Jump to content

Lawrence play off ban?


ramtique

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Sith Happens
17 minutes ago, Steve How Hard? said:

I've just chequed and on no account can I sing this but I do agree with you.

 

7 minutes ago, mozza said:

He bounced.

Im losing interest in this thread 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

How much contact do you need for it to be a penalty, a foul is a foul and if it in the penalty area its a penalty. You dont get two penalties for a really bad foul or half a penalty for an accidental foul 

Now I like the sound of this ?

A special "half penalty" where you have to pick a foot, hop on it up to the ball on the spot and try and hoof it thus falling on your 'arris!!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a few have already alluded to, it just smacks of Leeds running a bit scared and desperate. Funny considering only 4 months ago they were planning on winning the Champions League in 2 years time under Jack Duckworth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't believe some of the outrage, hilarious watching leeds fans tweet the EFL trying to get him banned. 

In real life i thought it was a dive, having watched it back there is blatant contact on his left leg. He goes down easily, but that is not illegal when contact is made. In fact, if you have been fouled - like he was - it is a skill to make the referee give it (or at least it is considered a skill South American football culture). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't a dive, if anything Lawrence is trying to avoid the tackle and ended up tripping himself up. But the fact remains that there was contact. 

Lawrence also didn't appeal for the pen, Wilson was the one who immediately turned around and appealed for it. 

Not a ban. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul71 said:

Agree thats the clip i saw, unless lawrence has a superb knack of flicking his foot back just at the right moment of course.

 

... whilst simultaneously sending telepathic messages to his opponents foot, to twitch a bit, at the same time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, angieram said:

Not very nice for Tom though, who is going to have the Leeds fans baying for his blood every time he gets the ball on Saturday.

As if he hasn't got enough on coping with some of the Derby fans!

Oh I don't know... We (not personally!) give him grief, and he proves a point by first scoring a goal, then cupping his ears.

By my reckoning, That means that if DYS try the same tactic, he'll bag a hat-trick, and then show 'em his arse!

Hope they give him hell, mesen!   :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Topram said:

He 100% gets clipped, probably not a penalty but think he fell over instead of diving.

if he gets shame punishment than what Bamford got itll be embarrassing 

If you think 100% he got clipped how can that not be a penalty? Whether it's a leg-breaker or just a nick to put the player off balance it's  a spotkick all day long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, DJFern94 said:

It wasn't a dive, if anything Lawrence is trying to avoid the tackle and ended up tripping himself up. But the fact remains that there was contact. 

Lawrence also didn't appeal for the pen, Wilson was the one who immediately turned around and appealed for it. 

Not a ban. 

Shhhh, they'll want Wilson banned as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SuperDerbySuperRams said:

I think he’ll be fine because there is contact (however small).

My gripe with these retrospective bans is that they only mainly apply at championship level with games that are televised, due to the audience and the variety of angles offered. It’s like with VAR only being used in the FA Cup at Premier League grounds, it’s not offering consistency 

Yes there was contact, I thought that was clear on the replay. So I am not exactly sure what the argument is. The ref gave the penalty presumably because he saw that contact. If the penalty decision is deemed correct, what action could be taken against the player who was fouled ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SuperDerbySuperRams said:

I think he’ll be fine because there is contact (however small).

My gripe with these retrospective bans is that they only mainly apply at championship level with games that are televised, due to the audience and the variety of angles offered. It’s like with VAR only being used in the FA Cup at Premier League grounds, it’s not offering consistency 

Here comes my two penneth: if you watch the replay, the defender goes to tackle with his right foot and misses, and then swings his left leg backwards towards our Tom, so there is deliberate intent to impeded him, so penalty, and yellow card for the intent. No chance of the yellow as he was already on one. 

Secondly, the authorities have form when it comes to decisions re Derby County. Remember the retrospective red card for Darren Moore when no actual offence had happened? At a time when retrospective cards had never happened, and to my knowledge haven't happened since? That took a key player out of the team at a crucial period of the season. And like Sky, they have in the past taken a shine to the Dirties, so there is precedent. 

Perhaps we should be asking for retrospective compensation for all the blatant, stonewall penalties which haven't been given this season, with a goal per penalty based on our penalty conversion rate (currently 100%). And where that affects the score, award us the extra points we would have got if the refs were any good at their job. Then we wouldn't be in the play-offs. Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, angieram said:

Not very nice for Tom though, who is going to have the Leeds fans baying for his blood every time he gets the ball on Saturday.

As if he hasn't got enough on coping with some of the Derby fans!

I'd relish getting abused by opposition fans. Let's hope Tom would too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...