" Brentford overturn red card "

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

No wonder some refs don't like making decisions anymore.

No, the bad decision was the one that sent him off in the first place and resulted in Brentford having to play with 10 men

Not many get rescinded so in the panels eyes, none of whom are one eyed Jacks, it wasn't even a 50/50 call.

Just face it, you got lucky.

I disagree, it was a fine decision for the reasons already stated.

Lots of cards get rescinded. We have seen incorrect reviews this season in all areas, well publicised. It was a 50/50 call and the panel have decided to take the other view.

We are unlucky again here.

Don't fall for his trap, state no such thing as luck, and then state they are unlucky, good try Roathy

OK you were unlucky now feck off before you're banned again.

Don't fall for his trap, state no such thing as luck, and then state they are unlucky, good try Roathy

OK you were unlucky now feck off before you're banned again.

Where did I say there was no such thing as luck?

You seem to be another making things up. Wonder why...

Banned for being sensible? Im beyond terrified.

Don't fall for his trap, state no such thing as luck, and then state they are unlucky, good try Roathy

OK you were unlucky now feck off before you're banned again.

Where did I say there was no such thing as luck?

You seem to be another making things up. Wonder why...

Banned for being sensible? Im beyond terrified.

Bore off it won't work here

Try the new planet tramps

Don't fall for his trap, state no such thing as luck, and then state they are unlucky, good try Roathy

OK you were unlucky now feck off before you're banned again.

Where did I say there was no such thing as luck?

You seem to be another making things up. Wonder why...

Banned for being sensible? Im beyond terrified.

Bore off it won't work here

Try the new planet tramps

What won’t work?

For someone who is stating some great game plan hoping for replies... you ain’t half spending a load of time replying

It's the correct decision

It was a controlled slide tackle which is perfectly legal

Studs down

Didn't go through the player

He won the ball cleanly

The player actually ran into him before he went over

The decision is as expected and is correct. Big boost for Brentford as he's a very good player

Don't fall for his trap, state no such thing as luck, and then state they are unlucky, good try Roathy

OK you were unlucky now feck off before you're banned again.

Where did I say there was no such thing as luck?

You seem to be another making things up. Wonder why...

Banned for being sensible? Im beyond terrified.

that luck thread has turned out to be the gift that just keeps giving..
thats the problem when you take a position that you dont actually believe in just to argue..

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

No wonder some refs don't like making decisions anymore.

Wow what a surprise for you to say that, don't be such a prick, carry on as you are doing now posting just to be controvercial and you will be starting looking for more alias with us mods making sure you dont post on here

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

No wonder some refs don't like making decisions anymore.

No, the bad decision was the one that sent him off in the first place and resulted in Brentford having to play with 10 men

Not many get rescinded so in the panels eyes, none of whom are one eyed Jacks, it wasn't even a 50/50 call.

Just face it, you got lucky.

I disagree, it was a fine decision for the reasons already stated.

Lots of cards get rescinded. We have seen incorrect reviews this season in all areas, well publicised. It was a 50/50 call and the panel have decided to take the other view.

We are unlucky again here.

Who gives a flying fig what YOU think.....

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

No wonder some refs don't like making decisions anymore.

No, the bad decision was the one that sent him off in the first place and resulted in Brentford having to play with 10 men

Not many get rescinded so in the panels eyes, none of whom are one eyed Jacks, it wasn't even a 50/50 call.

Just face it, you got lucky.

I disagree, it was a fine decision for the reasons already stated.

Lots of cards get rescinded. We have seen incorrect reviews this season in all areas, well publicised. It was a 50/50 call and the panel have decided to take the other view.

We are unlucky again here.

Who gives a flying fig what YOU think.....

Funny hes been bleating on that it's not luck or unlucky with decisions just errors by officials? Now saying its unlucky.. probably suites his mid...

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

No wonder some refs don't like making decisions anymore.

No, the bad decision was the one that sent him off in the first place and resulted in Brentford having to play with 10 men

Not many get rescinded so in the panels eyes, none of whom are one eyed Jacks, it wasn't even a 50/50 call.

