Just seen the highlights on Sky, and its never in a million years a red card. Its not a clear goal scoring opportunity and theres at least 2 covering players
http://www.skysports.com/football/live-blog/11688/10983387/sky-bet-efl-live
I just hope we appeal.
agree never a read far to many players around him, did over play it though should have just cleared the ball
We are back to consistency. There were plenty of nasty fouls during the game that went unpunished. The sending off was harsh and the ref seemed to think the fans had come to see him. His decision spoilt the game as a spectacle especially as it really wasn't a sending off.
I wasn't there so gun me down if you want, but it sounded like Stefjo hit a free kick back to Odoi, who in turn passed to Kalas and next thing we're under pressure.
Sounds like inviting disaster?
Absolutely must appeal, especially given the atrocious officating today.
Catch 22. If we don´t appeal it gives the ref justification of his terrible performance the whole game through.If we do appeal & win justice will be done. However if we lose an appeal there is an extra game ban. As it is only dear old Fulham I doubt the panel would find in our favour as it would reflect badly on their untouchable ref.
Quote from: MaidstoneMark69 on August 12, 2017, 05:39:04 PM
I wasn't there so gun me down if you want, but it sounded like Stefjo hit a free kick back to Odoi, who in turn passed to Kalas and next thing we're under pressure.
Sounds like inviting disaster?
Odoi couldn´t have passed to Kalas as he only came on after 5 mins.
My first impression when I saw it live was a red. Could argue that I think it was Ream could have got across but he was clean through had he not been rugby tackled. Can't see it being recinded if I'm honest
Quote from: grandad on August 12, 2017, 05:42:08 PM
Catch 22. If we don´t appeal it gives the ref justification of his terrible performance the whole game through.If we do appeal & win justice will be done. However if we lose an appeal there is an extra game ban. As it is only dear old Fulham I doubt the panel would find in our favour as it would reflect badly on their untouchable ref.
not always an extra game ban, just if they consider it frivolous as in trying to delay the game or games they will miss
so far most TV / internet pundits / presenters (call them what you will) say it was very harsh
Did seem ridiculously rash to give a straight red so early on in the game.. seems to be a theme now when we play reading. Both playoff games saw their goals come from very very dodgy and ultimately wrong refereeing decisions and today's made that three on the trot.
Quote from: westcliff white on August 12, 2017, 05:53:23 PM
so far most TV / internet pundits / presenters (call them what you will) say it was very harsh
as maybe but they won't be making and decsion in event of an appeal.
Never a red card, just watched the highlights.
Quote from: grandad on August 12, 2017, 05:44:35 PM
Quote from: MaidstoneMark69 on August 12, 2017, 05:39:04 PM
I wasn't there so gun me down if you want, but it sounded like Stefjo hit a free kick back to Odoi, who in turn passed to Kalas and next thing we're under pressure.
Sounds like inviting disaster?
Odoi couldn´t have passed to Kalas as he only came on after 5 mins.
Oh yes of course, i'm just remembering from the commentary, we'll he definitely passed the free kick to a full back which started the whole catalogue of errors.....or maybe not?
Poor free kick into space behind Fred, Fred played to Kalas & Kalas had no options so tried to dribble out of defence & got caught in possession. His rugby tackle on the Reading player was rubbish & my initial thought was to look at ref. Ref already had his hand in his pocket which is always a bad sign.
I will need to see a replay to see if Ream would have got across to cover
Quote from: MaidstoneMark69 on August 12, 2017, 05:39:04 PM
I wasn't there so gun me down if you want, but it sounded like Stefjo hit a free kick back to Odoi, who in turn passed to Kalas and next thing we're under pressure.
Sounds like inviting disaster?
I was there , high up in the stand behind the goal and immediately thought ita foul wold be given and maybe a yellow card.
Having see the TV clip in seems a very harsh decision to give a red card and to reduce the whole match to eleven v ten.
Honestly? It's not as harsh as I had expected it to be.
I mean, the player is through on goal with a clear shot if he's not fouled. The early in the game sense might have come into play, but I doubt that'll be overturned.
Nice to see the Reading players applauding the sending off on the pic used on the BBC web site. Very classy Reading. Just about sums your dreadful club up.
Quote from: PokerMatt on August 12, 2017, 08:12:39 PM
Honestly? It's not as harsh as I had expected it to be.
