" Brentford overturn red card "

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.

as expected...

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

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

Swans Stunned by Red Card Appeal Result.

Rico Henry is available to play for Brentford in their Championship play-off semi-final second leg clash with Swansea City after his three-match suspension was removed following a successful appeal.

The defender was set to miss the remainder of the play-offs as a result of the red card he was issued in the Bees' 1-0 first leg loss to the Swans at the Liberty Stadium on Sunday evening.

Thomas Frank was furious with the decision and admitted he was fully confident that Henry would be available for the second leg at Griffin Park on Wednesday night after an appeal.

And the Dane has been proven correct as the FA have confirmed that Henry will be available to feature against the Swans.

A statement read: "Rico Henry’s three-match suspension has been removed following a successful claim of wrongful dismissal.

Brentford boss Thomas Frank is '100% sure' that his side will beat Swansea City in the play-off second leg
It comes after Steve Cooper admitted he felt it would not be possible for the red card to be overturned due to the nature of Henry's tackle on Connor Roberts.

"I don’t think it can be (overturned)," he said on Monday.

"You look at the Jake Bidwell one against Bristol City earlier on in the season. I don’t think you can if you compare it to that and if you do what you do you’re endorsing dangerous and reckless challenges.

"There’s a lot of contention. You saw some in the Premier League too. The fact is it was 50:50 and there’s no way it can be overturned."

Swans Stunned by Red Card Appeal Result.

Rico Henry is available to play for Brentford in their Championship play-off semi-final second leg clash with Swansea City after his three-match suspension was removed following a successful appeal.

The defender was set to miss the remainder of the play-offs as a result of the red card he was issued in the Bees' 1-0 first leg loss to the Swans at the Liberty Stadium on Sunday evening.

Thomas Frank was furious with the decision and admitted he was fully confident that Henry would be available for the second leg at Griffin Park on Wednesday night after an appeal.

And the Dane has been proven correct as the FA have confirmed that Henry will be available to feature against the Swans.

A statement read: "Rico Henry’s three-match suspension has been removed following a successful claim of wrongful dismissal.

Brentford boss Thomas Frank is '100% sure' that his side will beat Swansea City in the play-off second leg
It comes after Steve Cooper admitted he felt it would not be possible for the red card to be overturned due to the nature of Henry's tackle on Connor Roberts.

"I don’t think it can be (overturned)," he said on Monday.

"You look at the Jake Bidwell one against Bristol City earlier on in the season. I don’t think you can if you compare it to that and if you do what you do you’re endorsing dangerous and reckless challenges.

"There’s a lot of contention. You saw some in the Premier League too. The fact is it was 50:50 and there’s no way it can be overturned."

it was 50-50 .? no it wasnt, one bloke thought he could clear the ball and did ,the other wrongly thought if he ran his fastest ever he could collide { dangerously i will add } .. and maybe Kieth Coopers mate would give a free kick as he had done throughout the tie..
sent off for running to fast..

Last edited by skidemin on Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

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

He made a decision didnt he.. but the arbitration panel corrected his mistake no luck involved in that decision

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

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

He made a decision didnt he? but the arbitration panel corrected his mistake get over it.

Who made a decision? the ref?

Yes he did using the laws of the game to do it. Their manager played a blinder with that one.

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

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

He made a decision didnt he.. but the arbitration panel corrected his mistake no luck involved in that decision

i dont think he has played the game mate...credit to him for knowing the rules parrot fashion but no idea what they actually mean

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

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

He made a decision didnt he? but the arbitration panel corrected his mistake get over it.

Who made a decision? the ref?

Yes he did using the laws of the game to do it. Their manager played a blinder with that one.

Yes he did at the time .... but panel say he made a mistake on revue just like VAR would.... quite simple really..

it was 50-50 .? no it wasnt, one bloke thought he could clear the ball and did ,the other wrongly thought if he ran his fastest ever he could collide { dangerously i will add } .. and maybe Kieth Coopers mate would give a free kick as he had done throughout the tie..
sent off for running to fast..

Yep it was a 50:50 decision, by overruling it its taking judgement calls out of the game.

We have seen the damage incorrect overruling from VAR have had on the integrity of decisions, this is right up there.

You could say... unlucky even

Yes he did at the time .... but panel say he made a mistake on revue just like VAR would.... quite simple really..

Yep we know Allan, that is literally what we are talking about right now

it was 50-50 .? no it wasnt, one bloke thought he could clear the ball and did ,the other wrongly thought if he ran his fastest ever he could collide { dangerously i will add } .. and maybe Kieth Coopers mate would give a free kick as he had done throughout the tie..
sent off for running to fast..

Yep it was a 50:50 decision, by overruling it its taking judgement calls out of the game.

We have seen the damage incorrect overruling from VAR have had on the integrity of decisions, this is right up there.

You could say... unlucky even

unlucky for brentford because they had a disadvantage.. but yes this magical non existent thing called luck plays a part.. refs frequently call very similar incidents completely differently, i honestly dont think its intentional your just lucky or unlucky re the view of the ref at a given point.

Yes he did at the time .... but panel say he made a mistake on revue just like VAR would.... quite simple really..

Yep we know Allan, that is literally what we are talking about right now

Anyway irrelevant now as he's cleared to play can argue for ever over was it wasn't it a red card but i wont.

Anyway irrelevant now as he's cleared to play can argue for ever over was it wasn't it a red card but i wont.

No need to argue, the law (law 12) is there for everyone to read.

Decision made however, yes.

Wow, now that is a bad decision.

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

He made a decision didnt he? but the arbitration panel corrected his mistake get over it.

Who made a decision? the ref?

Yes he did using the laws of the game to do it. Their manager played a blinder with that one.

Haha. Can't admit when he's wrong this one. Classic. Hahahahaha

Haha. Can't admit when he's wrong this one. Classic. Hahahahaha

About whether it should have been a red card?

I don't think I am, so why would I?

I will happily admit I was wrong in the thought the appeal had no chance. I clearly underestimated the state of football hierarchy at the FA. That's football in 2020 for you.

Anyway irrelevant now as he's cleared to play can argue for ever over was it wasn't it a red card but i wont.

No need to argue, the law (law 12) is there for everyone to read.

Decision made however, yes.

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...

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.

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 didn't. As the appeal was successful.

Corrected your last sentence for you.

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..

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 didn't. As the appeal was successful.

Corrected your last sentence for you.

You changed it, not corrected it. The first draft was perfectly correct.

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.

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

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.

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.

It's not good enough though is it, Brentford had to play the game with ten men, resulting on them being 1 nil down and will have added additional fatigue to the players?

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.

He knows, we know, he will try and digress and keep the thread flowing and try to frustrate you, ignore the prick, he's not here to debate, there is no honest opinion, he's here to agrivate

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?

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.

He knows, we know, he will try and digress and keep the thread flowing and try to frustrate you, ignore the prick, he's not here to debate, there is no honest opinion, he's here to agrivate

What is aggravating about backing the referee and knowing the laws of the game?

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.