Crawley Vs Exeter City Match Day Thread

[PeteUSA]

Which is a load of b0!!0cks as every tackle you go into there is an element of endangering the opponent. The slightest bit of mis-timing or mis-judgment and that's it. As for the sliding tackle under those rules, they might as well outlaw altogether and gave done.

Take no notice Ian, they're talking absolute shiit! And two people gormless enough to declare "so it wasnt a penalty" FFS! Its the clearest penalty I've seen this season. Coming in from behind like that and doing that scissors thing on the blokes legs. Read the rules as much as you want you two. They dont allow for tackles from behind like that even if our player did manage to tickle the ball!

 

[Fareham Grecian]

Take no notice Ian, they're talking absolute shiit! And two people gormless enough to declare "so it wasnt a penalty" FFS! Its the clearest penalty I've seen this season. Coming in from behind like that and doing that scissors thing on the blokes legs. Read the rules as much as you want you two. They dont allow for tackles from behind like that even if our player did manage to tickle the ball!

Serious question Pete: why are the only incidents you get exercised about ones where you think we have fcuked up or a decision has benefitted us? Your stance is always anti-ECFC

 

[Billy The Fish]

Personally I think it was a totally brilliant tackle demonstrating great technique, tenacity and nerve. The cheating Crawley get took a dive and should've been red-carded by a beautifully positioned official showing great judgement and is a credit to the whistle blowing fraternity.

One more thing. Seymour, don't do that again please.

 

[John William]

It wasn't a penalty because the referee said it wasn't. That's all there is to it.

 

[andrew p long]

Personally I think it was a totally brilliant tackle demonstrating great technique, tenacity and nerve. The cheating Crawley get took a dive and should've been red-carded by a beautifully positioned official showing great judgement and is a credit to the whistle blowing fraternity.

One more thing. Seymour, don't do that again please.

Made I larf!

The serious point is though that , whatever the correct interpretation, if Seymour does that again in our penalty area, it is most likely to result in a penalty. It is was the epitome of a ‘forward ‘s tackle’. The number one training exercise this week will be teaching Seymour about risky tackles.

 

[IndoMike]

I see it as Seymour was doing his job by trying to stop an opponent in a dangerous situation. His tackle was a bit careless but he did try to play the ball : It didn't look like he was trying to play the man.
Yaa. ..some refs would give it and some wouldn't, just like in scores of games every weekend.
Swings and roundabouts : next time it could be us.

 

[Jason H]

Not sure if anyone else has pointed it out, but when we scored a number of players went over to Seymour to congratulate him. I didn't think it was a penalty (but then I'm biased!) and still don't. The 6 shouldn't have been on the pitch anyway after his cynical foul when Williams would have been put clean through late in the first half (but then, again I'm biased, I would say that!).

Besides, had Seymour been a little less honest before this we could have had a penalty (or a free kick just outside the box, not sure where the challenge took place) and a red card when the Crawley defender hauled Seymour back as he chased a ball over the top. Seymour instead of feeling the contact and going down, gamely tried to carry on.

Kettle, despite his reputation, was absolutely fine, no real issues with his performance.

 

[Red Bill]

Take no notice Ian, they're talking absolute shiit! And two people gormless enough to declare "so it wasnt a penalty" FFS! Its the clearest penalty I've seen this season. Coming in from behind like that and doing that scissors thing on the blokes legs. Read the rules as much as you want you two. They dont allow for tackles from behind like that even if our player did manage to tickle the ball!

Well no one's opinion is respected on here more than yours Pete.
I'm only quoting whats written but its obviously a clearer penalty than when someone brings someone down in the box without getting anywhere near the ball of course.

 

[Red Bill]

Which is a load of b0!!0cks as every tackle you go into there is an element of endangering the opponent. The slightest bit of mis-timing or mis-judgment and that's it. As for the sliding tackle under those rules, they might as well outlaw altogether and gave done.

Thats right and thats why its up to refs to decide how much they were endangered when deciding if a tackle is a foul or not. Just quoting what i read on about three different sources, i'm sure you could read them too if you can be bothered and are willing to entetain the notion that you might not be right! My judgement was that falling over in a game of football isnt actually that much danger.

 

[Grecian2K]

It wasn't a penalty because the referee said it wasn't. That's all there is to it.

Is the right (and only) answer!!
And, if I recall correctly we have already been "denied" at least a couple of strong-looking penalty shouts of our own so far this season.
Funny how, in those cases, our brave colonial defender of whistlemen seemed to defend those decisions. As has been suggested previously, it is rather strange (and suspicious) that dear old Pate's hackles only ever seem to get raised when things go City's way.