Surely there won’t be any danger in this game being off. The start of 10 matches in 5 weeks. Is this where the promotion charge starts?

Gilks

Brockbank 

Santos

Baptiste

John

Williams

Tutte

Fonz

Madison

Arthur

Doyle 

 

3-1 
 

COYFWM

Need to stop the playing out from the back nonsense, all too often it's a pass to Baptiste or Santos who then get closed down quickly leading to a rushed hoof towards the half way line which invariably ends up with the opposition getting the ball back. Let Gilks kick it for fooks sake

26 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Hopefully this evidence will be used at any appeal.

I'm sure that will be included in the appeal, but I'd be very surprised if Maddison's red is rescinded on the grounds of their player putting in a worse tackle earlier in the match and not being punished.

Hope I'm wrong.

Can't see the EFL doing us any favours after the last few years.

I’m amazed Morecambe have a football team.

39 minutes ago, DazBob said:

I'm sure that will be included in the appeal, but I'd be very surprised if Maddison's red is rescinded on the grounds of their player putting in a worse tackle earlier in the match and not being punished.

Hope I'm wrong.

Can't see the EFL doing us any favours after the last few years.

I’d be surprised if it’s overturned. His match report will say he wasn’t in control of the tackle and hurt the man and he couldn’t determine the contact because of his view  but it looked like a dangerous tackle. 

Once both feet come off the floor, you're fucked.

Because someone else got away with one isn't a defence, sadly.

its very grainy footage but by the time hes making the challenge, i think his right foot is planted

before that, hes running

FWIW

i thought he looked decent 

18 minutes ago, Rudy said:

I’d be surprised if it’s overturned. His match report will say he wasn’t in control of the tackle and hurt the man and he couldn’t determine the contact because of his view  but it looked like a dangerous tackle. 

I appreciate that what you've put is opinion and therefore hypothetical but if the referee is saying an obstructed view in the misconduct report then the incident has not been clearly seen and doubt about the referees decision can therefore be inferred and introduce the video of the incident.

Should have been a yellow at worst.

1 hour ago, DazBob said:

I'm sure that will be included in the appeal, but I'd be very surprised if Maddison's red is rescinded on the grounds of their player putting in a worse tackle earlier in the match and not being punished.

Hope I'm wrong.

Can't see the EFL doing us any favours after the last few years.

Aye, probably. 

The Evatt one was surprisingly overturned though, so we can hope.

I would request the lad quit the showboating though until the game is won.

Let his talent contribute to that end.

20 minutes ago, Morizio said:

I appreciate that what you've put is opinion and therefore hypothetical but if the referee is saying an obstructed view in the misconduct report then the incident has not been clearly seen and doubt about the referees decision can therefore be inferred and introduce the video of the incident.

Should have been a yellow at worst.

Sorry, he won’t say his view was obstructed because he has no right to send him off, it will be he jumped into a tackle and the position of the player on the deck, blocked where the contact was but he wasn’t in control of the ball or his tackle (oooh hello) and he left the ground 

1 minute ago, Rudy said:

Sorry, he won’t say his view was obstructed because he has no right to send him off, it will be he jumped into a tackle and the position of the player on the deck, blocked where the contact was but he wasn’t in control of the ball or his tackle (oooh hello) and he left the ground 

I agree he wont say his view was obstructed, its trained in them to report that they clearly saw, then there is no ambiguity. 

It'll also say the words serious foul play. rather than Maddison was reckless whilst attempting the tackle.

I still think it was a yellow at worst challenge.

12 minutes ago, Morizio said:

I agree he wont say his view was obstructed, its trained in them to report that they clearly saw, then there is no ambiguity. 

It'll also say the words serious foul play. rather than Maddison was reckless whilst attempting the tackle.

I still think it was a yellow at worst challenge.

In real time I thought it was a red, slowed down yellow for me 

18 minutes ago, Rudy said:

In real time I thought it was a red, slowed down yellow for me 

I still think it was a red or close enough not to get over turned. He flew in. The fact you can stop it so it shows he touched the ball does not take away from how he went in. If that was against us everyone on here would be shouting for a red.

4 hours ago, jules_darby said:

Another positive, and I know he’s had criticism on here cos end product hasn’t been great, but Isgrove covered some miles. Watch our goal, if he doesn’t make the run, Doyle doesn’t have the space, he took 2 defenders with him

True. Also Doyle takes half a step back to make space and it is a good finish, harder than the one he mishit to the keeper earlier  

29 minutes ago, Ani said:

True. Also Doyle takes half a step back to make space and it is a good finish, harder than the one he mishit to the keeper earlier  

There’s a reason why Doyle operates well at this level and has struggled really above it. And that’s it right there he’s inconsistent. But next season will score a pan full as we March to promotion. 

3 hours ago, DazBob said:

I'm sure that will be included in the appeal, but I'd be very surprised if Maddison's red is rescinded on the grounds of their player putting in a worse tackle earlier in the match and not being punished.

Hope I'm wrong.

Can't see the EFL doing us any favours after the last few years.

We are Bolton, MM will probably get an extra game suspension for wasting their time with an appeal.

Doesn't look much wrong from that photo

If somebody showed me that and said he got a straight red, I'd assume they were talking about the Morecambe lad.

5 minutes ago, Rudy said:

Looking at that it's a decent challenge, no way 2 footed as his left foot is grounded, even yellow is harsh

Does anyone know if its a 3 game ban for "violent conduct"?

FWIW I think the time missed in the game you get sent off in should count.  I've never understood why, if you run up and punch someone violently in the 1st minute, you effectively miss 4 games, if you can wait till injury time to break someone's nose you only miss 3 games.

13 minutes ago, Biggish Dave said:

Doesn't look much wrong from that photo

He's wearing gloves and different coloured boots.  I'd ban him for that tbh

It was an honest (and successful) challenge for the ball, Maddison made up the ground very quickly after his initial bad pass to make the tackle because when he first started his run to make the challenge it was 60/40 in the Morecambe turds favour.

I say turd because he feigned serious injury to get Maddison sent off. He was running around like a spring chicken as soon as he'd "done his job"

Will the Morecambe manager/fans look at the players’ reaction and be embarrassed? Will they bugger. They will use it as justification for why they should do exactly the same next time.

We can take the moral high ground, but we’ll end up worse off as a result (in terms of getting decisions from the ref). 

Edited February 10, 20215 yr by Jol_BWFC

57 minutes ago, Duck Egg said:

He's wearing gloves and different coloured boots.  I'd ban him for that tbh

With you there ... plus the huge spider's web tattoo on his knee and one's on his head. OK, fck it, the tattoo's altogether. 

AND the current haircut !!

Fortunately my small mind isn't in charge.