Bristol City 1 - 2 Wolves: Verdict thread

[slink]

I don't think people dispute the force of the challenge. My point is that it's bollocks and people simply don't understand that. Look at Puncheon's challenge and then compare it to Batth's and look at which one is more dangerous.

Hint: A blind side strike is always much more dangerous than one player's can see. Down to us having binocular vision, natural hunters and a sense of danger jones over several million years.

Unnecessary force because he could have stayed on his feet. Stupid tackle that ends up with him landing his studs on Magnusson's foot with that force. I don't see how you can't understand why the ref has given a red card and saying that you understand more than everyone else is not a reason. I don't see what a challenge in another game has to do with it either.

 

[Johnny75]

I don't think you can compare one challenge versus another and look to judge the merits of one decision versus another. The Puncheon foul is worse, more dangerous and a clear red, you can't say the Batth one therefore isn't a red just because of an incompetent refereeing decision. Similarly you can't say the Boly handball should have been a penalty because Mike Dean gave a shocker against Chambers. As I've said previously I think Batth was a little unlucky and it wasn't a shocking challenge - Roberts' on Jota was worse for instance, but I can see why it was a red

I think the officials are applying the law as they see fit and consistency is always going to be hard to achieve. I think intent is certainly a factor and you could argue all blind side tackles have the intent to damage an opponent and they are reckless as the opponent isn't in a position to take action. For me the Batth challenge isn't dangerous for the reasons I've outlined above but it is under the current laws of the game.

Handball is different and I don't think either ref got it wrong under the laws of the game as they are now as the laws are a bit woolly to say the least.

 

[Johnny75]

Unnecessary force because he could have stayed on his feet. Stupid tackle that ends up with him landing his studs on Magnusson's foot with that force. I don't see how you can't understand why the ref has given a red card and saying that you understand more than everyone else is not a reason. I don't see what a challenge in another game has to do with it either.

Ik think you need to reread my posts. UNDER THE CURRENT LAWS OF THE GAME THE REF DID NOT GET IT WRONG.

It isn't very good technique from Batth (as Mark points out) but the tackle isn't reckless and as I have stated above not dangerous. If you don't understand why Puncheon's challenge was more dangerous then I suggest you read up about blind side impact.

 

[Dolph06]

Baath made clear contact with the players ankle, his studs were slightly raised, his massive strides after his poor first touch made him look out of control and the opposing player didn't dive in either. I can totally understand why he was sent off. For me, there is absolutely no need to lunge in like that in that are of pitch, no whatsoever. Stupidity.

Nnetheless, it was nowhere near as bad as what Puncheon delved out. Baath's was a committed challenge which went slightly awry whereas Puncheon seemed to have intent, to me anyhow.

 

[slink]

Ik think you need to reread my posts. UNDER THE CURRENT LAWS OF THE GAME THE REF DID NOT GET IT WRONG.

It isn't very good technique from Batth (as Mark points out) but the tackle isn't reckless and as I have stated above not dangerous. If you don't understand why Puncheon's challenge was more dangerous then I suggest you read up about blind side impact.

I've never said Puncheon's tackle wasn't more dangerous it's you that have added that challenge to the discussion. As it happens i think it's a shocking tackle and was as clear a red card that you will see. I've also not said that Batth's challenge was dangerous either but it could have been and it looked dreadful because of the way he went in and it was needless. Batth was out of control and he could have caught Magnusson higher than he did and then the challenge would have become dangerous. There's nothing wrong with that law of the game at all and so it's clear why Batth was sent off and doesn't matter how dangerous other tackles are.

 

[Johnny75]

I've never said Puncheon's tackle wasn't more dangerous it's you that have added that challenge to the discussion. As it happens i think it's a shocking tackle and was as clear a red card that you will see. I've also not said that Batth's challenge was dangerous either but it could have been and it looked dreadful because of the way he went in and it was needless. Batth was out of control and he could have caught Magnusson higher than he did and then the challenge would have become dangerous. There's nothing wrong with that law of the game at all and so it's clear why Batth was sent off and doesn't matter how dangerous other tackles are.

We'll have to agree to disagree Slink I think there's plenty wrong with the laws and interpretation of them.

 

[slink]

We'll have to agree to disagree Slink I think there's plenty wrong with the laws and interpretation of them.

I would say the referee's interpretation and the application of them are the real problem rather than the laws themselves. Laws are never going to be perfect but the referees should know that Puncheon's tackle is dangerous.

 

[YoungWolf]

I was furious about the red at the time and I still am!

It’s clearly more of s divisive decision than I imagine but I still think we are right to appeal, even if it’s unlikely the FA will overturn it (cause FA gotta FA)

 

[Jinky]

When do we find out the result of the appeal for Batth’s red card?

I’m guessing it’ll be upheld, but we haven’t lost anything by appealing. Danny isn’t in our best 11, so having him sitting in the stands for three games doesn’t particularly hurt us. Positive IF (it won’t be) it’s rescinded is we can play him in the cup game and rest the first choice players.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

When do we find out the result of the appeal for Batth’s red card?

I’m guessing it’ll be upheld, but we haven’t lost anything by appealing. Danny isn’t in our best 11, so having him sitting in the stands for three games doesn’t particularly hurt us. Positive IF (it won’t be) it’s rescinded is we can play him in the cup game and rest the first choice players.

Have Wolves appealled the red card? The only reasons I ask is because Bradford City appealled against a red card and today's the red card was rescinded. I would have expected a decision on Batths red card to be made by now.

 

[Jinky]

Have Wolves appealled the red card? The only reasons I ask is because Bradford City appealled against a red card and today's the red card was rescinded. I would have expected a decision on Batths red card to be made by now.

Sure I read on here we were going to appeal it? Not sure if we actually did?

 

[Parkins left foot]

Doubt it won't be upheld - not fussed as Bennett is a better CH (didn't think I would be saying that when he was signed)

Just gives us potentially less opportunity to rest players for the Cup game (though in reality we can play Miranda - assuming his head's returned & Hause along with Coady who will play as his position doesn't require a massive amount of running)

As for Batth's red the moment he lost control of the ball and let it get away from him going to ground to try & recover was always likely to put him into a dangerous position. Reality is that he didn't need to do it given where he was on the pitch - clearly a split second decision that he got wrong

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Sure I read on here we were going to appeal it? Not sure if we actually did?

That is my thinking. I have not read anywhere else that we were going to appeal.

 

[YoungWolf]

Nuno implied that we would in his post match intervirw

 

[FrankMunro-371]

On the FA website Danny Batth is listed as serving a three match suspension, and there is nothing regarding Wolves appealing the red card. In my opinion I don't think we did appeal.

 

[Quirkafleeg]

Nuno implied that we would in his post match intervirw

Nuno was so full of emotion he would have said he saw a unicorn head in the winner. I suspect having sat down with Dalwyrple the next day, they would come to the conclusion to leave it.

 

[YoungWolf]

Possibly!

 

[The Bear]

Nuno said "We will appeal. It's normal to appeal these things".

Or words to that effect.

 

[leedswolf]

Nuno was so full of emotion he would have said he saw a unicorn head in the winner.

That's what I saw.

 

[Kenny]

Appeal done and rejected.

3 game ban. Right, we move on.