Hit someone low their top half falls the opposite way to their lower half. The lower moves in the same direction the force moved in, the upper moves towards the direction the force came from.
Hit em high the same happens. With the upper moving in the direction they were struck and the lower back in the direction the force came from.
It also depends on whether the players are running or not moving. If you are running forwards and trip, you will fall forwards (Vetokele & Oxford player). If you were punched on the nose you would fall backwards.
Not me mate. I'd be stood there still a week later. As solid as ever, but maybe a bit peckish.
Apologies for reposting when I said I was done. Never intimated player was standing still. Typical of a person losing an argument to q As Oxford guy heading towards touchline would have fallen in a different direction if he was caught illegally with the force of contact. If the contact you are describing happened he would have had treatment minimum, stretcher if he was caught. Physio not called, therefore no injury, y
The level of injury sustained doesn't constitute the punishment. Some get unlucky and could break a leg from a nothing challenge, others could walk away from one that looks career ending.
Apologies for reposting when I said I was done. Didn't intimate the player was standing still. Typical of a person losing an argument to quote stuff that was never said. The Oxford guy heading towards touchline would have fallen in a different direction if he was caught illegally with the force of contact. If the contact you are describing happened he would have had treatment minimum, stretcher if he was caught. Physio not called, therefore no injury,
I think we can all agree that the player did not need treatment and was not injured. I'll agree to disagree on the rest. I think Solly fouled him and so did the ref, standing a few metres away, with an unobstructed view. I think it was a red card, although it could have been a yellow. I hope it's rescinded and if harveys_gardener is correct and there was no foul, it definitely will be.
Apologies for reposting when I said I was done. Didn't intimate the player was standing still. Typical of a person losing an argument to quote stuff that was never said. The Oxford guy heading towards touchline would have fallen in a different direction if he was caught illegally with the force of contact. If the contact you are describing happened he would have had treatment minimum, stretcher if he was caught. Physio not called, therefore no injury,
I think we can all agree that the player did not need treatment and was not injured. I'll agree to disagree on the rest. I think Solly fouled him and so did the ref, standing a few metres away, with an unobstructed view. I think it was a red card, although it could have been a yellow. I hope it's rescinded and if harveys_gardener is correct and there was no foul, it definitely will be.
Yes, I can see the EFL admitting their official was wrong, especially after rejecting the appeal over Taylor's cowardly attack on the Accrington player
Apologies for reposting when I said I was done. Didn't intimate the player was standing still. Typical of a person losing an argument to quote stuff that was never said. The Oxford guy heading towards touchline would have fallen in a different direction if he was caught illegally with the force of contact. If the contact you are describing happened he would have had treatment minimum, stretcher if he was caught. Physio not called, therefore no injury,
I think we can all agree that the player did not need treatment and was not injured. I'll agree to disagree on the rest. I think Solly fouled him and so did the ref, standing a few metres away, with an unobstructed view. I think it was a red card, although it could have been a yellow. I hope it's rescinded and if harveys_gardener is correct and there was no foul, it definitely will be.
Yes, I can see the EFL admitting their official was wrong, especially after rejecting the appeal over Taylor's cowardly attack on the Accrington player
The panel have no option but to rescind the red card, as there wasn't even a foul. The Oxford player fell over Solly.
If Solly had made contact his leg would have gone towards where Solly's foot was pointed and he'd fall backwards. As it was he fell head first towards the touchline. Chris may have brushed him on follow-through but got there first. Also a potential handball penalty from Solly's shot.
Too ridiculous for words. Their player was charging forwards and you expect a challenge to make him fall backwards ?
If that was true how come in the Luton game Vetokele also fell forwards when fouled by their goalie ? You will most likely fall in the direction of your momentum.
The keeper ran away from the goal, hit Vetokele low down, who fell forwards towards the goal. If he caught Igor above his centre of gravity he would tumble backwards. Ditto the Oxford guy who was heading at right angle to the force. He fell In the direction he was heading not where Solly went. You don't have to be Newton to understand the physics.
Do you devote your time to seeking my posts to disagree with them? Cue contribution from Henry.
Screw Physics its one of the most obvious fouls I have ever seen.
Perhaps a harsh red but surely we are not genuinely discussing if it was a foul or not?
It was Solly and therefore it was neither a foul or red in my book, Oxford should have applauded him and the ref awarded us a goal.
Taken from the OS on team news ahead of Scunthorpe
"Charlton are waiting on the outcome of their appeal against Chris
Solly's dismissal at Oxford United to discover if he will be available
on Monday."
Reading between the lines we will know by kick-off whether we have won the appeal or not. So he would then miss Scunthorpe, Gills, Rochdale and the 1st leg of the play-offs. And if deemed friverlous, the 2nd leg too. So we should have him available for Wembley if we get there. That is of course assuming the mathamatical miracle does not occur.
