Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 410 Fun & Games
- 109 BA Predictor Threads
- 34 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 296 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 113 Current West Ham
- 199 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 11 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 26 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 398 Match Threads
- 69 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 120 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 270 Other Teams & Matches
- 25 Other Players & Staff
Comments
Well it made me smile
He clearly caught the guy on the ankle with studs up and whilst there is debate as to the validity of denial of a goal scoring opportunity as a reason, I think that a red was the correct decision.
For me, the recklessness of the challenge would have been enough reason but if he had not made the challenge, there is little doubt that the striker would have had a clear run on goal so imo, denial of a goal scoring opportunity also had merit.
Also, I understand that the red was technically given for denying a goal scoring opportunity (still harsh imo). I also get that it was only his poor touch that put Jagielka in the position to have to make the challenge.
However, imo, he didn't dive in, he reached as he'd let the ball get away from him, he got the ball first, his foot wasn't high (he went through the ball not over it) even though it was with his studs as he was reaching away from himself so it was natural rather than deliberate. Yes, the freeze frame of the contact doesn't look good, but that wasn't the intention, or even an inevitable outcome of his action (bearing in mind he got the ball first), so to instantly say it's a red (for the tackle) seems harsh and possibly a slippery slope to over-santising the game (all imo of course).
Likewise, although I get Suzanne's point about interpretation being the issue for consistency, but my point is that this could (again imo) easily be called or interpreted differently to justify (not that refs ever justify anything) if only to themselves a different decision.
Thought it was a red, as he was out of control, and endangered an opponent as a result.
I do however feel that there was no intent by Jagielka to do anything other than get the ball, which he did. If he hadn't attempted a tackle the player was clear on goal. Jagielka in that split second did what I think and would hope most defenders would do and attempt to get the ball back. However, he was not in full control and caught the players foot. It was unfortunate that he was sent off and a goal was also scored.
Perhaps a few seasons ago a sharper Jagielka would have made the tackle, or not given the ball away in the first place.
Let me clarify. I think it was a red. What I am saying is on a different day with a different ref it could be given as just a foul, just a yellow, a straight red or in a rare occasion, not even a foul.
For example a couple of seasons ago when we played Chelsea, Diego Costas challenge on Adrian was most definitely a straight red but, the ref only gave a free kick.
Yes, what I meant was that I don't think a ref who sees that clearly could not consider it a foul.
I'd forgotten that Huddersfield have those clapper things, they deserve relegation just for that.
Is it me or are the Wolves shirts a bit too yellow to be "Old Gold"?
Normal service resumed.
#reasonstobecheerful