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

Club appeal Solly red (unsuccessfully)

124

Comments

  • Dazzler21
    Dazzler21 Posts: 51,360
    Covered End said:

    Physics BOOM

    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.
  • cafcfan1990
    cafcfan1990 Posts: 12,811
    harveys_gardener said:
    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. 
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,013
    harveys_gardener said:
    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    I hope it's rescinded and if harveys_gardener is correct and there was no foul, it definitely will be.
  • harveys_gardener
    harveys_gardener Posts: 7,038
    edited April 2019
    Covered End said:
    harveys_gardener said:
    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
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,013
    edited April 2019
    harveys_gardener said:
    Covered End said:
    harveys_gardener said:
    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.
  • Athletico Charlton
    Athletico Charlton Posts: 14,279
    cafcfan1990 said:
    harveys_gardener said:
    Covered End said:
    harveys_gardener said:
    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.
  • AddickFC81
    AddickFC81 Posts: 4,053
    edited April 2019
    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.

  • harveys_gardener
    harveys_gardener Posts: 7,038
    Covered End said:
    harveys_gardener said:
    Covered End said:
    harveys_gardener said:
    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.
  • Off_it
    Off_it Posts: 28,866

    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?

  • StigThundercock
    StigThundercock Posts: 3,722
    PeterGage said:
    StigThundercock said:
    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. 
  • Sponsored links:



  • Briston_Addick
    Briston_Addick Posts: 11,736
    Off_it said:

    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?

    Solly woud be the right height for that ... 😉
  • LouisMend
    LouisMend Posts: 5,448
    Appeal unsuccessful. Immediate four-game ban starts today 
  • Covered_End_Lad
    Covered_End_Lad Posts: 5,726
    LouisMend said:
    Appeal unsuccessful. Immediate four-game ban starts today 
    *pretends to be shocked* 
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,280
    Cool, so a back 3 today with wingbacks? 
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,874
    LouisMend said:
    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.
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,280
    No Dijksteel, no Solly, maybe no Purrington depending on his illness, interesting to see how we handle it, Page isn't ready yet either
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,330
    Marshall RB surely 
  • Southbank
    Southbank Posts: 5,255
    Is Dijksteel injured?
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,874
    sam3110 said:
    No Dijksteel, no Solly, maybe no Purrington depending on his illness, interesting to see how we handle it, Page isn't ready yet either
    What's up with Dijksteel?
  • AddickFC81
    AddickFC81 Posts: 4,053
    :(
  • Sponsored links:



  • soapboxsam
    soapboxsam Posts: 23,231
    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.


  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,330
    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
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,013
    LouisMend said:
    Appeal unsuccessful. Immediate four-game ban starts today 
    Well I never and Solly didn't even foul him. Shakes head & cries :smile:
  • Stu_of_Kunming
    Stu_of_Kunming Posts: 17,118
    Leuth said:
    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.

    Harvey's gardener clearly has a screw loose.
  • SDAddick
    SDAddick Posts: 14,467
    Leuth said:
    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.


  • Talal
    Talal Posts: 11,492
    Leuth said:
    Marshall RB surely 
    Lapslie did alright when he came on. 
  • J BLOCK
    J BLOCK Posts: 8,315
    Is that him out of the first play off game?
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,280
    J BLOCK said:
    Is that him out of the first play off game?
    Yup
  • paulie8290
    paulie8290 Posts: 23,344
    The appeal was heard very quickly
  • MartinCAFC
    MartinCAFC Posts: 3,222
    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. 

Categories

“Marketplace”