I mean, the player is through on goal with a clear shot if he's not fouled. The early in the game sense might have come into play, but I doubt that'll be overturned.
I disagree as Ream is coming across no guarantee the shot is at target so to speak, very harsh. I hear we are appealing
I cannot see what there is to appeal about by the rules of the game in that situation you are taking a walk. You don't need an early bath as you haven't had time to raise a sweat. Very silly and probably cost us two points
I think I dislike Reading under Stam with his bully tactics more than CFC Brentford and QPR put together
Quote from: Andy S on August 12, 2017, 08:58:52 PM
I cannot see what there is to appeal about by the rules of the game in that situation you are taking a walk. You don't need an early bath as you haven't had time to raise a sweat. Very silly and probably cost us two points
I don't think the appeal will win personally, but I do not think it was a red card, there was a covering defender, but hey ho we got a point which is more than I thought we would get after 60 seconds
I have not seen it yet. Harsh it may be but if it meets the definition then an extra game ban will be added.
ps...I hate Reading too. Soooo pleased they lost to Huddersfield. I was in a pub in Winchester, most supporting Reading. Thoroughly enjoyed seeing those bully boy cheats losing.
I was sitting right in front of the incident. Sadly I think it was 70% a red card. What you can't see on the highlights due to the camera angle is that Kalas definitely puts an arm out and catches the Reading attacker. The initial reaction around me was disbelief that he did something so stupid.
Today was a top performance (COYWs) but I think Kalas should not have put his arm out... he was duped.
Sorry.
Quote from: PokerMatt on August 12, 2017, 08:12:39 PM
Honestly? It's not as harsh as I had expected it to be.
I mean, the player is through on goal with a clear shot if he's not fouled. The early in the game sense might have come into play, but I doubt that'll be overturned.
I don't think they'll overturn that. Really not convinced it's worth appeal.
Forgive me if I'm wrong (which I maybe, I've only viewed the highlights on my phone) but doesn't the other Reading player immediately pounce onto the loose ball in the box?
The red card is given for "denying a clear goal scoring opportunity". If the ref plays advantage Reading still get their shot on goal away in exactly the same place as they would of anyway so therefore the goal scoring opportunity wasn't denied.
Quote from: Finnegans Wake on August 12, 2017, 10:26:11 PM
Forgive me if I'm wrong (which I maybe, I've only viewed the highlights on my phone) but doesn't the other Reading player immediately pounce onto the loose ball in the box?
The red card is given for "denying a clear goal scoring opportunity". If the ref plays advantage Reading still get their shot on goal away in exactly the same place as they would of anyway so therefore the goal scoring opportunity wasn't denied.
I think you may have just proven the case for the prosecution. If the other Reading player stays on his feet, then they have 2 players clean through, against an out of position Ream. They would almost certainly have scored.
Anyway, great result in the end.
Quote from: andyk on August 12, 2017, 10:37:20 PM
Quote from: Finnegans Wake on August 12, 2017, 10:26:11 PM
Forgive me if I'm wrong (which I maybe, I've only viewed the highlights on my phone) but doesn't the other Reading player immediately pounce onto the loose ball in the box?
The red card is given for "denying a clear goal scoring opportunity". If the ref plays advantage Reading still get their shot on goal away in exactly the same place as they would of anyway so therefore the goal scoring opportunity wasn't denied.
I think you may have just proven the case for the prosecution. If the other Reading player stays on his feet, then they have 2 players clean through, against an out of position Ream. They would almost certainly have scored.
Anyway, great result in the end.
But the rules don't take the quality of the chance into account (I think). A goal scoring opportunity still remains.
I suppose it could be argued that the act of denying a goal scoring opportunity is a red card irrelevant of what happens after but then they changed to rules last season or the season before. Now if you are the last man in the penalty area, you bring someone down and a penalty is given then you don't receive a red card on the basis that the goal scoring opportunity still remains.
nice of Modou Barrow to celebrate Kalas' red card, classless fool
I just watched this 20 times.
Free kick to Reading, that's it.
It's fixed - we need to grease the refs like the other teams I reckon. No I am not joking.
Still can't believe it after 10 more times of watching it. :wow:
I wonder what will happen to the ref? Fast pay makes fast friends?
Quote from: Statto on August 12, 2017, 11:52:01 PM
(https://s12.postimg.org/80rwekwfh/Untitled.jpg)
An interesting picture.