Just face it, you got lucky.

I disagree, it was a fine decision for the reasons already stated.

Lots of cards get rescinded. We have seen incorrect reviews this season in all areas, well publicised. It was a 50/50 call and the panel have decided to take the other view.

We are unlucky again here.

Who gives a flying fig what YOU think.....

Funny hes been bleating on that it's not luck or unlucky with decisions just errors by officials? Now saying its unlucky.. probably suites his mid...

Same old Roathy, no such thing as luck when they are lucky, when an incorrect decision is corrected they are unlucky, he's a right tool, but it's best not to reply to him as it makes his sad little day.

Rico Henry will be available for Brentford in their second leg against Swansea.

Brentford have successfully appealed his red card following a claim of wrongful dismissal.

No shock...jacks always getting help hey

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

No wonder some refs don't like making decisions anymore.

No, the bad decision was the one that sent him off in the first place and resulted in Brentford having to play with 10 men

Not many get rescinded so in the panels eyes, none of whom are one eyed Jacks, it wasn't even a 50/50 call.

Just face it, you got lucky.

I disagree, it was a fine decision for the reasons already stated.

Lots of cards get rescinded. We have seen incorrect reviews this season in all areas, well publicised. It was a 50/50 call and the panel have decided to take the other view.

We are unlucky again here.

Who gives a flying fig what YOU think.....

Funny hes been bleating on that it's not luck or unlucky with decisions just errors by officials? Now saying its unlucky.. probably suites his mid...

Same old Roathy, no such thing as luck when they are lucky, when an incorrect decision is corrected they are unlucky, he's a right tool, but it's best not to reply to him as it makes his sad little day.

He will disappear again soon don’t worry

No surprise there then since most agreed it was a bad decision. Unfortunately for Brentford the damage has been done as the ref handed a clear advantage to the unwashed that led to a defeat.
On another note, have you noticed how much the swans players dive all over the place? Even that van der horn fell over all too easy to get that reading guy sent off

No surprise there then since most agreed it was a bad decision. Unfortunately for Brentford the damage has been done as the ref handed a clear advantage to the unwashed that led to a defeat.
On another note, have you noticed how much the swans players dive all over the place? Even that van der horn fell over all too easy to get that reading guy sent off

Bobby, this decision to overturn was a just one and you'd have to be a clinging one-eyed 'Jack' to think otherwise...

Ironically, this is not an anti-Swans post. They didn't send him off and their player certainly didn't 'look' for it but if anyone thinks that tackle was a red card, they seriously need to move to Lapland where they can move readily amongst lots of other snowflakes

It was strong, no feet raised and perfectly timed. He clearly took the ball not the man and the Swansea player more toppled over than was hacked

It certainly looks to me as if (I'll be polite) 'falling over easily' is a practiced part of their game plan and to a large extent it's worked in recent weeks with Ayew (a decent player otherwise) amongst the worst offenders in the Championship now Grealish has escaped

Seems others are not far behind and some of their 'fans' are again in denial

No surprise there then since most agreed it was a bad decision. Unfortunately for Brentford the damage has been done as the ref handed a clear advantage to the unwashed that led to a defeat.
On another note, have you noticed how much the swans players dive all over the place? Even that van der horn fell over all too easy to get that reading guy sent off

Bobby, this decision to overturn was a just one and you'd have to be a clinging one-eyed 'Jack' to think otherwise...

Ironically, this is not an anti-Swans post. They didn't send him off and their player certainly didn't 'look' for it but if anyone thinks that tackle was a red card, they seriously need to move to Lapland where they can move readily amongst lots of other snowflakes

It was strong, no feet raised and perfectly timed. He clearly took the ball not the man and the Swansea player more toppled over than was hacked

It certainly looks to me as if (I'll be polite) 'falling over easily' is a practiced part of their game plan and to a large extent it's worked in recent weeks with Ayew (a decent player otherwise) amongst the worst offenders in the Championship now Grealish has escaped

Seems others are not far behind and some of their 'fans' are again in denial

I've noticed something else in their "game plan" , they can actually play for 90 minutes and win

No surprise there then since most agreed it was a bad decision. Unfortunately for Brentford the damage has been done as the ref handed a clear advantage to the unwashed that led to a defeat.
On another note, have you noticed how much the swans players dive all over the place? Even that van der horn fell over all too easy to get that reading guy sent off

Bobby, this decision to overturn was a just one and you'd have to be a clinging one-eyed 'Jack' to think otherwise...

