Terry's Sending Off

Mr Alan

Boggles wrote: »

I know you think people are only entitled to yours, it must be a constant struggle for you.

coming from you that really is classic.

Boggles wrote: »

His gesture to the crowd had nothing to do with him getting sent off it does sum up his charactor thou, but sure what does he care when he has the FA giving get out of jail free cards.

and there we have the crux of the matter-you dislike John Terry and feel that the FA shouldnt have taken any action cause of his character. I too dislike John Terry but am able to distance myself enough and view the situation with impartiality, if someone playing for Liverpool was sent off for wat Terry did, i'd be livid.

titan18

monkey9 wrote: »

If Terry's red card was maintained as serious foul play, then there'd be sending off's in every match. Last night being a perfect example, Michael Dawson would have to be sent off for his challenge on Ashley Young!

Dawson and Terry's challenges were different.Terry turned around and pulled the guy down.

herbieflowers

this thread wouldn't have half as many posts if Utd hadn't been beaten v Pool and were due to play Chelsea next weekend!

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

and there we have the crux of the matter-you dislike John Terry and feel that the FA shouldnt have taken any action cause of his character. I too dislike John Terry but am able to distance myself enough and view the situation with impartiality, if someone playing for Liverpool was sent off for wat Terry did, i'd be livid.

I dislike Terry for many reasons, it is not a factor in my opinion that it was a red card thou.

I wonder thou would you be so gung ho in his defence if it were Liverpool that were facing Chelsea this weekend, I think not master Alan.

Either way, the decision is made and not for the first time an England Captain gets special treatment.

mobby

Mr Alan wrote: »

good to see common sense prevailed.

+1 good decision sense prevailed JT is a class player, would have been a big loss. I am sure all the ABC are fuming good stuff so made my day.:p

monkey9

titan18 wrote: »

Dawson and Terry's challenges were different.Terry turned around and pulled the guy down.

Well, i didn't say they were identical. Dawson completely disregarded the football and shoulder charged Young as Young was running towards him. My point being that Terry was sent off for serious foul play, so Dawson would have to as well. That's why i'm glad Terry's red was rescinded because there would be red cards left, right and centre

Mr Alan

if we were playing Chelsea this weekend, i would be delighted he wasnt playing, i would still admit though that the foul at the weekend should never have been a red card. I have an argument with my aul fella watching the game saying that i didnt think it was a red (my aul man is a Utd fan)

evil_seed

can and can't believe it at the same time. alan shearer got off numerous times, most notably for stamping on the head of lennon i think.. the FA are a joke

titan18

monkey9 wrote: »

Well, i didn't say they were identical. Dawson completely disregarded the football and shoulder charged Young as Young was running towards him. My point being that Terry was sent off for serious foul play, so Dawson would have to as well. That's why i'm glad Terry's red was rescinded because there would be red cards left, right and centre

I think that Dawson should have the red card aswell then.The defenders should be able to tackle or to stop the forwards legally by holding them up so help can get back.Forget about Terry,if any players do it,they should be off.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

(my aul man is a Utd fan)

I can't begin to convery that poor mans disappointment in you.

Villain

I wonder if people who think it was a red card have actually ever played the game they seem to know so much about, cynical fouls are part of the game we might not like them but its a fact, the fact funny thing is the red card for Terry was for Serious Foul Play?? I mean seriously I have seen far worse fouls every week only get a Yellow card.

Boggles

Villain wrote: »

I mean seriously I have seen far worse fouls every week only get a Yellow card.

As it stand now Terry didn't even get a yellow.

Hobart

Boggles wrote: »

His gesture to the crowd had nothing to do with him getting sent off it does sum up his charactor thou, but sure what does he care when he has the FA giving get out of jail free cards.

Indeed, you're correct. Sure we all know that there is a huge conspiracy surrounding England captains and "get out of jail free" cards. Of course he was let off because the Ref got it right and the FA in no way wanted to show consistency in their decisions, or those of the refs (ala Vidic). So I agree with you Boggles, he was let off because he is England captain, and the ref was right, what a disgrace :rolleyes:.

My opinion is, it was a red card for a professional cynical foul - it should have stood, it didn't simply because he is England captain, the FA completely undermined the Ref and went down today big time in estimation

Lol, whatever your opinion is, it is moot, as those who actually hold positions that make a difference have stated that your opinion is incorrect.

So the FA decision in affect states Carvaliho would have got the ball and played on! FARCICAL!!

Did it? Really, where? I thought that this was not a discussion on "last man back" or "covering players" moreso, a discussion on the merits of a red card for that specific tackle? Maybe you could link me to where the FA stated that Carvalliho would have got the ball..

Villain

Boggles wrote: »

As it stand now Terry didn't even get a yellow.

The ban was overturned is all the details I have seen at the moment, I would have thought it would have been downgraded to a yellow, but perhaps because the ref said it was serious foul play it have to either be a red or nothing.