To me, it confirms that the Reading player could have taken the ball at least a further 7-or-8 yards directly towards the goal without Ream being able to get across to challenge him. In which case, I fail to see how Kalas's foul has not denied a goalscoring opportunity. (Playing an advantage would not have given the other Reading player the same chance: he was moving in the direction of the penalty spot and not towards the ball.)
Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2017, 01:52:11 AM
Quote from: Statto on August 12, 2017, 11:52:01 PM
(https://s12.postimg.org/80rwekwfh/Untitled.jpg)
An interesting picture.
To me, it confirms that the Reading player could have taken the ball at least a further 7-or-8 yards directly towards the goal without Ream being able to get across to challenge him. In which case, I fail to see how Kalas's foul has not denied a goalscoring opportunity. (Playing an advantage would not have given the other Reading player the same chance: he was moving in the direction of the penalty spot and not towards the ball.)
So you are saying that another player could have intervened? Sounds like any other free kick outside the box then, not a clear one on one with the goalie. Last time I checked just about every foul right outside of the box was to prevent a clear goal scoring opportunity.
Definitely a 063.gif
Can understand how it was given as a 096.gig
Have to admit though, I think in the early stages of a game refs are usually FAR more lenient which is why this was surprise.
One thing to also bear in mind is that they've reinstated the law where giving away a penalty is most likely a red card now whereas last year it would only be a yellow unless it was a dangerous tackle. That could have been playing on the refs mind a bit?
It was pretty clearly a red card/DOGSO infraction. It sucks, but it's the same call in the 1st minute as the 89th. We got a good point.
From where we were sitting it looked a red to me. The ref had a poor game but at the time I felt I couldn't complain about the red card. Not seen a replay yet.
Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2017, 01:52:11 AM
Quote from: Statto on August 12, 2017, 11:52:01 PM
(https://s12.postimg.org/80rwekwfh/Untitled.jpg)
An interesting picture.
To me, it confirms that the Reading player could have taken the ball at least a further 7-or-8 yards directly towards the goal without Ream being able to get across to challenge him. In which case, I fail to see how Kalas's foul has not denied a goalscoring opportunity. (Playing an advantage would not have given the other Reading player the same chance: he was moving in the direction of the penalty spot and not towards the ball.)
Need a wider shot of this foto. Another Fulham player is closer to the goal than the one you see here.
Quote from: Robbie on August 12, 2017, 09:26:29 PM
I was sitting right in front of the incident. Sadly I think it was 70% a red card. What you can't see on the highlights due to the camera angle is that Kalas definitely puts an arm out and catches the Reading attacker. The initial reaction around me was disbelief that he did something so stupid.
Today was a top performance (COYWs) but I think Kalas should not have put his arm out... he was duped.
Sorry.
Watching the rep,as it is quite clear what he did for me, I just think there is doubt as ream was closer to the goal and coming across. Having said that I do not think we would win any appeal as it has to be Chrystal clear to win those and thus isn't.
Don't think an additional game will be added unless they believe we are trying to delay when the suspension starts, if they think we are then they will class it as frivolous and add an extra game to the 3 he will surely get
To me, bad judgement by Kalas, should have let the player go, Button may have saved it, at worse we are a goal down with 89 minutes to recover, with 11 men.
Not seen the AK trip on TV yet late on in the game, their player didn't even get spoken to. He was on a yellow, surely it deserved a caution even if it wasn't meant as he implied.
Kalas a little unlucky here, I've seen worse 'tackles' given yellow (De Jong 2010 World Cup)
Should have been at most a yellow and the ref should've used common sense and realised that the game wasn't even a minute old
Quote from: The Rock on August 13, 2017, 02:28:39 AM
Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2017, 01:52:11 AM
Quote from: Statto on August 12, 2017, 11:52:01 PM
(https://s12.postimg.org/80rwekwfh/Untitled.jpg)
An interesting picture.
To me, it confirms that the Reading player could have taken the ball at least a further 7-or-8 yards directly towards the goal without Ream being able to get across to challenge him. In which case, I fail to see how Kalas's foul has not denied a goalscoring opportunity. (Playing an advantage would not have given the other Reading player the same chance: he was moving in the direction of the penalty spot and not towards the ball.)
So you are saying that another player could have intervened? Sounds like any other free kick outside the box then, not a clear one on one with the goalie. Last time I checked just about every foul right outside of the box was to prevent a clear goal scoring opportunity.