Ironically, this is not an anti-Swans post. They didn't send him off and their player certainly didn't 'look' for it but if anyone thinks that tackle was a red card, they seriously need to move to Lapland where they can move readily amongst lots of other snowflakes

It was strong, no feet raised and perfectly timed. He clearly took the ball not the man and the Swansea player more toppled over than was hacked

It certainly looks to me as if (I'll be polite) 'falling over easily' is a practiced part of their game plan and to a large extent it's worked in recent weeks with Ayew (a decent player otherwise) amongst the worst offenders in the Championship now Grealish has escaped

Seems others are not far behind and some of their 'fans' are again in denial

I've noticed something else in their "game plan" , they can actually play for 90 minutes and win

Talking of clinging one-eyed Jack's, here's one...

I don't recall mentioning the result or its merit anywhere on this Forum; rather the red card being overturned

I'll worry (may be an apt term) about my own club's progress or otherwise in these play-offs and win or lose, I'll still be proud of the season they've had, fella

It's the correct decision

It was a controlled slide tackle which is perfectly legal

Studs down

Didn't go through the player

He won the ball cleanly

The player actually ran into him before he went over

The decision is as expected and is correct. Big boost for Brentford as he's a very good player

Spot On

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

No wonder some refs don't like making decisions anymore.

Wow what a surprise for you to say that, don't be such a prick, carry on as you are doing now posting just to be controvercial and you will be starting looking for more alias with us mods making sure you dont post on here

So I am not allowed to post anything that you don’t agree with?

Nah doesn’t work like that.

I think it was a red card, I think it’s a poor decision to overturn it. Simple as that. If that opinion offends you then I don’t know what to say really. Tough I guess.

Funny hes been bleating on that it's not luck or unlucky with decisions just errors by officials? Now saying its unlucky.. probably suites his mid...

No I haven’t. The fact people have to continually fabricate my opinions speaks volumes.

Show me anywhere where I said there is no such thing as luck.

(To save your some time, you won’t be able to - because I didn’t say it.... ever).

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

No wonder some refs don't like making decisions anymore.

No, the bad decision was the one that sent him off in the first place and resulted in Brentford having to play with 10 men

Not many get rescinded so in the panels eyes, none of whom are one eyed Jacks, it wasn't even a 50/50 call.

Just face it, you got lucky.

I disagree, it was a fine decision for the reasons already stated.

Lots of cards get rescinded. We have seen incorrect reviews this season in all areas, well publicised. It was a 50/50 call and the panel have decided to take the other view.

We are unlucky again here.

Who gives a flying fig what YOU think.....

Funny hes been bleating on that it's not luck or unlucky with decisions just errors by officials? Now saying its unlucky.. probably suites his mid...

Same old Roathy, no such thing as luck when they are lucky, when an incorrect decision is corrected they are unlucky, he's a right tool, but it's best not to reply to him as it makes his sad little day.

Another one.

Again, where has this fabricated notion that I said there was no such thing as luck come from?

I said after 46 games you finish where you deserve too. Luck exists in many forms, both good luck and bad luck and happens to all teams. So the effect of “good luck” on a single team over the course of the season is minimal due to the effect of bad luck on them too, and the effect of good and bad luck to every other side.

It’s a simple concept. We hit the inside of the post, missed a penalty and didn’t get another clear cut one. So while you can blest about good luck, one could also be bleating about bad luck in the same game. Yet the “good” or “bad” portion of the luck is often left out when trying to give a one sided argument - which is why the “luck” argument is usually the folly of the idiot... hence my ironic reference to it which you seem to have taken literally.