I seriously don't know how people could think that tackle was serious foul play.

Hobart

Villain wrote: »

The ban was overturned is all the details I have seen at the moment, I would have thought it would have been downgraded to a yellow, but perhaps because the ref said it was serious foul play it have to either be a red or nothing.

I seriously don't know how people could think that tackle was serious foul play.

Totally agree. It was messy, unnecessary, cheating etc... How it was ever considered serious foul play is beyond me. My guess, is that following the Vidic incident, which was actually more deserving of a red than the Terry one, the ref decided to push for "serious foul play" as opposed to "denial of a clear goal scoring chance.

That's just my opinion.

roryc

Mr Alan, I presume you are a Liverpool fan? If not, my apologies, but you come across as a bit of an ABU kind of bloke, and they tend to be Pool fans...

Either way, im not sure what kind of distorted view of the game you have that you consider that anything other than a red card... unbelievable

I actually thought most of your posts were fairly good up until this thread

Mr Alan

i am a Liverpool fan. I dont like Utd.

this thread is about Terry though
If Rio Ferdinand who i HATE, had commited the foul, i'd still say it shouldnt have been a red card (although i'd probably find it quite funny:))

Soby

Villain wrote: »

The ban was overturned is all the details I have seen at the moment, I would have thought it would have been downgraded to a yellow, but perhaps because the ref said it was serious foul play it have to either be a red or nothing.

I seriously don't know how people could think that tackle was serious foul play.

dont think it can be downgraded

podge018

You people need to read up on the rules before posting.

Terry was given a red card for 'serious foul play'.

Chelsea appealed that it wasn't serious foul play.

FA agreed with this.

A red card can not be downgraded to a yellow.

To get a red card rescinded you have to prove that what you were sent off for was not worthy of even a yellow.

Serious foul play is red card offence.

You cannot get a yellow for serious foul play.

Red card rescinded as Chelsea proved that what he was sent off for was not worthy of a yellow card (it's impossible).

Pepe LeFrits

It shouldn't have been a red card regardless as to what offence it was supposed to be for, so I am pleased to see that it has been reversed. It was extremely cynical but that only merits a yellow as he wasn't the last man and it wasn't violent. Players pull each other down all the time.

roryc wrote:

Either way, im not sure what kind of distorted view of the game you have that you consider that anything other than a red card... unbelievable

If you're unable to even entertain the concept of how someone might interpret it differently to you, then I think you're the one with the distorted view.

adox

was never a red card so it's the right decision. I can't believe anyone here seriously thought it was.

Any shame he's back for the united game but it would have been wrong for him to miss it.

Boggles

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

It shouldn't have been a red card regardless as to what offence it was supposed to be for, so I am pleased to see that it has been reversed. It was extremely cynical but that only merits a yellow as he wasn't the last man and it wasn't violent. Players pull each other down all the time.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think it states anywhere that there has to be a last man. If Terry hadn't brought him down it would have been 2 on 1 in the attackers favour, this for me would merit a great scoring opportunity.

6. denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick”

I suppose no amount of debate will change the decision.

It does highlight yet again, Terrys lack of pace and without a dedicated sitting midfield he is horribly exposed.

CHD

eagle eye wrote: »

Whats your defense for this, there is no defense it was a certain red card offense.

You guys that defend Terry are saying that he was not last man back when he stamped on Jo's foot and then Rugby tackled him to the ground.

Lets just highlight the important bit.

Obviously i was right.

Terrys back, justice served.

Lads, he feckin rugby tackled Jo. It was that kind fo comtempt for the rules that has people moanin that he gets away with murder in the 1st place. thios is just another example of it. The FA are bottlers.

roryc

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

It shouldn't have been a red card regardless as to what offence it was supposed to be for, so I am pleased to see that it has been reversed. It was extremely cynical but that only merits a yellow as he wasn't the last man and it wasn't violent. Players pull each other down all the time.

If you're unable to even entertain the concept of how someone might interpret it differently to you, then I think you're the one with the distorted view.

What has being the last man got to do with anything?

yay CHD is here, im off

Soby

roryc wrote: »

What has being the last man got to do with anything?

yay CHD is here, im off

means it wasnt a clear goal scoring opportunity as there was at least 1 other outfield player behind the player and the ball that could have made a interception

U dont have to be the last man to be sent off for rugby tackling an opponent. There was absolutely no attempt to play the ball at all. Nevermind that City had an overlap.

CHD

CHD wrote: »

Obviously i was right.

Terrys back, justice served.

the FA being a bunch of bottlers doesnt make you right mate.

Pepe LeFrits

Deleted User wrote: »

Lads, he feckin rugby tackled Jo.

A colourful way of saying he pulled him down. An offence which happens regularly football and does not typically result in a red card unless there are other factors involved.

It was that kind fo comtempt for the rules that has people moanin that he gets away with murder in the 1st place. thios is just another example of it.