The definition that applies in this instance is as follows:
'...denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick'
The law does not state that the goal-scoring opportunity has to be a one-on-one with the goalkeeper.
I am saying that I think the Reading player could have advanced to within 10-12-yards of the goal and got his shot away before any challenge could have been made and that, from this distance, even allowing for that he would have been shooting from an angle, it was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity that was denied.
Quote from: One Martin Thomas on August 13, 2017, 08:02:15 AM
Need a wider shot of this foto. Another Fulham player is closer to the goal than the one you see here.
I can't be 100% sure that there wasn't, but it's not how I recall seeing it from the stands. My unreliable memory notwithstanding, I find it unlikely, in the opening few seconds of the game, that any outfield player would be positioned be closer to our goal than Kalas and Ream.
There was a defender in the middle that the picture doesn't show. So the Reading player would still have had a player to beat. You can also see that the Reading forward flings himself to the ground with arms up as if he has been shot. This looks very unnatural and a deliberate attempt to win a kick. Very harsh dismissal. But one that will stand.
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 13, 2017, 10:37:44 AM
There was a defender in the middle that the picture doesn't show. So the Reading player would still have had a player to beat. You can also see that the Reading forward flings himself to the ground with arms up as if he has been shot. This looks very unnatural and a deliberate attempt to win a kick. Very harsh dismissal. But one that will stand.
Kalas grabs his legs. Lets not get ridiculous and start insinuating that this was a dive.
Quote from: Tabby on August 13, 2017, 10:54:20 AM
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 13, 2017, 10:37:44 AM
There was a defender in the middle that the picture doesn't show. So the Reading player would still have had a player to beat. You can also see that the Reading forward flings himself to the ground with arms up as if he has been shot. This looks very unnatural and a deliberate attempt to win a kick. Very harsh dismissal. But one that will stand.
Kalas grabs his legs. Lets not get ridiculous and start insinuating that this was a dive.
Your wonderful eyesight must pick up the flinging of the arms? Your wonderful eyesight must pick up that Kalas was slipping over. So let's not get ridiculous insinuating that this was any more than it actually was.
looking at it again you could say that the first Reading player their no 9 takes down Kalas causing him to fall into the path of Burrow and bring him down
wherever the last defender was.... in the first 33 seconds (or at any other time for that matter) that looked a ridiculous red card. if that was red then a few of their players should have gone or at least been given yellow and one of their team definitely was a second yellow not given of course.
the issue here is of course consictency, the referee having given the red then decided no more cards in the first half despite numerous fouls and targeting of our players. we have noticed quite often in the=is division no cards in the first half and then a glut in the second for rather lesser offences, it's crazy!
The last three games against reading, al ref affected in their favour, just saying.
Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2017, 01:52:11 AM
Quote from: Statto on August 12, 2017, 11:52:01 PM
(https://s12.postimg.org/80rwekwfh/Untitled.jpg)
An interesting picture.
To me, it confirms that the Reading player could have taken the ball at least a further 7-or-8 yards directly towards the goal without Ream being able to get across to challenge him. In which case, I fail to see how Kalas's foul has not denied a goalscoring opportunity. (Playing an advantage would not have given the other Reading player the same chance: he was moving in the direction of the penalty spot and not towards the ball.)
Watch the replay. The other player imediatly runs onto the loose ball. How is it not the same chance?
The ref made his first mistake 12 seconds in. Aluko was fouled by Illori. A Reading player pushed the ball to Johansen who took the free kick while the ball was moving. Ref should have got it retaken. Kalas would then not have been sent off .
I'm sorry but can someone who has access to the full 90 go to 1:28:50 and tell me the difference between the Liam Moore foul and the Kalas red, and how one gets a red and the other not even a yellow bearing in mind Moore deserved a second yellow for that. The referee was spineless and I hope he gets sent to the conference for a month where he'll get 90 minutes of abuse which he deserves.
Quote from: Deeping_white on August 13, 2017, 01:39:57 PM
I'm sorry but can someone who has access to the full 90 go to 1:28:50 and tell me the difference between the Liam Moore foul and the Kalas red, and how one gets a red and the other not even a yellow bearing in mind Moore deserved a second yellow for that. The referee was spineless and I hope he gets sent to the conference for a month where he'll get 90 minutes of abuse which he deserves.