Don't fall for his trap, state no such thing as luck, and then state they are unlucky, good try Roathy

OK you were unlucky now feck off before you're banned again.

Where did I say there was no such thing as luck?

You seem to be another making things up. Wonder why...

Banned for being sensible? Im beyond terrified.

that luck thread has turned out to be the gift that just keeps giving..
thats the problem when you take a position that you dont actually believe in just to argue..

In what way? I firmly stand by everything I said in the “luck thread” because it’s backed by absolute common sense, mathematical probability and physics. Unless you believe in curses and magic that is... which wouldn’t shock me.

I can only assume you don’t understand what was said in the thread. Let me break it down slowly for the hard of understanding.

- luck comes in two forms. Good luck and bad luck.
- “luck” has no consciousness, therefore it does not favour one team over another over a large sample size.
- over the course of a 46 game season where both good and bad luck has played a small factor in ALL clubs matches, the effect of luck on final standings is minimal.

Which part do you not understand or disagree with? It isn’t even an opinion, it’s absolute common sense.

Don't fall for his trap, state no such thing as luck, and then state they are unlucky, good try Roathy

OK you were unlucky now feck off before you're banned again.

Where did I say there was no such thing as luck?

You seem to be another making things up. Wonder why...

Banned for being sensible? Im beyond terrified.

that luck thread has turned out to be the gift that just keeps giving..
thats the problem when you take a position that you dont actually believe in just to argue..

In what way? I firmly stand by everything I said in the “luck thread” because it’s backed by absolute common sense, mathematical probability and physics. Unless you believe in curses and magic that is... which wouldn’t shock me.

I can only assume you don’t understand what was said in the thread. Let me break it down slowly for the hard of understanding.

- luck comes in two forms. Good luck and bad luck.
- “luck” has no consciousness, therefore it does not favour one team over another over a large sample size.
- over the course of a 46 game season where both good and bad luck has played a small factor in ALL clubs matches, the effect of luck on final standings is minimal.

Which part do you not understand or disagree with? It isn’t even an opinion, it’s absolute common sense.

correct it has no consciousness and therefore is in no position to equally spread out... so the minute you accept there is both good and bad luck. you obviously then accept that it extends to one team being lucky more often and another being unlucky more often.. and i do not believe in magic , if i did id have had a user name with the word magic...eg..roath magic.

correct it has no consciousness and therefore is in no position to equally spread out... so the minute you accept there is both good and bad luck. you obviously then accept that it extends to one team being lucky more often and another being unlucky more often.. and i do not believe in magic , if i did id have had a user name with the word magic...eg..roath magic.

What? That’s completely against the laws of physics and mathematics. I don’t believe you are a stupid man so please think about what you just typed

Good luck and bad luck has the same chance of occurring because one does not occur without the other in these situations. Whoever claims the good luck, the other can claim the bad luck.

Therefore we know that something random with a 50:50 chance of occurring WILL be equal over a large sample size. That’s not opinion, that’s just fact. Hence why in the luck thread you refer to I quite clearly state luck has a minimal impact on long term standings.

By disagreeing with me you are essentially disagreeing with science and endorsing some kind of voodoo magic. That is of course your choice, but to infer it’s a position I don’t believe is just ludicrous when it’s obvious fact is laughably ludicrous.

It isn’t difficult.

For anyone that wants to read about the human construct of “luck” then Nautilus is below:-

You can then see why suggesting a team is perennially lucky is laughable and an intellectual fallacy... as I have been saying.

http://m.nautil.us/issue/44/luck/the-deceptions-of-luck

“This is illustrated very clearly by people’s attitudes to accidents. For example, people often describe as good luck events that an objective observer might describe as horribly bad luck. Someone involved in a traffic accident in which their car rolled over three times and was a write-off, but from which they emerged unscathed, might well remark on how lucky they were. Others might think they were very unlucky to have been involved in the accident in the first place. If a rock falls off a cliff face just as you are walking beneath, and narrowly misses you, you might well say how lucky you were that it missed, instead of saying how unlucky you were to be there at the time it fell. But whether you see it as lucky or unlucky, the chance event is the same.”

