" Brentford overturn red card "

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.

there is order to randomness...really ?.. random is exactly what it says on the tin young man if there were order to it,its not flamming random.. and its not about how much luck the lorry driver had prior...you are driving along legally and suddenly a lorry goes straight through the barrier and kills you... 2 seconds early it doesnt, 2 seconds later you can swerve and there is zero science that can alter your path or timing as you just did not know ,science, maths are no good if you do not know its coming ..if science came into randomness you could win the lottery. win on roulette , never have an accident be a real millionaire. rather than make up tall tales . but it doesnt.. and you are not ..
now please stop using words like science, physics and mathematics like you know something about them when its crystal you do not.....

Roathie keep being argumentative and i will delete your posts no matter how many times you post and if you carry on the you are heading for a ban again. Says something about you that you copy all your posts brfore you post them guessing they will be deleted!

Roathie keep being argumentative and i will delete your posts no matter how many times you post and if you carry on the you are heading for a ban again. Say something that you copy all your posts brfore you post them guessing the will be deleted!

How am I being argumentative? It’s a discussion with differing view points.

This is a football forum.

I’m not going to stop giving my opinion because it upsets you I’m afraid. Do what you want.

there is order to randomness...really ?.. random is exactly what it says on the tin young man if there were order to it,its not flamming random.. and its not about how much luck the lorry driver had prior...you are driving along legally and suddenly a lorry goes straight through the barrier and kills you... 2 seconds early it doesnt, 2 seconds later you can swerve and there is zero science that can alter your path or timing as you just did not know ,science, maths are no good if you do not know its coming ..if science came into randomness you could win the lottery. win on roulette , never have an accident be a real millionaire. rather than make up tall tales . but it doesnt.. and you are not ..
now please stop using words like science, physics and mathematics like you know something about them when its crystal you do not.....

Yes there is order in randomness.

The result of an individual coin flip is random, yet we know that after a decent sample size it will land on heads and tails an equal amount of times. Randomness not only supports order, it ensures it.

Again you are using a solitary unlucky event, isolating it and saying “see only bad luck happens to this guy”. That’s not the discussion here - as similarly I could find a lucky event in his past, isolate it and say “see this guy is lucky”.

No, science and mathematics won’t be able to win the lottery or roulette for you. But it will be able to tell you how often you can expect to win and how often the results will appear because of the long term order in the short term random events.

For example, if you play roulette and stick your cash on red in equal amounts for 10,000 spins, assuming there is no zero or double zero, you will end up with just about as much cash as you started with. This after losing (being unlucky) pretty much the same amount of times as you won (being lucky).

Again, this is absolutely basic stuff and something as easy as a Google search will tell you if you don’t want to take my word for it. I suggest doing that before continuing your stance that science and mathematics does not support probability of randomness.

Well that was not a surprise All the pundits commentators said no red card so no surprise unless your a swans fan...

Or unless of course a similar foul occurred against a Cardiff player.

its no good reading it or knowing it....its understanding it that is the important part..
no idea why people put rules up on here accompanied by a sentence that screams out...I DONT HAVE A SCOOBEE DOO WHAT THIS RULE MEANS...

The rule says what it means. Interpreting it in a way that takes it away from its meaning is not what the laws of the game are about or are intended for. No matter how much you may want to or how many capital letters you use, that wont change.

Getting the ball doesn't matter if its excessively forceful and/or putting the player in danger. Which he did.

the game is not about the ball ? wow maybe we are using the wrong name. did he use force or did he run and stretch to kick the ball ? he clearly gets there first so all the misjudgment was with your player...i know it was only a fraction of a second, but your guy gets there after the ball has been played and therefore causes the collision.. the Brentford player does
not tackle him.. its brentford player makes contact with ball and then swnsea player makes contact with brentford player.... i know its a bit complicated and how eager you are to show your a football fan so stick with it ,youll get there..

The game is not about the ball? Is that a sentence you made up in order to strengthen a weak view? You don’t see me making up what people say or changing it because my argument stands for itself.

I said, it doesn’t matter if you get the ball if you endanger the opponent with excessive force. That is law 12.

It states if you lunge for the ball using one or two feet, in a manner that is uncontrolled and/or using excessive force that could endanger the opponent is serious foul play. Red card.

That is the perfect description of that challenge as many have pointed out.

Don't bite Roathy is right, the ref was right, it wasn't lucky that he got sent off when all the commentators agreed it was a yellow or no offence,, and the authorities and panel that reviewed it are all wrong.

There you go Roathy now f**k off home to trampland
Don't bite he knows what he's trying to do so do we all

Nothing to do with biting. What have the commentators got to do with anything? Many within the game agree with the ref and the law.

Why are you getting so emotional about it?

I don't know why you keep arguing with these Cardiff fans, surely you know by now their infinite knowledge of the game is beyond reproach.

Connor Gallagher's diving all over the pitch Jack Grealish would've been proud

Ben Cabango horror tackle on Watkins. Clear red card. BALL NOT EVEN TOUCHED.

All of Brentford's quick free-kicks blocked. Yellow cards given? Hmm...

Rico Henry, far too quick for Conning Roberts, wins ball cleanly, Roberts is second to it... Red card - RESCINDED fairly.

