The ref


He didn’t tho. He tackled Clarke around the side, took the ball and then the player. It was a tackle plain and simple and the reason the ref had ‘a good game for once’ is because a very contentious decision went for us rather than against us.
Who said the ref "had a good game" ?
 
Apart from the fact he didnt take the ball, he got the slightest nick on it. Taking the ball means to take it off someone.

To put it in more obvious terms, if there’s two players running through on goal neck and neck, an attacker and defender, the defender commits himself with a slide/last ditch lunge at the ball, gets the slightest touch and the ball continues to run but the attacker stays on his feet, retains possession of the ball, runs through and scores, would you still say the defender ‘took the ball’ or executed a ‘good tackle’? Of course you wouldn’t, there’s no difference in this scenario.
It was a tackle, he got to the ball and did so cleanly without going the through the player first. Your scenario is bizarre. In neither scenario has a foul been committed. In your scenario the defender still hasn't committed a foul but his attempted tackle wasn't good enough to stop the player scoring. In the case yesterday it was or should have been.

You would have been incandescent with rage if that had been given against us and you know it.
 
It was a tackle, he got to the ball and did so cleanly without going the through the player first. Your scenario is bizarre. In neither scenario has a foul been committed. In your scenario the defender still hasn't committed a foul but his attempted tackle wasn't good enough to stop the player scoring. In the case yesterday it was or should have been.

You would have been incandescent with rage if that had been given against us and you know it.

Some hair brained desperate tackle what wipes our player out. And you seem to think it's acceptable. If he broke Clarke's ankle in the follow through would you still deem it acceptable challenge?
 
Some hair brained desperate tackle what wipes our player out. And you seem to think it's acceptable. If he broke Clarke's ankle in the follow through would you still deem it acceptable challenge?

There was zero risk of Clarke's ankle getting broken.
 
Some hair brained desperate tackle what wipes our player out. And you seem to think it's acceptable. If he broke Clarke's ankle in the follow through would you still deem it acceptable challenge?
Biased, rose tinted glasses man. He tackled low, got ahead of Clarke with his tackle, didn't go through the back of him to get there, got touch on the ball. Where's the offence? If Clarke gets injured in the process of being tackled then he isn't the first and wont be the last.
There was zero risk of Clarke's ankle getting broken.
Absolutely zero
 
There was zero risk of Clarke's ankle getting broken.

The follow through was the foul regardless of if he touched the ball or not. When sliding in at full force , let's be honest it's not the best is it ?
Biased, rose tinted glasses man. He tackled low, got ahead of Clarke with his tackle, didn't go through the back of him to get there, got touch on the ball. Where's the offence? If Clarke gets injured in the process of being tackled then he isn't the first and wont be the last.

Absolutely zero

It's a penalty in any game for any team. Rash desperate foul. Hardly rose tinted
 
Last edited:
The follow through was the foul regardless of if he touched the ball or not. When sliding in at full force , let's be honest it's not the best is it ?


It's a penalty in any game for any team. Rash desperate foul. Hardly rose tinted
Not a single person outside of a Sunderland forum would say that's a foul and even most on a Sunderland forum don't. I know for an absolute stone cold fact that you would be foaming if we had conceded that.
 
Biased, rose tinted glasses man. He tackled low, got ahead of Clarke with his tackle, didn't go through the back of him to get there, got touch on the ball. Where's the offence? If Clarke gets injured in the process of being tackled then he isn't the first and wont be the last.
If he'd taken the ball away from Clarke and put it out of play, then it would have been fine. But he didn't, instead he stopped Clarke getting to the loose ball following the tackle by taking his legs from under him.
 
Not a single person outside of a Sunderland forum would say that's a foul and even most on a Sunderland forum don't. I know for an absolute stone cold fact that you would be foaming if we had conceded that.

This is not true tho is it. Imagine speaking on behalf of everyone outside Sunderland 😁😁😁😁😁 f***ing unreal
 
This is not true tho is it. Imagine speaking on behalf of everyone outside Sunderland 😁😁😁😁😁 f***ing unreal
Just common sense man. I mean who outside of Sunderland would think a perfectly good tackle against them should be a penalty for us 😂
 
This is not true tho is it. Imagine speaking on behalf of everyone outside Sunderland 😁😁😁😁😁 f***ing unreal

There should be a website solely used for settling debates like this based on neutral votes. The whole Millwall board say it was a bad decision. Go figure. Of course they would. Just like the majority on here say it isn't.

My guess is that neutrals would be 80/20 no pen.
 
There should be a website solely used for settling debates like this based on neutral votes. The whole Millwall board say it was a bad decision. Go figure. Of course they would. Just like the majority on here say it isn't.

My guess is that neutrals would be 80/20 no pen.
Yet another guess. You haven't got a clue in reality have you. Just plucking things out of absolute fresh air
There should be a website solely used for settling debates like this based on neutral votes. The whole Millwall board say it was a bad decision. Go figure. Of course they would. Just like the majority on here say it isn't.

