Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Arsenal V West Ham

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Sútalún
    Registered Users Posts: 688 ✭✭✭Sútalún


    Frisbee wrote: »
    The free kick.

    The peno was acceptable... :pac:

    Yeah thought so myself.. :D


  • #103
    OPENROAD
    Registered Users Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭OPENROAD


    Ten men, we only had ten men...................


  • #104
    OPENROAD
    Registered Users Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭OPENROAD


    Bodhisopha wrote: »
    I find livescore a little too impersonal. Livescore isn't going to tell me it's tense.

    Bring back the days of Ceefax :)


  • #105
    OPENROAD
    Registered Users Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭OPENROAD


    Hate being on ESPN , means we won't be on Football First later with the beautiful Sarah Jane Mee :(


  • #106
    Minstrel27
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,818 ✭✭✭Minstrel27


    OPENROAD wrote: »
    Hate being on ESPN , means we won't be on Football First later with the beautiful Sarah Jane Mee :(

    No worries. Mark Lawrenson will introduce the highlights on BBC One later.


  • #107
    OPENROAD
    Registered Users Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭OPENROAD


    Minstrel27 wrote: »
    No worries. Mark Lawrenson will introduce the highlights on BBC One later.

    :(

    Maybe Gabby Logan might do it for a change :)


  • #108
    Minstrel27
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,818 ✭✭✭Minstrel27


    OPENROAD wrote: »
    :(

    Maybe Gabby Logan might do it for a change :)

    I think she is in Dublin for the rugby.


  • #109
    OPENROAD
    Registered Users Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭OPENROAD


    Yes!!! Happy days, that will do me :)


  • #110
    Minstrel27
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,818 ✭✭✭Minstrel27


    Important win. Hopefully Liverpool can do a job tomorrow.


  • #111
    Frisbee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,570 ✭✭✭✭Frisbee


    Delighted with that three points.

    Have to say I was very impressed with our pressing today, we rarely gave them any time on the ball in the final third, always pressurising them.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Johner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,625 ✭✭✭✭Johner


    Well played Arsenal. :mad:

    Song was the MOTM for me, brilliant so he was.


  • #113
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Awesome.

    (now I HAVE to shout for the scouse tomorrow. ugh. :()


  • #114
    Headshot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 54,681 ✭✭✭✭Headshot


    3 games according to ESPN

    edit

    no it depends disciplinary panel if he get the 2 extra games


  • #115
    patrickc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,933 ✭✭✭patrickc


    great game today, well done the Arsenal.

    one match ban it should only be hopefully


  • #116
    Minstrel27
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,818 ✭✭✭Minstrel27


    Headshot wrote: »
    3 games according to ESPN

    edit

    no it depends disciplinary panel if he get the 2 extra games

    Considering he did nothing then a 3 match ban would be OTT


  • #117
    kryogen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,953 ✭✭✭✭kryogen


    Minstrel27 wrote: »
    Considering he did nothing then a 3 match ban would be OTT

    he must have done something

    bit odd to have a player sent off for nothing!

    maybe it was soft, but he put himself in the situation

    if its just for the professional foul he will only miss one game afaik


  • #118
    Minstrel27
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,818 ✭✭✭Minstrel27


    kryogen wrote: »
    he must have done something

    bit odd to have a player sent off for nothing!

    You know exactly what I meant. He didn't commit a serious foul.


  • #119
    kryogen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,953 ✭✭✭✭kryogen


    Minstrel27 wrote: »
    You know exactly what I meant. He didn't commit a serious foul.

    he did though

    it wasnt violent conduct so i think he will get away with one game

    it was a professional foul

    denied a goalscoring opportunity etc..


  • #120
    Royale with Cheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,171 ✭✭✭Royale with Cheese


    Don't even think it was a foul. He didn't impede the striker, striker just went down looking for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    kryogen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,953 ✭✭✭✭kryogen


    Royale with Cheese wrote: »
    Don't even think it was a foul. He didn't impede the striker, striker just went down looking for it.

