On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? 19:03 - Aug 14 with 4909 views | smuttsontour | ... | | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 19:37 - Aug 14 with 4232 views | Boston | Why didn't he change clothes for the trip home? | |
| |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 19:41 - Aug 14 with 4197 views | TripleR | Be nice to him, buy him a beer, it may pay dividends in the future... | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 19:45 - Aug 14 with 4168 views | qpr_1968 | favourite cheese | |
| |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 19:46 - Aug 14 with 4144 views | nix | Is he ever slightly influenced by: The crowd Players whinging at him How a decision might play out in the press. | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 19:55 - Aug 14 with 4070 views | Northernr | Good today but owes you a beer for Brentford away last year. | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 20:37 - Aug 14 with 3861 views | smuttsontour |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 19:55 - Aug 14 by Northernr | Good today but owes you a beer for Brentford away last year. |
He said you owe him a beer for today. | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 21:29 - Aug 14 with 3609 views | stainrods_elbow | Thanks for sending off Moncur - saw it again, and it was over the top and could have done real damage. (Still can't understand why he got all those slaps on the back from Rs players as he left the pitch.) | |
| |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 21:36 - Aug 14 with 3567 views | derbyhoop | It was a red card all the way. It may not have been deliberate but it was reckless. | |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| | Login to get fewer ads
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 21:36 - Aug 14 with 3565 views | Logman | I thought that was strange myself. But the game seems to have moved on since taking the knee, handshakes all round, kicking the ball out when players are injured etc etc. Not getting worked up seems to be part of the modus operandi. I'd be interested to know who directs that at the club. | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 21:45 - Aug 14 with 3497 views | GloryHunter | Were you both in First Class? | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 22:12 - Aug 14 with 3408 views | Boston |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 21:45 - Aug 14 by GloryHunter | Were you both in First Class? |
Did you not read the smutsontour bit? | |
| |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 22:47 - Aug 14 with 3311 views | smuttsontour |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 21:45 - Aug 14 by GloryHunter | Were you both in First Class? |
Guilty - reveal yourself !!! | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 23:05 - Aug 14 with 3248 views | colinallcars |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 21:45 - Aug 14 by GloryHunter | Were you both in First Class? |
For a large part of the 20th century there was no second class on the railways. Carriages were marked 1st class and 3rd class. Later, 3rd class was abolished and became 2nd class, later standard. Notta lotta people know that. Well, I've 'ad a drink. | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 23:22 - Aug 14 with 3176 views | LazyFan |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 23:05 - Aug 14 by colinallcars | For a large part of the 20th century there was no second class on the railways. Carriages were marked 1st class and 3rd class. Later, 3rd class was abolished and became 2nd class, later standard. Notta lotta people know that. Well, I've 'ad a drink. |
Was this when the Railways were under private control and was so abysmal that during WW2 the government had to take full control as the efficiency of private industry was unable to support the war effort and had to be run by the so-called inefficient state to win the war? Would it be that railway system? | |
| |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 13:44 - Aug 15 with 2534 views | PinnerPaul |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 21:36 - Aug 14 by derbyhoop | It was a red card all the way. It may not have been deliberate but it was reckless. |
Have to say it, if it was just reckless that's a yellow. "Endangered safety of an opponent"? Yep, that's a red. Think it what the players would call an 'honest' challenge, he overran the ball and then lunged at Ball. As you say, didn't set out to injure him, but that's not the criteria for a red card. | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 13:54 - Aug 15 with 2514 views | Northernr |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 21:29 - Aug 14 by stainrods_elbow | Thanks for sending off Moncur - saw it again, and it was over the top and could have done real damage. (Still can't understand why he got all those slaps on the back from Rs players as he left the pitch.) |
I think it was because he'd gone back to apologise and make sure Ball was ok, rather than being a dick about it. To start with they were all going apesht about it. | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 13:56 - Aug 15 with 2502 views | francisbowles |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 13:44 - Aug 15 by PinnerPaul | Have to say it, if it was just reckless that's a yellow. "Endangered safety of an opponent"? Yep, that's a red. Think it what the players would call an 'honest' challenge, he overran the ball and then lunged at Ball. As you say, didn't set out to injure him, but that's not the criteria for a red card. |
I think many of us struggle with the difference between reckless and dangerous. I would have thought that someone who is acting recklessly is posing a danger. How do you define them Pinner? | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 14:35 - Aug 15 with 2433 views | PinnerPaul |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 13:56 - Aug 15 by francisbowles | I think many of us struggle with the difference between reckless and dangerous. I would have thought that someone who is acting recklessly is posing a danger. How do you define them Pinner? |