Moore should have definitely have gotten a second yellow for a tactical foul. Would have been even more harsh to give a red there than in the Kalas situation though. The Kalas situation was 30 yards closer to goal.
That and not giving Illori a yellow after he got a telling off (40:40 roughly) and then scything down Aluko a minute later were even worse decisions than the Kalas red.
Quote from: Tabby on August 13, 2017, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Deeping_white on August 13, 2017, 01:39:57 PM
I'm sorry but can someone who has access to the full 90 go to 1:28:50 and tell me the difference between the Liam Moore foul and the Kalas red, and how one gets a red and the other not even a yellow bearing in mind Moore deserved a second yellow for that. The referee was spineless and I hope he gets sent to the conference for a month where he'll get 90 minutes of abuse which he deserves.
Moore should have definitely have gotten a second yellow for a tactical foul. Would have been even more harsh to give a red there than in the Kalas situation though. The Kalas situation was 30 yards closer to goal.
That and not giving Illori a yellow after he got a telling off (40:40 roughly) and then scything down Aluko a minute later were even worse decisions than the Kalas red.
Both were worth a yellow and that's the point I was trying to make, maybe didn't come across clearly enough! Both cynical fouls, neither of which denied a goal-scoring opportunity but the fact that one gets away with no card and the other gets sent off is hideous.
Looks like we are not going to appeal either. Kalas will be a huge miss for the next three games.
Quote from: Fulham 442 on August 13, 2017, 05:19:56 PM
Looks like we are not going to appeal either. Kalas will be a huge miss for the next three games.
Ilori got a one game suspension for a professional foul against QPR. I don't see why Kalas would be any different.
IMO never a sending off and I think he was fouled before he got in trouble but here's the deal:
Red cards
The suspension relating to players shown a red card is dependent upon the offence:
Shown 2 yellow cards - suspended for 1 first team game
Denying a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by physical means or by handling the ball - suspended for 1 first team game
Using offensive or insulting or abusive language or gestures - suspended for 2 first team games
Serious foul play or violent conduct - suspended for 3 games in approved competitions
Spitting at an opponent or any other person - suspended for 6 games in approved competitions
Except for being shown 2 yellow cards, red card offences can be subject to appeal due to mistaken identity or for claims of wrongful dismissal.
Quote from: Finnegans Wake on August 13, 2017, 12:34:17 PM
Watch the replay. The other player imediatly runs onto the loose ball. How is it not the same chance?
I have taken your advice and watched the replay. I don't think that the other Reading player gets the same opportunity.
While it only takes him an extra second-or-so to get onto the ball, in that time, the ball rolls a couple of yards further towards the goal-line and Ream covers a couple of yards towards the ball. In my opinion, this is critical. The player either has to shoot from a tighter angle or drag the ball towards the goal, by which time Ream would be in a position to challenge.
The margins are tight, I accept, but the difference between a goal-scoring opportunity and an opportunity-preventing tackle or block sometimes is a matter of no more than a split second or an extra yard.
Quote from: Southcoastffc on August 13, 2017, 05:41:26 PM
IMO never a sending off and I think he was fouled before he got in trouble but here's the deal:
Red cards
The suspension relating to players shown a red card is dependent upon the offence:
Shown 2 yellow cards - suspended for 1 first team game
Denying a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by physical means or by handling the ball - suspended for 1 first team game
Using offensive or insulting or abusive language or gestures - suspended for 2 first team games
Serious foul play or violent conduct - suspended for 3 games in approved competitions
Spitting at an opponent or any other person - suspended for 6 games in approved competitions
Except for being shown 2 yellow cards, red card offences can be subject to appeal due to mistaken identity or for claims of wrongful dismissal.
Think it will be only a one game suspension.
http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/player-essentials/2017-18/english---professional-game---player-essentials-2017-18.ashx
See page 4.
When is the suspension announced?
Quote from: EastEndWhite on August 13, 2017, 07:32:40 PM
Quote from: Southcoastffc on August 13, 2017, 05:41:26 PM
IMO never a sending off and I think he was fouled before he got in trouble but here's the deal:
Red cards
The suspension relating to players shown a red card is dependent upon the offence:
Shown 2 yellow cards - suspended for 1 first team game
Denying a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by physical means or by handling the ball - suspended for 1 first team game
Using offensive or insulting or abusive language or gestures - suspended for 2 first team games
Serious foul play or violent conduct - suspended for 3 games in approved competitions
Spitting at an opponent or any other person - suspended for 6 games in approved competitions
Except for being shown 2 yellow cards, red card offences can be subject to appeal due to mistaken identity or for claims of wrongful dismissal.
