Cardiff City Football Forum | Cardiff City FC Messageboard

BREAKING NEWS : ' JOE RALLS RED CARD '

" JOE RALLS WILL NOW MISS THREE CARDIFF CITY GAMES "


Sat Oct 20 - Cardiff City v Fulham

Sat Oct 27 - Liverpool (a)

Sat Nov 3 - Leicester City (h)




Cardiff City unsuccessful in appealing Joe Ralls' red card. As a result the midfielder will miss games against Fulham, Liverpool and Leicester.

Video
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=201009


Absolute joke IMO, never a red in the first place and to uphold it is even worse, but I guess our club's name isn't Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea or Arsenal.

Unfortunately, I knew it was a red and would be upheld.
Let’s hope Gunnarsson/Damour can step up if that’s the way he goes.

Red card all day for me though,the silly bit was appealing imo.

OriginalGrangeEndBlue wrote:Unfortunately, I knew it was a red and would be upheld.
Let’s hope Gunnarsson/Damour can step up if that’s the way he goes.

Not a red in accordance with the laws of the game, but then again they seem to be ignored more regularly recently.

NyeBluebird wrote:Cardiff City unsuccessful in appealing Joe Ralls' red card. As a result the midfielder will miss games against Fulham, Liverpool and Leicester.

Absolute joke IMO, never a red in the first place and to uphold it is even worse, but I guess our club's name isn't Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea or Arsenal.

didn't really hold up much hope for us in the appeal tbh…..maybe Joe should have gone 2 footed straight through him .

a strange one to say the least.....interesting that all the refs that said not red quoted the rules and those that agreed with the red like posters on here quoted a bunch of stuff not in the rules....rules need changing

dogfound wrote:

NyeBluebird wrote:Cardiff City unsuccessful in appealing Joe Ralls' red card. As a result the midfielder will miss games against Fulham, Liverpool and Leicester.

Absolute joke IMO, never a red in the first place and to uphold it is even worse, but I guess our club's name isn't Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea or Arsenal.

didn't really hold up much hope for us in the appeal tbh…..maybe Joe should have gone 2 footed straight through him .

a strange one to say the least.....interesting that all the refs that said not red quoted the rules and those that agreed with the red like posters on here quoted a bunch of stuff not in the rules....rules need changing

How do you make a rule on a tackle? There's rules on handball and that doesnt work? Yes some rules are clear and that results in right decision, but at end day of day it's the interpretation of the incident by officials that determine the decision . What category would ralls tackle fit into? ( Stupidity) anyway as you pointed out some ex refs say red some yellow and that's crux of problem which will never change rules or no rules

The decision to appeal was the first time I'd ever doubted Sir Neil's decision making. It was never going to succeed .
It's a pity it happened but in fairness you can't have players upending people nowhere near the ball or the play . I'm often amased when players get sent off these days for standing near some foreign star who's hurled himself to the ground instead of going for the ball but I do not think we can justify that "tackle "

A Straight red in any man's language, the ball was 8 yards away when he tackled him knee high and was not in control with both feet off the ground!!!!! A 3 game ban is to be expected. END OF CONVERSATION

Defo deserved a red IMO.

tell me how the Tottenham player in the second half in exactly the same area of the pitch ie five ten yards past the halfway line does exactly the same to Murphy takes him clean out when he passed him and gets a yellow tell me the difference cos I don't see any except we are Cardiff and they are Tottenham. them Muppets on match of the day didn't even show it Ian wright is a cock by the way.

NyeBluebird wrote:

OriginalGrangeEndBlue wrote:Unfortunately, I knew it was a red and would be upheld.
Let’s hope Gunnarsson/Damour can step up if that’s the way he goes.

Not a red in accordance with the laws of the game, but then again they seem to be ignored more regularly recently.

The rules of the game say it was a definite red.

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

maccydee wrote:

NyeBluebird wrote:

OriginalGrangeEndBlue wrote:Unfortunately, I knew it was a red and would be upheld.
Let’s hope Gunnarsson/Damour can step up if that’s the way he goes.

Not a red in accordance with the laws of the game, but then again they seem to be ignored more regularly recently.

The rules of the game say it was a definite red.

Under which rule? He definitely didnt stop a clear goalscoring opportunity and in my opinion it wasn't serious foul play. It was a a good foul, which happens almost every week and deserved a yellow card.

JimCP91 wrote:

maccydee wrote:

NyeBluebird wrote:

OriginalGrangeEndBlue wrote:Unfortunately, I knew it was a red and would be upheld.
Let’s hope Gunnarsson/Damour can step up if that’s the way he goes.

Not a red in accordance with the laws of the game, but then again they seem to be ignored more regularly recently.

The rules of the game say it was a definite red.

Under which rule? He definitely didnt stop a clear goalscoring opportunity and in my opinion it wasn't serious foul play. It was a a good foul, which happens almost every week and deserved a yellow card.

See above Jiminy. No attempt to play the ball and it was excessive.

A little tug of the shirt and it wouldn’t have been excessive.

maccydee wrote:

JimCP91 wrote:

maccydee wrote:

NyeBluebird wrote:

OriginalGrangeEndBlue wrote:Unfortunately, I knew it was a red and would be upheld.
Let’s hope Gunnarsson/Damour can step up if that’s the way he goes.

Not a red in accordance with the laws of the game, but then again they seem to be ignored more regularly recently.

The rules of the game say it was a definite red.

