale
To my mind the turning point wasn’t the sending off or the introduction of SAJ but that glaring miss of Mitchell’s. At least hit the bloody target. If he puts that it the game restarts with a kickoff and that passage of play doesn’t happen and a few more goals could have followed. It may not have been a red card but it was reckless and the referee had to make a decision. Strange how he went looked at their player’s leg though before finally taking out his red card. To be fair Hartlepool were poor. Before all the shenanigans they had looked like a team who had let in seven last week. And once they scrambled a goal to go in front they weren’t good enough to kill the game or at least manage it completely. For what it’s worth I thought Dale were a lot more adventurous in the opening 20 minutes. There seemed to be more appetitive for passing the ball forward. I also thought that Armstrong had by far his best game for the club and, contrary to opinion above, thought that Mather showed some nice touches. What’s the alternative to him? Jes who couldn’t even catch bench or Sinclair who is so far off the pace that he was in danger of losing the ball every time he shot? The draw was ample reward for an awful lot of heroic performances. EEL had a real captain’s game, Gordon didn’t half put a shift in and Hayes was, well just Hayes. And that ball from East was perhaps the pass of the season. His work rate is phenomenal.
Of course lots of ifs but it was Mitchell failing to holds the ball up (because he's also lightweight) that actually led to him seeing red (in every sense). 2 footed sliding tackle is a card every day in the modern game. Agree about the early play being more forward passes (though most went astray). What's the alternative to Mather - well the player who replaced him today is a good start. Agree EEL good (and Sassi had a much more solid game than last time) and Gordon was excellent - as he has been for a while but disagree about Hayes today - thought he overcarried the ball and almost always finished up losing it.
Problem is there are enough arty farty words in the rules now about recklessness and the like that provide enough leeway to cover refs' behinds. So I'm in the ridiculous position that I thought it was a great tackle, but absolutely would not waste 500 quid appealing it. Money down the drain. If we were a bit closer to the playoffs then might be worth a gamble, but I'd be minded to let this one go with the season petering out.
1
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 12:11 - Apr 2 with 2534 views
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 12:11 - Apr 2 by Dale_4_Life
Not a red in my eyes but that is the problem, Strong challenges are frowned upon in what is fast becoming a minimal contact sport.
I can see why he went its a sad (ish) indictment of what Mens football has become.
Apart from the glaring miss, just a few moments earlier he'd also been outfought (again) for the ball a few yards away, and he was "seeing red" way before the ref produced his card
Bottom line: absolutely no need for such a challenge in that area of the pitch. He got the red his lunge deserved
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 12:29 - Apr 2 by D_Alien
Apart from the glaring miss, just a few moments earlier he'd also been outfought (again) for the ball a few yards away, and he was "seeing red" way before the ref produced his card
Bottom line: absolutely no need for such a challenge in that area of the pitch. He got the red his lunge deserved
I think you’re (near enough) on your own on this one, DA!
0
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 13:23 - Apr 2 with 2279 views
I saw it in real time exactly as DA describes it. Those on the commentary initially felt similar. ‘He could be in trouble here etc.’
With the benefit of a replay, however, you could see Mitchell was actually a lot more in control of the challenge than first appeared and that the ball wasn’t under the control of Parkes, hence why Mitchell getting to it first propelled it in his direction of travel.
The problem is, any challenge like that these days, where momentum takes you through an opponent, is leaving a player open to a poor call, because it is down to the referee’s interpretation of what constitutes endangering an opponent under the ‘serious foul play’ criteria.
I’ve seen plenty of comments saying: ‘But he won the ball’. Unfortunately, you can still win the ball and have been deemed to have endangered an opponent, meaning you can still be booked/sent off.
Personally, I think, after seeing it again, it was indeed a good old-fashioned, full-blooded challenge for a 50/50 ball. The sort that in the 90s would have been cheered and definitely not attracted the furore it did yesterday. I certainly wouldn’t have interpreted as a red on second viewing.
As has been said in another post, the FA has worded its laws in such a way that it is down to the referee’s interpretation of the incident. Similarly, any appeal would be down to someone else’s interpretation. I’m sure the club will get some sound advice before deciding what to do next.
I think it unlikely that the red would be overturned if we made an appeal simply because Oldham recently had Fondop sent off and lost their appeal for something less innocuous. This was highlighted on TNT's coverage of the Alty v Oldham game yesterday. The commentator and pundits were bewildered to say the least how it was not overturned. Suggest we just save ourselves the £500 and put it to better use.
2
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 14:32 - Apr 2 with 2100 views
I can appreciate both arguments here, but for me the challenge Armstrong does right at the start of the highlights is far far worse - he's high, he's late and he's not in control.
