Bagan Should have been a yellow card

According to Footballrules.com, If the referee plays advantage following a red-card offence that denies the opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), a yellow card is shown instead of a red card, as the advantage allowed the attack to continue.

So, by going off this statement, could Cardiff potentially lodge an appeal in what was a peculiar situation early on in the game.

According to Footballrules.com, If the referee plays advantage following a red-card offence that denies the opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), a yellow card is shown instead of a red card, as the advantage allowed the attack to continue.

So, by going off this statement, could Cardiff potentially lodge an appeal in what was a peculiar situation early on in the game.

Was a strange one as although he got up and carried on he was impeded all the way by bagan .... who if hadn't touched player he would have been in on goal in a scoring position... so guess refs position was he did deny a goal scoring opportunity from moment he attempts to stop him to when player fell and missed his kick..... on what your saying club should appeal but depends on what ref put for decision.

There's a technical point here. The referee didn't actually signal he was playing advantage.

He let the play run on for a few seasons but didn't actually signal advantage - the two are not necessarily the same thing.

You could argue that Gnonto had his goal scoring chance but Bagan did impede the chance by stopping his rhythm.

In the stadium I thought the red card was the right decision and I still think that.

Don't see the point in appealing because they could give him a longer ban for a frivolous appeal.

There's a technical point here. The referee didn't actually signal he was playing advantage.

He let the play run on for a few seasons but didn't actually signal advantage - the two are not necessarily the same thing.

You could argue that Gnonto had his goal scoring chance but Bagan did impede the chance by stopping his rhythm.

In the stadium I thought the red card was the right decision and I still think that.

Don't see the point in appealing because they could give him a longer ban for a frivolous appeal.

"He let the play run on for a few seasons"?

Thats why he took his time to make a decision i guess.

There's a technical point here. The referee didn't actually signal he was playing advantage.

He let the play run on for a few seasons but didn't actually signal advantage - the two are not necessarily the same thing.

You could argue that Gnonto had his goal scoring chance but Bagan did impede the chance by stopping his rhythm.

In the stadium I thought the red card was the right decision and I still think that.

Don't see the point in appealing because they could give him a longer ban for a frivolous appeal.

"He let the play run on for a few seasons"?

Thats why he took his time to make a decision i guess.

A few seconds I meant

There's a technical point here. The referee didn't actually signal he was playing advantage.

He let the play run on for a few seasons but didn't actually signal advantage - the two are not necessarily the same thing.

You could argue that Gnonto had his goal scoring chance but Bagan did impede the chance by stopping his rhythm.

In the stadium I thought the red card was the right decision and I still think that.

Don't see the point in appealing because they could give him a longer ban for a frivolous appeal.

City may have a case about the advantage rule so can't see it being frivolous...... so worst case they'll reject it ..... but doesn't matter damage already done...and will a ban effect city?