Under which rule? He definitely didnt stop a clear goalscoring opportunity and in my opinion it wasn't serious foul play. It was a a good foul, which happens almost every week and deserved a yellow card.

See above Jiminy. No attempt to play the ball and it was excessive.

A little tug of the shirt and it wouldn’t have been excessive.

A good foul!!! If that is a good foul hate to see bad one? A good foul in those circumstances was a tug of shirt , block player or tap ankles all yellow card offences, his "good foul" doesn't fall under those categories does it?

pembroke allan wrote:

maccydee wrote:

JimCP91 wrote:

maccydee wrote:

NyeBluebird wrote:

OriginalGrangeEndBlue wrote:Unfortunately, I knew it was a red and would be upheld.
Let’s hope Gunnarsson/Damour can step up if that’s the way he goes.

Not a red in accordance with the laws of the game, but then again they seem to be ignored more regularly recently.

The rules of the game say it was a definite red.

Under which rule? He definitely didnt stop a clear goalscoring opportunity and in my opinion it wasn't serious foul play. It was a a good foul, which happens almost every week and deserved a yellow card.

See above Jiminy. No attempt to play the ball and it was excessive.

A little tug of the shirt and it wouldn’t have been excessive.

A good foul!!! If that is a good foul hate to see bad one? A good foul in those circumstances was a tug of shirt , block player or tap ankles all yellow card offences, his "good foul" doesn't fall under those categories does it?

Jim is spot on.

Well done to the Premier League, PGMOL or FA - whoever made this decision.

Correct decision.

Did ' nt expect anything different for cardiff from the english fa review ,remember the derby county affair in the big snowfall and blizzard conditions what a load of bo..ocks that was, some day the penny will drop to all the doubters that the english fa look upon cardiff and dare i say welsh a bit differently shall i say. My opinion only.

CaerphillyBluebird15 wrote:

pembroke allan wrote:

maccydee wrote:

JimCP91 wrote:

maccydee wrote:

NyeBluebird wrote:

OriginalGrangeEndBlue wrote:Unfortunately, I knew it was a red and would be upheld.
Let’s hope Gunnarsson/Damour can step up if that’s the way he goes.

Not a red in accordance with the laws of the game, but then again they seem to be ignored more regularly recently.

The rules of the game say it was a definite red.

Under which rule? He definitely didnt stop a clear goalscoring opportunity and in my opinion it wasn't serious foul play. It was a a good foul, which happens almost every week and deserved a yellow card.

See above Jiminy. No attempt to play the ball and it was excessive.

A little tug of the shirt and it wouldn’t have been excessive.

A good foul!!! If that is a good foul hate to see bad one? A good foul in those circumstances was a tug of shirt , block player or tap ankles all yellow card offences, his "good foul" doesn't fall under those categories does it?

Jim is spot on.

No excessive force, not like he went in studs up or anything... It was shin on shin contact, no danger.

Sneggyblubird wrote:Red card all day for me though,the silly bit was appealing imo.

100% agree with you Martin and we don't agree on much

Late tackle and reckless and We were daft to appeal.

Forever Blue wrote:

Sneggyblubird wrote:Red card all day for me though,the silly bit was appealing imo.

100% agree with you Martin and we don't agree on much

Late tackle and reckless and We were daft to appeal.

The two of you are spot on, what a waste of time appealing.

rhondda 1015 wrote:

Forever Blue wrote:

Sneggyblubird wrote:Red card all day for me though,the silly bit was appealing imo.

100% agree with you Martin and we don't agree on much

Late tackle and reckless and We were daft to appeal.

The two of you are spot on, what a waste of time appealing.

It was a reckless tackle, it really was pointless appealing, I have watched it over and over on a big screen, a late, reckless tackle.

I love Warnock but he's starting to blame everyone else or anything for our worst run of results in our history.

Lets just stick together, never give up and keep battling on and hopefully we get our first win v Fulham

I wonder how much it cost our club to appeal against the red card? Ridiculous decision it was always going to fail?

I always thought Stupid appeals , led to a 4th game ban , weird he got away with just the 3 .

Oh. And despite putting on other pages , about some Cardiff fans attacking a 63 Year old and many his son , I have found out now , this was before the game, in the. plaza around Wmebley . I’m sure you’ll agree with me. , in that when CCTV catches these Yobs they’ll get dealt with . Thankfully no broken bones , just shook up ....

Could be a blessing in disguise

When we were governed by the welsh FA were any of you complaining when 10 out of the 12 "independent" panel were cardiff city season ticket holders and based in cardiff.... To this day i cannot remember a swansea red card appeal being successfull. Obviously you lot were up in arms

Trefelin06 wrote:When we were governed by the welsh FA were any of you complaining when 10 out of the 12 "independent" panel were cardiff city season ticket holders and based in cardiff.... To this day i cannot remember a swansea red card appeal being successfull. Obviously you lot were up in arms

that chip on the shoulder just keeps growing...

Whistler wrote:A Straight red in any man's language, the ball was 8 yards away when he tackled him knee high and was not in control with both feet off the ground!!!!! A 3 game ban is to be expected. END OF CONVERSATION

Spot on.

I've never seen such a divide of opinion over a football topic

Definite yellow card. A forceful trip to take one for the team. I can't believe anyone thinks otherwise! You see it almost every week.

" JOE RALLS WILL NOW MISS THREE CARDIFF CITY GAMES "


Sat Oct 20 - Cardiff City v Fulham

Sat Oct 27 - Liverpool (a)

Sat Nov 3 - Leicester City (h)