Very well known Exeweb poster
- Mar 9, 2004
- In the drivers seat..........
Totally agree. All Parkes did was cover and shield their player and he simply just fell to the floor. Parkes wasn't even really over physical either. That's actually one of the worst decisions i've seen for a straight red. It wasn't even a foul IMO. Ref should have just told their lad to get up and the game carry on.Surely the Parkes red should be appealed? Looks an awful decision
As the law stands today a late two-footed sliding tackle will get you a red card. However, it looked mis-timed rather than a reckless attempt to injure the opponent and I'm sure in the past it would have only been a booking.I don't think the law needs questioning when he's that late although I do think the footballing governing bodies need to understand that football is still a contact sport and that sliding tackles are always going to look bad if the ball isn't won. Either that or you just ban sliding tackles altogether.
I suspect nobody else mentioned it before as we knew we could rely on you to do so Pete!! I've just had my first look at it, and if you actually look at the height of the ball as it went past Maxted, he would have to be about eight feet tall to been able to make any connection, hence why he started to come for it then changed his mind when he knew he wouldn't be able to reach it, then went to a position on his line where he thought there was a chance of stopping the ball. Unfortunately he was unable to stop it.Highlights from youtube; my first viewing. What the f*** did Maxted have in mind for their first goal? He had to be making some sort of challenge for that cross rather than staying rooted to the spot challenging them to have a go. Very poor goalkeeping which nobody seems to want to mention so far? Oh how we miss Ward. He would have dealt with that cross with little or no problem.
I thought it was Seymour who initially missed the ball and then Law put it into the side netting or was that another incident?
Just watched the ifollow replay. Nicky Laws chance came on the 16th minute. First 25 minutes it was all City swift one touch passing but never testing their keeper. Bradford started to get into the game but did not appear to be carrying any great threat.That was late on....there was a chance in first half that I think they described as an air kick that Law had a chance to open the scoring with so they said on commentary anyway
Just watched the ifollow replay. Nicky Laws chance came on the 16th minute. First 25 minutes it was all City swift one touch passing but never testing their keeper. Bradford started to get into the game but did not appear to be carrying any great threat.
Their goal on 31 minutes came completely against the run of play resulting from what seemed nothing more than a hopeful cross in from the right side of the pitch and from what I could see should easily been dealt with by either Maxted or Sweeney.....yet another sloppy goal conceded.
Having said that if that was sloppy on the stroke of halftime there was even worse to come a though ball into our penalty area where firstly Aaron Martin could and should have cleared it the Bradford player managed to get possession but even then either Parkes or Maxted could and should have prevented him from scoring. Probably as poor a goal as I have seen us concede given usually it is a mistake by one individual or a mixup between two whereas this time all three were culpable.
As has been said with keystone cops type defending it would be unfair to blame our strikers failure to score for the defeat although there is a counter argument and perhaps it would be nice for our strikers to give our defence something to defend......just a thought.