    As all strikers will

    Vermaalen gave him the opportunity to do it


  • #122
    Royale with Cheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,171 ✭✭✭Royale with Cheese


    So what, it still wasn't a foul and therefore still shouldn't have been a red card.


  • #123
    L'prof
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,043 ✭✭✭✭L'prof


    kryogen wrote: »
    As all strikers will

    Vermaalen gave him the opportunity to do it

    I wouldn't be surprised if it was completely overturned if appealed!


  • #124
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    It was a foul. The hands were up and holding onto Franco, he clearly didn't use enough force to bundle him over like the dive suggested, but the fact he had his hands up in the first place is enough for a ref to give a foul. Harsh, considering refs ignore that **** 99% of the time, but you can't really argue it wasn't a foul.


  • #125
    Hammer Archer
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,445 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hammer Archer


    jasonorr wrote: »
    I wouldn't be surprised if it was completely overturned if appealed!
    Don't think so. I agree that it was harsh but he raised his hands and gave the ref/linesman reason to award it.
    Overall I was a bit disappointed we didn't get anything out of it in the end. But if we beat Wolves during the week I couldn't give a fiddlers.
    If we lose to Wolves, I'd say Zola will be gone.


  • #126
    L'prof
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,043 ✭✭✭✭L'prof


    Hammer Archer wrote: »
    Don't think so. I agree that it was harsh but he raised his hands and gave the ref/linesman reason to award it.
    Overall I was a bit disappointed we didn't get anything out of it in the end. But if we beat Wolves during the week I couldn't give a fiddlers.
    If we lose to Wolves, I'd say Zola will be gone.

    Maybe you're right, I'd have to see it again. He raised his hands but, I really don't think he leaned on Franco or caused him to fall.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    jasonorr wrote: »
    Maybe you're right, I'd have to see it again. He raised his hands but, I really don't think he leaned on Franco or caused him to fall.

    Doesn't matter if he was leaning or pushing or not. The simple fact that he's holding onto Franco with his hands is a foul.


  • #128
    kryogen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,953 ✭✭✭✭kryogen


    leninbenjamin wrote: »
    It was a foul. The hands were up and holding onto Franco, he clearly didn't use enough force to bundle him over like the dive suggested, but the fact he had his hands up in the first place is enough for a ref to give a foul. Harsh, considering refs ignore that **** 99% of the time, but you can't really argue it wasn't a foul.

    this is exactly how i see the situation also


  • #129
    L'prof
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,043 ✭✭✭✭L'prof


    leninbenjamin wrote: »
    Doesn't matter if he was leaning or pushing or not. The simple fact that he's holding onto Franco with his hands is a foul.

    Didn't think he was holding him either, have to see it again!


  • #130
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Well Lawro didn't think it was. It's a tough one. I don't know if he was even holding but he defo put his hands on him. Verms eyes were on the ball the entire time.


  • #131
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    jasonorr wrote: »
    Didn't think he was holding him either, have to see it again!

    Arm was clearly on the right shoulder of Franco.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Royale with Cheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,171 ✭✭✭Royale with Cheese


    From what I remember it looked like he tried to hold him back but actually wasn't able to, he then put his hand on Franco's back and down he went.


  • #133
    L'prof
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,043 ✭✭✭✭L'prof


    Here's a video, it's clearer in the replay. His hands touched his back but, he didn't push him or pull his jersey or anything.

    I dunno, maybe it is a penalty and a red but, for me there's nothing in it!


  • #134
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    Actually watching that again, the initial 'push' (if you can call it that) actually happens outside the box. Franco waits until he's inside the box to go down, but it should have been a free not a penalty. Contact is minimal, but it's clear at 40 secs Verm kinda slaps his arm on the right shoulder of Franco. I'd say if the ref or linesman was nearer it probably wouldn't have been given, it all happened so fast in real time though I wouldn't hold it against them.


Advertisement