Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Jarrett

LilAddick
LilAddick Posts: 73
edited August 2010 in General Charlton
anyone know what kind of trouble jarrett's bench-ball boot has landed him in? the red card means he misses a game at least
but is there a fine? an additional couple games suspension or has it been let off?

Comments

  • Leroy Ambrose
    Leroy Ambrose Posts: 14,488
    Forgive me for asking, but why do you care?
  • LilAddick
    LilAddick Posts: 73
    want to see him banned for eternity - wont happen but any punishment will do just to laugh at him
  • Leroy Ambrose
    Leroy Ambrose Posts: 14,488
    edited August 2010
    [cite]Posted By: LilAddick[/cite]want to see him banned for eternity - wont happen but any punishment will do just to laugh at him
    It was a stupid thing to do, but an absolute overreaction by our bench. Nothing will happen to him, and nor should it.
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,822
    Should be extended to 3 match ban - was reckless and as Parky said it could have missed and hit a member of the crowd. The punishment system is crazy with Semedo getting 3 matches and him only getting 1!
  • Leroy Ambrose
    Leroy Ambrose Posts: 14,488
    [cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]Should be extended to 3 match ban - was reckless and as Parky said it could have missed and hit a member of the crowd. The punishment system is crazy with Semedo getting 3 matches and him only getting 1!
    So, by your rationale, the ball going into the crowd (something that happens at least five times a match) should be punishable by a longer ban than a tackle which, in the eyes of the referee concerned, was dangerous foul play, and could have broken a player's leg? Bear in mind here that I'm not suggesting the ref was right to send Semedo off, I don't think he was - but if the challenge merited a red card, then surely that's a bit more serious than someone kicking a ball into the crowd from about thirty yards away?

    The bench overreacted - understandable in the heat of the moment - but the incident should just be left at that.
  • kings hill addick
    kings hill addick Posts: 5,781
    On the tv it looked like he chipped it rather than smacking it. That makes it more likely to be petulance than violent. I also struggled to see much of a foul on Reid from the tv - not saying there wasn't one.

    Football is a pationate game. Sure he shouldn't have kicked the ball at Parky but if it had been the other way around we would be very much against a further suspension, wouldn't we?
  • IA
    IA Posts: 6,103
    If it was one of our players, I would've expected a further suspension. I would've been angry, but that's what I would've expected.

    It looked a lot different on TV than it did from the Covered End, that's true.
  • IA
    IA Posts: 6,103
    Censored?
  • tangoflash
    tangoflash Posts: 10,794
    To be honest, i thought the "second yellow" was a bit dubious to say the least. I might be wrong but it looks as though reid ran behind him and caught his leg. As for the kicking the ball at pp, as said before, it was just a chip, not a punt. Moving on..............
  • harveys_gardener
    harveys_gardener Posts: 7,038
    Kicking the ball away that was placed for a free kick is surely dissent and warranted a booking. The ref was so useless he didn't get another card out.

  • Sponsored links:



  • Paddy7
    Paddy7 Posts: 1,663
    Not sure either about that second yellow but didn't realise what a laughable dive the defender put in to avoid having to try to stop Reid's disallowed goal.
  • Jarman
    Jarman Posts: 1,851
    [quote][cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]Forgive me for asking, but why do you care?[/quote]

    I was also interested in the question asked actually.

    I would like to see the muppet get in as much trouble as possible.

Categories

“Marketplace”