Frankly, I think this is most people's real issue here.

CHD

Deleted User wrote: »

the FA being a bunch of bottlers doesnt make you right mate.

Look that tackle was a yellow card imho.

Its being blown out of proportion

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

SantryRed

Deleted User wrote: »

U dont have to be the last man to be sent off for rugby tackling an opponent. There was absolutely no attempt to play the ball at all. Nevermind that City had an overlap.

You see it all the time in football!

Team A gives away the ball. Team B breaks. It's a 4 on 3 in the attacking team's favour so a player off team A committs a foul so his team can reset.

It happens in at least one game a week in the Premiership. Rediculous decision for him to be sent off and justice is served that he can play on Sunday.

Talk about bitter Man United fans:rolleyes:

cournioni

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you serious?! He is Chelsea and England captain... It was inevitable. If it was a foreign player for a club in the North of England, it wouldn't be overturned...

noodler

Red or not it is cheating at its most cynical. I haven't got the answer but something has to be done to stop players contemplating taking a yellow to stop a potential goal scoring chance.

Pepe LeFrits

noodler

Is that Steve Coogan in the back, on the right?

herbieflowers

Terry's a rubbish defender anyway

CHD

United fans must be really worried about this weekends match.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

cournioni

CHD wrote: »

United fans must be really worried about this weekends match.

Not really. I want Terry to play. At least then he'll hear "Viva John Terry"!

noodler

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its true that this is getting more coverage than it would have otherwise cos of the clubs involved. But if Terry doesn't touch the player at all, then he doesn't lose momentum and Carvalho has a job catching up to his momentum for me. Surely Terry thought it was a goalscoring chance, thats the reason he saw it necessary to sacrifice a yellow. Yet if we allow play continue 10 more seconds and Carvalho hacks him at the edge of the box then it would certainly be a goalscoring chance.

Im rambling but basically the fact Terry decided to do it tells you how big an opportunity it was. Maybe the rule should be 'any cynical foul which the Ref deems to intentionally stop the other team gaining a significant advantage'. Thats a bit more general.

selpher

Cheating it may be, but its a form of cheating that currently isn't a red card ofence. Can't see the problem.

TheDoc

Football is all about opinions

I was watching the match with some Chelsea fans...and when it happend, they all went " o ffs john" and red card was shown, and all accepted.

Just because he is Englands captain he gets this attention? its outragous and typical of the English press and pundits.

In my view, it was a red card, it was clumpsy looking yet intentional and typical of a clumpsy John Terry, jsut watch him closely anytime a corner comes in he defends or attacks, hes constantly bundling people over.

Hes also a filthy dirty scumbag of a player in my opinion who ive no time for, always making sly remarks to players like " im gonna break you up" and various ****e. He gets too much praise for being " a die hard player". The only difference between him and Joey Barton...is Terry hasnt been arrested yet...

noodler

Well I don't necessarily buy that Carvalho would have caught him and we are suppossed to give the attacker's the advantage.

I guess the problem is, should a player have the power to illegally change the shape of the game and be punished by something less than a red card. We don't Jo would have gone on and scored yet I would cosider the offence more cynical than a late challenge just inside a crowded box which would lead to a penalty.

CHD

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

Not really. I want Terry to play. At least then he'll hear "Viva John Terry"!

Stop living in the past :pac:

selpher

don't know whats better JT playing sunday or him getting off just winding every body up.

CHD

selpher wrote: »

don't know whats better JT playing sunday or him getting off just winding every body up.

+1

kmart6

Suppose his defence was he slipped.....been doing it a bit recently!!!

Iago

I held off commenting until I saw whether or not the FA overturned the charge, can't say I was surprised they did which isn't the same as thinking they were right.

Terrys "challenge" was a blatant professional foul. Forget whether Carvalho would have got back or not, Terry had no idea where he was and felt that Jo would be free and charging down Cechs throat so he quite literally pulled him down.

If we compare it to the Vidic incident from earlier on at least Vidic attempted to play the ball, Terry had no such intention. Even at that when Keane went down I fully expected Vidic to get a red card, I'm not convinced Ferdinand would have got back in time on that one either.

No matter what we compare it to there's no excuse for it, if that wasn't "serious foul play" then what is? It was a blatant and successful attempt to break the rules and prevent an opposition player from scoring a goal. In my view it's no different than a defender being outpaced and deciding to slide in and take a players ankle from behind 30 yards out from goal.

I can't help but feel that if it had been a player from Hull, Stoke etc then the decision would have stood. I though the referee got it spot on and instead of backing him and putting down a marker for the season the FA have now said you can wrestle a player to the ground as long as there's someone behind you.

Wonder how long it'll take for one of the lesser lights of the premiership to get punished for something similar.

mobby

Jez boys and girls will ye just get over it. FA have made the call end of story.
On a more important point will I get me points back in fantasy league.:D