Problem is laws of the game language doesn't equate with real life language! I agree, in everyday language, to do something recklessly, DOES sound like it should be a sending off, but LOTG is Careless = foul, no card Reckless = Yellow Excessive Force and/or endangers safety of an opponent = red | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 14:59 - Aug 15 with 2366 views | CLAREMAN1995 |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 13:54 - Aug 15 by Northernr | I think it was because he'd gone back to apologise and make sure Ball was ok, rather than being a dick about it. To start with they were all going apesht about it. |
As usual Clive is spot on as I just watched the highlights and saw his regret or accountability after he realized he was studs up and late.Plus thankfully our man was not lying there screaming in agony helped defuse the situation .As red cards go it was the correct decision and lucky no serious injury occured .The Ref was decisive ,the players knew it should be this way always IMO. Beautiful experience for the loyal QPR fans who pay their hard earned money down to see that victorey after the excitement of the penalty shootout in the cup . Lets remember this joy when we go on our annual bad run lol | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 15:20 - Aug 15 with 2329 views | Boston |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 23:05 - Aug 14 by colinallcars | For a large part of the 20th century there was no second class on the railways. Carriages were marked 1st class and 3rd class. Later, 3rd class was abolished and became 2nd class, later standard. Notta lotta people know that. Well, I've 'ad a drink. |
You're one of those delinquents who used the ladies only compartments, aren't you? | |
| |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 15:23 - Aug 15 with 2322 views | Boston |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 23:22 - Aug 14 by LazyFan | Was this when the Railways were under private control and was so abysmal that during WW2 the government had to take full control as the efficiency of private industry was unable to support the war effort and had to be run by the so-called inefficient state to win the war? Would it be that railway system? |
No. | |
| |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 15:29 - Aug 15 with 2308 views | derbyhoop |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 14:35 - Aug 15 by PinnerPaul | Problem is laws of the game language doesn't equate with real life language! I agree, in everyday language, to do something recklessly, DOES sound like it should be a sending off, but LOTG is Careless = foul, no card Reckless = Yellow Excessive Force and/or endangers safety of an opponent = red |
Did it endanger an opponent? In my eyes, yes. As a ref, did you agree? What happened afterwards was irrelevant but did show the game was played in a decent spirit. The low number of fouls (13, I believe_ and no yellows would support that view. | |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 16:21 - Aug 15 with 2239 views | PinnerPaul |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 15:29 - Aug 15 by derbyhoop | Did it endanger an opponent? In my eyes, yes. As a ref, did you agree? What happened afterwards was irrelevant but did show the game was played in a decent spirit. The low number of fouls (13, I believe_ and no yellows would support that view. |
Yes. Just to elaborate, a carelsss foul that "breaks up a promising attack" is also a yellow. | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 19:02 - Aug 15 with 2069 views | CiderwithRsie |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 14:35 - Aug 15 by PinnerPaul | Problem is laws of the game language doesn't equate with real life language! I agree, in everyday language, to do something recklessly, DOES sound like it should be a sending off, but LOTG is Careless = foul, no card Reckless = Yellow Excessive Force and/or endangers safety of an opponent = red |
Still not clear as to the difference between "careless" and "reckless". IIRC in (English) law: negligent = careless = did not take reasonable precautions when a reasonable person would see there would be a risk of harm to others reckless = didn't care whether others got hurt or not, knew they might but did it anyway intentional = knew it would definitely cause damage and did it on purpose Are we talking something similar for the first two? Or is it more - didn't want to catch the guy but got (e.g.) the timing or angle wrong = "careless, foul, no card" - should have known you were likely to catch him = "reckless, yellow" - likely to injure = red ? | | | |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 12:10 - Aug 16 with 1615 views | PinnerPaul |
On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 19:02 - Aug 15 by CiderwithRsie | Still not clear as to the difference between "careless" and "reckless". IIRC in (English) law: negligent = careless = did not take reasonable precautions when a reasonable person would see there would be a risk of harm to others reckless = didn't care whether others got hurt or not, knew they might but did it anyway intentional = knew it would definitely cause damage and did it on purpose Are we talking something similar for the first two? Or is it more - didn't want to catch the guy but got (e.g.) the timing or angle wrong = "careless, foul, no card" - should have known you were likely to catch him = "reckless, yellow" - likely to injure = red ? |
Think those first two definitions work well. 'Intentional' not ,mentioned in the laws, but obviously careless and reckless DO imply some difference in intent. Moncur's red a classic example of intent not being relevant - sure he didn't mean to hurt Dom Ball but the challenge DID endanger his safety, therefore a red. | | | |
| |