Think it will be only a one game suspension.
http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/player-essentials/2017-18/english---professional-game---player-essentials-2017-18.ashx
See page 4.
When is the suspension announced?
Yes, one game. Thats why it emboldened that text. And, as I understand it, red cards in first team competitive matches result in immediate suspension from forthcoming first team competitive matches.
Quote from: Nero on August 13, 2017, 11:12:14 AM
looking at it again you could say that the first Reading player their no 9 takes down Kalas causing him to fall into the path of Burrow and bring him down
It took four pages until somebody saw what I saw. The Reading player behind Kalas and to his right puts knee to the back of Kalas's thigh which trips him. Not a slip. After that, the one camera angle does not show whether there was a rugby tackle or not, but one has to go with the views of Fulham fans on here who say he did pull a Halfpenny.
I would also agree with another poster further down (sorry for not remembering his name) who stated the dreadful free kick for Johansen that started this sad saga should have been retaken.
One thing is for certain, poor old Kalas must hate Reading with a passion.
Nogood "me too, see" Boyo
Quote from: NogoodBoyo on August 13, 2017, 10:20:51 PM
Quote from: Nero on August 13, 2017, 11:12:14 AM
looking at it again you could say that the first Reading player their no 9 takes down Kalas causing him to fall into the path of Burrow and bring him down
It took four pages until somebody saw what I saw. The Reading player behind Kalas and to his right puts knee to the back of Kalas's thigh which trips him. Not a slip. After that, the one camera angle does not show whether there was a rugby tackle or not, but one has to go with the views of Fulham fans on here who say he did pull a Halfpenny.
I would also agree with another poster further down (sorry for not remembering his name) who stated the dreadful free kick for Johansen that started this sad saga should have been retaken.
One thing is for certain, poor old Kalas must hate Reading with a passion.
Nogood "me too, see" Boyo
Couple of things for me - free kick should have been retaken for a moving ball, possible trip on Kalas. However, why Kalas was trying to bring it out from the back there I have no idea.
I'm of the view that it was a definite red though, despite the blunders leading to it he'd have been clean through with a supporting player, and I don't think Ream would have got across in time (this coming from seeing it back and my opinions from the game at the time.
Quote from: NogoodBoyo on August 13, 2017, 10:20:51 PM
Quote from: Nero on August 13, 2017, 11:12:14 AM
looking at it again you could say that the first Reading player their no 9 takes down Kalas causing him to fall into the path of Burrow and bring him down
It took four pages until somebody saw what I saw. The Reading player behind Kalas and to his right puts knee to the back of Kalas's thigh which trips him. Not a slip. After that, the one camera angle does not show whether there was a rugby tackle or not, but one has to go with the views of Fulham fans on here who say he did pull a Halfpenny.
I would also agree with another poster further down (sorry for not remembering his name) who stated the dreadful free kick for Johansen that started this sad saga should have been retaken.
One thing is for certain, poor old Kalas must hate Reading with a passion.
Nogood "me too, see" Boyo
I spotted & posted about the moving ball free kick by Johansen. 12 seconds in. Should have been retaken. Whole different game.
Quote from: grandad on August 14, 2017, 11:02:09 AM
I spotted & posted about the moving ball free kick by Johansen. 12 seconds in. Should have been retaken. Whole different game.
By the letter of the law, you are correct, of course.
In my view, had the free-kick been thumped forwards forty yards to one of our players, then the referee has to call for it to be retaken to prevent us from gaining an unfair advantage. Recalling a sideways cross-field blast from which there was no immediate benefit, however, does nothing more than wind-up the supporters of both sides - just as it does when you get a referee who won't allow a team to take a quick free-kick in their own half a couple of yards from where the offence occurred.
May I put forward a radical suggestion as to how the game could have been entirely different - a suggestion that, in my opinion, identifies the real culprit rather than making the referee a scapegoat: imagine that Kalas doesn't deliberately grab hold of the Reading player's leg: no red card; no playing 89 minutes with 10 men; no need to reduce our attacking options by substituting Kebano.
As you say, a whole different game.