Hope Rico gets a goal tonight as payback

Connor Gallagher's diving all over the pitch Jack Grealish would've been proud

Ben Cabango horror tackle on Watkins. Clear red card. BALL NOT EVEN TOUCHED.

All of Brentford's quick free-kicks blocked. Yellow cards given? Hmm...

Rico Henry, far too quick for Conning Roberts, wins ball cleanly, Roberts is second to it... Red card - RESCINDED fairly.

Hope Rico gets a goal tonight as payback

If Carlsberg did biased football match reports...

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/ri ... =2048x2048

Earlier in this thread I said cameras do lie when used as evidence for tackle but the picture shown here by plyn is not lying that is a good tackle by any strentch of a swans fans
imagination... most agree was not a red card including all pundits watching game what more proof is needed? ...

Earlier in this thread I said cameras do lie when used as evidence for tackle but the picture shown here by plyn is not lying that is a good tackle by any strentch of a swans fans
imagination... most agree was not a red card including all pundits watching game what more proof is needed? ...

Unless your name is Roathie

Earlier in this thread I said cameras do lie when used as evidence for tackle but the picture shown here by plyn is not lying that is a good tackle by any strentch of a swans fans
imagination... most agree was not a red card including all pundits watching game what more proof is needed? ...

Unless your name is Roathie

He'll say the cameras lying as hes got other photos to prove it! But seriously this picture shows definitely that it was a good tackle if risky... fully understand why ref gave red card but it was wrong decision and would not have faith in VAR telling him he was wrong... but panelists look at it from different perspective and came to correct decision.

He'll say the cameras lying as hes got other photos to prove it! But seriously this picture shows definitely that it was a good tackle if risky... fully understand why ref gave red card but it was wrong decision and would not have faith in VAR telling him he was wrong... but panelists look at it from different perspective and came to correct decision.

Photos like this you mean?



It was a ridiculous challenge. Way too forceful and dangerous. Rightful red card as law 12 dictates.

“Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play”



By all means you can disagree but there is not a cat’s chance in hell any panel will be changing my view, I know the law in question and have seen the incident many many times from many different angles in order to have formed my opinion.

If you want me to change my mind you are wasting your time. Just saying.

He'll say the cameras lying as hes got other photos to prove it! But seriously this picture shows definitely that it was a good tackle if risky... fully understand why ref gave red card but it was wrong decision and would not have faith in VAR telling him he was wrong... but panelists look at it from different perspective and came to correct decision.

Photos like this you mean?



It was a ridiculous challenge. Way too forceful and dangerous. Rightful red card as law 12 dictates.

“Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play”



By all means you can disagree but there is not a cat’s chance in hell any panel will be changing my view, I know the law in question and have seen the incident many many times from many different angles in order to have formed my opinion.

If you want me to change my mind you are wasting your time. Just saying.

Change your mind more chance of you supporting city ...
that photo is after the other one was taken so making tackle look worse than 1st photo? like said camera can lie and you can quote the laws of the game to your hearts content but still wont alter fact it was decided it was "NOT" a red card end of conversation......
Ps as for Walsh view wouldn't expect anything else from him

Change your mind more chance of you supporting city ...
that photo is after the other one was taken so making tackle look worse than 1st photo? like said camera can lie and you can quote the laws of the game to your hearts content but still wont alter fact it was decided it was "NOT" a red card end of conversation......
Ps as for Walsh view wouldn't expect anything else from him

It doesn’t make it look worse, you said the camera doesn’t lie.. it shows the exact part of the challenge that was the issue.

As I said before, touching the ball doesn’t matter if your lunge is excessively forceful which it clearly was. It was so hard and uncontrolled, he has gone past the ball after touching it and the impact so strong that he is still contacting the player halfway up his own back. He has essentially used his own body as a missile, that’s why he was sent off.

Change your mind more chance of you supporting city ...
that photo is after the other one was taken so making tackle look worse than 1st photo? like said camera can lie and you can quote the laws of the game to your hearts content but still wont alter fact it was decided it was "NOT" a red card end of conversation......
Ps as for Walsh view wouldn't expect anything else from him

It doesn’t make it look worse, you said the camera doesn’t lie.. it shows the exact part of the challenge that was the issue.

As I said before, touching the ball doesn’t matter if your lunge is excessively forceful which it clearly was. It was so hard and uncontrolled, he has gone past the ball after touching it and the impact so strong that he is still contacting the player halfway up his own back. He has essentially used his own body as a missile, that’s why he was sent off.

Go Google photos on this issue! This is picture 2 from the two that were posted on here,Hmmmmm! Wouldn't be because the 1st photo shows the player clearly getting to the ball,the pic you have used shows just after that,there are far more convincing pics surrounding the tackle,try witty footy,great and clear photos, clearly showing a great tackle,with one trailing leg (usually the case with a sliding tackle)and the other at grass hight and sideways,are you saying his studs should always be in the turf?? In that case,all sliding tackles would be banned,his leading foot is side on,not studs full up,leg height,whilst you look at other photos on this subject,there is a cracking one showing a player of yours,with his foot a good height above the ball,and most definitely this is the definition of "studs up" as some claimed Henry was!! And your players students if connected would have caused injury,yet went unseen?? If I was savvy enough,I'd post the pics up myself,but for those interested, try typing red card Henry v swansea 1st leg. Now that I would describe,if seen,as a definite red all day long!! any unlucky decisions tonight??