I’m amazed that there is any debate at all about whether Courtois should have got a red. To me it

[Monty91]

was utterly clear that, had he not been brought down, the striker would have comfortably reached the ball in time to slide it – albeit from an angle – into an open net. Am I wrong?

[Luis Anaconda]

coupled with a couple of usual retarded pundits, might make a case for it being harsh. Blimey, Jeff, the boy isn't up to speed after a long summer. Of course it was a clear red. Has there really been much debate?

[Berni]

Mourinho because that's a more interesting story than 'Goalkeeper brings down forward in goalscoring position and is correctly sent off'.

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

I did not listen to Murphy & Shearer on MOTD.

Though I am quite (very) confident that had the keeper been ours then many would have tried to make an argument that Cahill was getting back to cover.

[Luis Anaconda]

about the physics treating Hazard that was the main focus of the reports I read

[Monty91]

[Red N White Army]

[redgunamo]

[Fred Killah]

up :shrug:

[Luis Anaconda]

[Luis Anaconda]

[Snin]

is talking as usual total ballcoks when he mentions this debate

[Monty91]

[Monty91]

[Luis Anaconda]

"I don’t think it’s a red card and I think Chelsea are really unlucky. The ball is going away from goal and I believe Gary Cahill can get back on the line. There’s a chance he can score but I think the ball has to be going directly at goal."


So what if Cahill can get back on the line* - defenders are sent off when there is keeper standing there. What a muppet




*Henry seems to suggest that Cahill could have got to the ball before Gomis which is more reasonable if entirely wrong

[Red N White Army]

[Luis Anaconda]

[Snin]

:wave:

[Snin]

[Snin]

[redgunamo]

[Luis Anaconda]

but I didn't want to mention that in front of sin

['Neg]

[Snin]

I had a minutes silence before I went to bed last night and a black armband today

[Luis Anaconda]

Wales might struggle when they go to Dublin though

[Snin]

[redgunamo]

Let's hope they don't take up cricket.

[Luis Anaconda]

The Argentinian's looked good though :-)

[Peter]

Which is nice :-)

In his article in the mail he states it wasnt a red card because the ball was not heading towards goal. This is *******s.

The rule actually states that the opponent must be moving towards goal, and not directly towards.

So poll is not only wrong about the incident but we now know conclusively that he doesnt understand the rules.

What a c**t :hehe:

[Snin]

[Peter]

[Monty91]

(or attacker) and not make his decision exclusively on it?

[Peter]

To an opponent moving towards the player's goal'

Key phrase is 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' not sure why the second bit needs to be there, it just confuses the issue for fans and, evidently, referees

[Ashberto]

No need to send the keeper off in that situation. Unless he plays for Chelsea, obviously.

[redgunamo]

Especially if it's Chelsea naturally.

[gco40203]

Thats true because there are examples where the ball and player are clearly going away from the goal or other times when the ball appears to be going out of play and thus the goalscoring opportunity may not be there. However in this incident there is no way it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity. This would be a travesty if it got overturned.

[PSRB]