Last edited by YDdraigGwyn on Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

You'd earn yourself more (some) respect if you just said 'oh well, I got it wrong. Maybe it wasn't as bad as I thought and didn't deserve the red. We got lucky'

Why can't you ever be wrong? I actually agree with you about luck balancing itself out over the season. But I won't force my opinions on others like you do. And I'm man enough to admit any mistakes.

You'd earn yourself more (some) respect if you just said 'oh well, I got it wrong. Maybe it wasn't as bad as I thought and didn't deserve the red. We got lucky'

Why can't you ever be wrong? I actually agree with you about luck balancing itself out over the season. But I won't force my opinions on others like you do. And I'm man enough to admit any mistakes.

What mistakes? I saw the incident at the time and made my opinion based on that.

This review panel hasn’t altered what I saw or my opinion of it. Why would it? I saw a lunging challenge that put the player in danger. I still see that today, someone else thinking something else isn’t going to change that. Why would you think it would?

I can of course be wrong. I was wrong that I thought it has no chance of being overturned. But why is there a burning desire for me to change my opinion to something I disagree with and falsely claim I believe I was wrong? It’s bizarre.

Respect is not something I crave. My views do that for me whether people like to admit it or not. My views always come with extreme common sense and I will always be willing to back them up.

But folding views I hold just to appease people that want me to change them is not something I have ever done and not something I will ever do.

As for luck, of course you agree with me. I’m not stating anything other than fact. It isn’t an opinion. The fact people believe it’s an opinion is a source of amusement.

And finally, how am I forcing my opinion on anyone? I seem to be the only one not trying to force others to change their opinion. I have even been threatened with a ban unless I conform to the popular opinion I disagree with on here

You'd earn yourself more (some) respect if you just said 'oh well, I got it wrong. Maybe it wasn't as bad as I thought and didn't deserve the red. We got lucky'

Why can't you ever be wrong? I actually agree with you about luck balancing itself out over the season. But I won't force my opinions on others like you do. And I'm man enough to admit any mistakes.

What mistakes? I saw the incident at the time and made my opinion based on that.

This review panel hasn’t altered what I saw or my opinion of it. Why would it? I saw a lunging challenge that put the player in danger. I still see that today, someone else thinking something else isn’t going to change that. Why would you think it would?

I can of course be wrong. I was wrong that I thought it has no chance of being overturned. But why is there a burning desire for me to change my opinion to something I disagree with and falsely claim I believe I was wrong? It’s bizarre.

Respect is not something I crave. My views do that for me whether people like to admit it or not. My views always come with extreme common sense and I will always be willing to back them up.

But folding views I hold just to appease people that want me to change them is not something I have ever done and not something I will ever do.

As for luck, of course you agree with me. I’m not stating anything other than fact. It isn’t an opinion. The fact people believe it’s an opinion is a source of amusement.

And finally, how am I forcing my opinion on anyone? I seem to be the only one not trying to force others to change their opinion. I have even been threatened with a ban unless I conform to the popular opinion I disagree with on here

And a very predictable response. You must be so much fun down the pub.

And a very predictable response. You must be so much fun down the pub.

Sense is always predictable, Jimmy, because it is sensible.

Would you prefer me to be less accurate and more “fun”? I couldn’t think of anything less “fun” than responding with rubbish personally, but each to their own.

When discussing things such as football where everyone is falling over themselves to hang on every word I say in an attempt to combat it, humour laden and inaccurate responses aren’t really what I’m interested in I’m afraid.

It would be counter productive.

correct it has no consciousness and therefore is in no position to equally spread out... so the minute you accept there is both good and bad luck. you obviously then accept that it extends to one team being lucky more often and another being unlucky more often.. and i do not believe in magic , if i did id have had a user name with the word magic...eg..roath magic.

What? That’s completely against the laws of physics and mathematics. I don’t believe you are a stupid man so please think about what you just typed

Good luck and bad luck has the same chance of occurring because one does not occur without the other in these situations. Whoever claims the good luck, the other can claim the bad luck.