My guess is that neutrals would be 80/20 no pen.

Yes your are guessing. A tell you what. It doesn't have any substance tho does it ?

It's a penalty and the correct decision every time . We will just beg to differ
 
Last edited:
Weird. The consensus on here appears to be that it was a pen. Over on the Millwall board they are up in arms about it.
Not weird about that mate, entirely predictable
As for the pen itself in real time look as clear foul as you can get.

Slowed down on the replay their lad got a touch and knocked it out of play,

Just shows once again how much difference something can look in real time and replays.
 
Last edited:
Yet another guess. You haven't got a clue in reality have you. Just plucking things out of absolute fresh air

I literally said 'guess' in my comment.
I've put it to the good people of Bradford City. Students of the game and completely neutral. I'll report back...
 
Last edited:
Not weird about that mate, entirely predictable
As for the pen itself in real time look as clear foul as you can get.

Slowed down on the replay their lad got a touch and knocked it out of play,

Just shows once again how much difference something can look in real time and replays.
Arf arf ...
 
It was a tackle, he got to the ball and did so cleanly without going the through the player first. Your scenario is bizarre. In neither scenario has a foul been committed. In your scenario the defender still hasn't committed a foul but his attempted tackle wasn't good enough to stop the player scoring. In the case yesterday it was or should have been.

You would have been incandescent with rage if that had been given against us and you know it.
I certainly wouldn’t, I’m not one of the many blinkered fans you see on here after every game.

Strange how you’re changing your terminology, he ‘got’ the ball now, beforehand he ‘took’ the ball. Nobody is denying he touched the ball but Clarke was still in possession of the ball and that’s when he wiped him out, rendering the touch of the ball he got absolutely irrelevant.

My scenario isn’t bizarre at all, it was to prove your point that he ‘took’ the ball and made a ‘good tackle’ was absolutely wrong. The fact you’ve now subtly changed your terminology only goes to prove this.

This notion that any touch on the ball, however slight, means that it’s not a foul is absolute nonsense, it’s not in the laws of the game and never has been, it’s something the desperate and reckless use as a mitigation when making a poor challenge.
Biased, rose tinted glasses man. He tackled low, got ahead of Clarke with his tackle, didn't go through the back of him to get there, got touch on the ball. Where's the offence?
You do realise that that’s not the tackle complete, the moment he touched the ball? You’ve conveniently missed out the all important bit - the foul :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Last edited:
I certainly wouldn’t, I’m not one of the many blinkered fans you see on here after every game.

Strange how you’re changing your terminology, he ‘got’ the ball now, beforehand he ‘took’ the ball. Nobody is denying he touched the ball but Clarke was still in possession of the ball and that’s when he wiped him out, rendering the touch of the ball he got absolutely irrelevant.

My scenario isn’t bizarre at all, it was to prove your point that he ‘took’ the ball and made a ‘good tackle’ was absolutely wrong. The fact you’ve now subtly changed your terminology only goes to prove this.

This notion that any touch on the ball, however slight, means that it’s not a foul is absolute nonsense, it’s not in the laws of the game and never has been, it’s something the desperate and reckless use as a mitigation when making a poor challenge.

You do realise that that’s not the tackle complete, the moment he touched the ball? You’ve conveniently missed out the all important bit - the foul :lol: :lol: :lol:
When he gets to the ball first perfectly legally and gets a touch on it its not a foul. He went in low, from the side and got the ball first. When you have wingers going along the touchline and the defenders slides in low, from the side gets a touch on the ball and then his momentum takes him into the player how often do you see a free kick given? Never.

It is bias and as said before you would be going mental if that penalty had gone against us and rightly so.
 
When he gets to the ball first perfectly legally and gets a touch on it its not a foul. He went in low, from the side and got the ball first. When you have wingers going along the touchline and the defenders slides in low, from the side gets a touch on the ball and then his momentum takes him into the player how often do you see a free kick given? Never.

It is bias and as said before you would be going mental if that penalty had gone against us and rightly so.
And as said before, I certainly wouldn’t. Your interpretation of the foul is nearly as flawed as your interpretation of how someone who you don’t know and have never met would react if the roles were reversed!

Not that you will, but if were ever to look through my previous posts you would soon realise I’m anything but bias, quite the opposite in fact. Last season‘s game threads against Coventry away, Stoke home and Rotherham away are testament to this.
 
And as said before, I certainly wouldn’t. Your interpretation of the foul is nearly as flawed as your interpretation of how someone who you don’t know and have never met would react if the roles were reversed!

Not that you will, but if were ever to look through my previous posts you would soon realise I’m anything but bias, quite the opposite in fact. Last season‘s game threads against Coventry away, Stoke home and Rotherham away are testament to this.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that quite a lot of posters see certain instances differently depending on whether they for or against Sunderland.

Don’t think you one of them mate judging on previous posts
 

Back
Top