Yet this didn't even get pulled back for a retrospective yellow.
0
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 15:04 - Apr 2 with 2014 views
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 14:21 - Apr 2 by Drigdale
I think it unlikely that the red would be overturned if we made an appeal simply because Oldham recently had Fondop sent off and lost their appeal for something less innocuous. This was highlighted on TNT's coverage of the Alty v Oldham game yesterday. The commentator and pundits were bewildered to say the least how it was not overturned. Suggest we just save ourselves the £500 and put it to better use.
Your last line is highly relevant. Whose £500 would it be, given our finances? i.e. able to continue due to the generosity of an unconcluded deal with a benefactor
When fans are scraping together small amounts to help where they can, burning £500 trying to overturn a dodgy challenge when the remaining games have nothing much hanging on them would, imo, be very wrong
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 15:04 - Apr 2 by D_Alien
Your last line is highly relevant. Whose £500 would it be, given our finances? i.e. able to continue due to the generosity of an unconcluded deal with a benefactor
When fans are scraping together small amounts to help where they can, burning £500 trying to overturn a dodgy challenge when the remaining games have nothing much hanging on them would, imo, be very wrong
[Post edited 2 Apr 15:05]
Might get an anonymous donation from a Kidderminster Harriers fan.
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 14:32 - Apr 2 by cumbria_dale
I can appreciate both arguments here, but for me the challenge Armstrong does right at the start of the highlights is far far worse - he's high, he's late and he's not in control.
Yet this didn't even get pulled back for a retrospective yellow.
Is it just me that genuinely can't see anything wrong with the Mitchell tackle? Gets the ball, in control, one leg, on the floor - what a challenge!
It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't overturn it though, they'll always back the referee won't they.
1
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 16:52 - Apr 2 with 1709 views
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 14:32 - Apr 2 by cumbria_dale
I can appreciate both arguments here, but for me the challenge Armstrong does right at the start of the highlights is far far worse - he's high, he's late and he's not in control.
Yet this didn't even get pulled back for a retrospective yellow.
but there's no contact with their player! Fair point that Mitchell's foul was a 50:50 ball but it was a red mist response from him to losing the earlier encounter and sliding in towards another player (& therefore out of control) is a card these days every time
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 13:24 - Apr 2 by fitzochris
I saw it in real time exactly as DA describes it. Those on the commentary initially felt similar. ‘He could be in trouble here etc.’
With the benefit of a replay, however, you could see Mitchell was actually a lot more in control of the challenge than first appeared and that the ball wasn’t under the control of Parkes, hence why Mitchell getting to it first propelled it in his direction of travel.
The problem is, any challenge like that these days, where momentum takes you through an opponent, is leaving a player open to a poor call, because it is down to the referee’s interpretation of what constitutes endangering an opponent under the ‘serious foul play’ criteria.
I’ve seen plenty of comments saying: ‘But he won the ball’. Unfortunately, you can still win the ball and have been deemed to have endangered an opponent, meaning you can still be booked/sent off.
Personally, I think, after seeing it again, it was indeed a good old-fashioned, full-blooded challenge for a 50/50 ball. The sort that in the 90s would have been cheered and definitely not attracted the furore it did yesterday. I certainly wouldn’t have interpreted as a red on second viewing.
As has been said in another post, the FA has worded its laws in such a way that it is down to the referee’s interpretation of the incident. Similarly, any appeal would be down to someone else’s interpretation. I’m sure the club will get some sound advice before deciding what to do next.
“Those on the commentary initially felt similar. ‘He could be in trouble here etc.’”
Indeed. He was sent off for a straight red apparently.
0
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 19:02 - Apr 2 with 1409 views
To me it looked a bit harsh but then I am from a previous era so perhaps that helps my view but certainly seen worse tackles this season than that one that have not received the ultimate punishment. Just an outside the box thought perhaps Mitchell is insisting an appeal is made ,the club perhaps wishing to support the player agree on the proviso that should the appeal be lost, Mitchell covers the cost.
0
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 20:59 - Apr 2 with 1229 views
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 12:29 - Apr 2 by D_Alien
Apart from the glaring miss, just a few moments earlier he'd also been outfought (again) for the ball a few yards away, and he was "seeing red" way before the ref produced his card
Bottom line: absolutely no need for such a challenge in that area of the pitch. He got the red his lunge deserved
If anyone wants to see how challenges should be made just watch the FA cup final replay highlights betwixt lEEDS and cHEALSEA from (1970 i think)
0
Refwatch: Rochdale v Hartlepool United on 21:09 - Apr 2 with 1202 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