Therefore we know that something random with a 50:50 chance of occurring WILL be equal over a large sample size. That’s not opinion, that’s just fact. Hence why in the luck thread you refer to I quite clearly state luck has a minimal impact on long term standings.

By disagreeing with me you are essentially disagreeing with science and endorsing some kind of voodoo magic. That is of course your choice, but to infer it’s a position I don’t believe is just ludicrous when it’s obvious fact is laughably ludicrous.

It isn’t difficult.

physics and mathematics are solid and have zero to do with luck which really is not , its random.....your driving up a motorway westbound, an eastbound lorry driver falls asleep on the wheel and goes through the central resrve taking out a dozen unsuspecting vehicles... your speed over the last x how many miles , leaving 10 seconds earlier/later than intended ,stopping to leave someone cross etc etc ..determines if your involved... but you have no prior knowledge of this lorry , so can make no calculations { OBVIOUSLY } its luck....and no it doesnt even out, if you narrowly escape it doesnt mean chances are another lorry kills you in the future because a few people on a message board think luck evens itself out...it doesnt..never has never will... as for nautilus..its a chance event yes duh ...are you naultilus by any chance ? ,because its saying luck without using the word luck...yep your damn unlucky if a rock falls off a cliff and kills you...fckn idiot..

correct it has no consciousness and therefore is in no position to equally spread out... so the minute you accept there is both good and bad luck. you obviously then accept that it extends to one team being lucky more often and another being unlucky more often.. and i do not believe in magic , if i did id have had a user name with the word magic...eg..roath magic.

What? That’s completely against the laws of physics and mathematics. I don’t believe you are a stupid man so please think about what you just typed

Good luck and bad luck has the same chance of occurring because one does not occur without the other in these situations. Whoever claims the good luck, the other can claim the bad luck.

Therefore we know that something random with a 50:50 chance of occurring WILL be equal over a large sample size. That’s not opinion, that’s just fact. Hence why in the luck thread you refer to I quite clearly state luck has a minimal impact on long term standings.

By disagreeing with me you are essentially disagreeing with science and endorsing some kind of voodoo magic. That is of course your choice, but to infer it’s a position I don’t believe is just ludicrous when it’s obvious fact is laughably ludicrous.

It isn’t difficult.

physics and mathematics are solid and have zero to do with luck which really is not , its random.....your driving up a motorway westbound, an eastbound lorry driver falls asleep on the wheel and goes through the central resrve taking out a dozen unsuspecting vehicles... your speed over the last x how many miles , leaving 10 seconds earlier/later than intended ,stopping to leave someone cross etc etc ..determines if your involved... but you have no prior knowledge of this lorry , so can make no calculations { OBVIOUSLY } its luck....and no it doesnt even out, if you narrowly escape it doesnt mean chances are another lorry kills you in the future because a few people on a message board think luck evens itself out...it doesnt..never has never will... as for nautilus..its a chance event yes duh ...are you naultilus by any chance ? ,because its saying luck without using the word luck...yep your damn unlucky if a rock falls off a cliff and kills you...fckn idiot..

Yikes.

Skidemen, please mate, think about what you are saying for your own sake.

The flip of a coin is random, the lottery is random... yet we know the chance of it landing on heads and we know the chance of 7 balls coming out in a pre determined sequence is. The larger the sample size the better.

There is order in randomness, that’s where physics and science comes in.

Your example is utter nonsense. Again, think about it. You are saying it doesn’t even out... yet you are only taking the perceived “bad luck” into consideration. You have no idea what good luck that lorry driver had previous to that, he may have avoided several similar incidents due to luck getting him to a certain area slightly earlier or later - yet you would never know because it wouldn’t have caused an incident.

To assume this man only has bad luck is endorsing some sort of voodoo hex against all logic, maths and science.

You can kick, scream and swear as much as you like here. You are wrong, not only I say so, but science does too. Luck will ALWAYS even itself out, ALWAYS. Mathematical inevitability.