Apologies for reposting when I said I was done. Didn't intimate the player was standing still. Typical of a person losing an argument to quote stuff that was never said. The Oxford guy heading towards touchline would have fallen in a different direction if he was caught illegally with the force of contact. If the contact you are describing happened he would have had treatment minimum, stretcher if he was caught. Physio not called, therefore no injury,
I think we can all agree that the player did not need treatment and was not injured. I'll agree to disagree on the rest. I think Solly fouled him and so did the ref, standing a few metres away, with an unobstructed view. I think it was a red card, although it could have been a yellow. I hope it's rescinded and if harveys_gardener is correct and there was no foul, it definitely will be.
Yes, I can see the EFL admitting their official was wrong, especially after rejecting the appeal over Taylor's cowardly attack on the Accrington player
The panel have no option but to rescind the red card, as there wasn't even a foul. The Oxford player fell over Solly.
Glad you have come round to my interpretation C End. Alas EFL are not so enlightened.
There is no chance the red will be rescinded and at least a 50% chance the ban will be extended. Whatever the stated aims in practice is there primarily to back up referees. Only mistaken identity is reliably corrected and only then if the guilty party fesses up. In Solly’s case There was contact ergo it could be a foul challenge thus the panel will not question Drysdale’s interpretation, they never do. The league continues to engage preening show pony helmets like Drysdale in spite of his risible performances - they’re not about to start messing with his decisions. As for Little Charlton’s record of upstart petulant quibbling with cards we can rest assured the ban will be extended to put us in our place. The tumescent crooks will probably convene the hearing on Monday to ensure Solly’s ban starts immediately too. Nice try tho LB no chance tho. Don’t worry about it we don’t need many defenders - relentless all out attack is the way forward 🤪
I may be wrong, but doesn't the Appeals Committee consist of a chairman who is an independent lawyer and two members, one of whom is an ex footballer and the other an ex referee. That formation being to ensure transparency and independence. As I say, I may be wrong.
Independent? ROFLMAO. Engaged and remunerated by ensures no genuine independence as in all such self regulating lip service piss taking. The panel could be Dalai Lama and Tom Hanks for all the difference it makes when they’re all on the same payroll as the preening show pony helmet who fucked us over in the first place. There is no question mark over the integrity of the individuals but the real aim of the panel. Assuredly it is to be seen to be dealing with hapless blunders i.e. mistaken identity but otherwise to back up narcissists like drysdale and maintain the rule of law according to whatever sponsored racket is flavour of the month with the game’s overlords. Your faith in the ‘system’ is touching but naive. Nebulous drivel like “excessive force” is the perfect smokescreen in which to cloud all good sense.
Appeal unsuccessful. Immediate four-game ban starts today
Not surprised. To me the challenge looked like a "I've seen reds given for that" type of challenge, and thus not the sort which will be overturned as an obvious error, especially as the referee had a perfect view of it.
A strange appeal which doesn't make sense. Even though, Chris may've got away with a yellow with a lenient ref, a red card was given and why would that be overturned when it was 60/40 in favour of a red ?
Agree Scunny game is either a dead rubber, or is finishing 4th still a target so we get the home leg 2nd ? With our injury prone squad and team of naughty boys who can't stop being carded you would think the 3 playoff games ( hopefully 3) would now be the priority, so team selection would reflect that.
It was not a mistimed tackle, it was a needless, disgraceful, petulant lunge. I know you're supposed to be biased but if that had been done to one of our players 100% of us would have been screaming for a red. It was the tackle of someone who'd lost the plot. There's no FA bias here
It was not a mistimed tackle, it was a needless, disgraceful, petulant lunge. I know you're supposed to be biased but if that had been done to one of our players 100% of us would have been screaming for a red. It was the tackle of someone who'd lost the plot. There's no FA bias here
Only the clinically insane are suggesting otherwise.
It was not a mistimed tackle, it was a needless, disgraceful, petulant lunge. I know you're supposed to be biased but if that had been done to one of our players 100% of us would have been screaming for a red. It was the tackle of someone who'd lost the plot. There's no FA bias here
His second of the season as well, his one against Barnsley was also silly and needless.
At least it's been dealt with quickly so the ban starts today and doesn't carry over into the 2nd leg which is what I was more concerned with or getting an extra game's ban slapped on for a frivolous appeal.
Comments
I'll agree to disagree on the rest.
I think Solly fouled him and so did the ref, standing a few metres away, with an unobstructed view.
I think it was a red card, although it could have been a yellow.
I hope it's rescinded and if harveys_gardener is correct and there was no foul, it definitely will be.
The Oxford player fell over Solly.
Jeez, are some of these comments for real or is this some sort of Spinal Tap-esque joke thread that I haven't quite understood?
Can I ask a pertinent question at this point? Are we gonna play Stonehenge tomorrow?
Agree Scunny game is either a dead rubber, or is finishing 4th still a target so we get the home leg 2nd ? With our injury prone squad and team of naughty boys who can't stop being carded you would think the 3 playoff games ( hopefully 3) would now be the priority, so team selection would reflect that.
Harvey's gardener clearly has a screw loose.