Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:34 pm
The number one Darlington FC fan's website
https://www.darlofc.co.uk:443/forum/
https://www.darlofc.co.uk:443/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=38948
Fair 7:04. Not sure why I put 7:07 its the same point I recognise the shot has been struck and is basically about to go in.theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:34 pmIt might be me being pedantic but what do you think he's doing @ 7:04?
Unless of course there's two sets of highlights?
I’ve told him where to find what he needs and yet he ignores it. Largely because it proves him wrong.loan_star wrote:Hunts left hand goes straight to his head as he falls, in clear view of the referee. Lo is wrong, Gramps is correct.
So the ball is in play at 7:04. Hunt immediately touches his head at 7:00.lo36789 wrote:Fair 7:04. Not sure why I put 7:07 its the same point I recognise the shot has been struck and is basically about to go in.theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:34 pmIt might be me being pedantic but what do you think he's doing @ 7:04?
Unless of course there's two sets of highlights?
6:59 players fall to ground. 7:04 ball is about to hit the back of the net. 7:08 physio is being called on to give attention.
It’s not out of order if it’s true. And that is my view and I’ve provided an argument to support it.lo36789 wrote:I just think it's completely out of order to call negligence. Maybe it's just me but that gets quite a serious accusation to just throw out.
Don’t act like a child and I won’t treat you like one. Stop stamping your feet and demanding an irrelevant screenshot, when I’ve already given you the time code which shows when and why I think the ref should have stopped the game.lo36789 wrote: Gramps just can't debate without resorting to childlike insults.
Yes you can. At 7:00 his left arm moves to his head. Loan_Star agrees that happens.lo36789 wrote:You can't see Hunts left arm on the footage you can see his back and his right arm on his back.
Not a question of sides.Darlogramps wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:54 pmAgain, you always take the referee’s side, in any thread. This shows you to be biased and once again you’re demonstrating it.
I left the building at 2.34eddie-rowles wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:38 pmI see you guys went for the full 48 hours argument as opposed to the cheaper 24 hours
Got to agree 100% with this lo. I stated my view earlier in the thread that at the time I thought s*** we have 2 players down I (and others) did not immediately think stop the game. Gramps you believe the ref should have immediately stopped the game. You have also indicated Boston players could have put the ball out. Not sure if you went as far as to say "should" have put the ball out as they must have realised how "serious" the incident was. What puzzles me is why any of our players, also realising how serious the incident was, did not say Kung Fu kick or rugby tackle one of their players to bring play to a holt? I mean they had 4-6 seconds to do so?lo36789 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:08 pmFWIW the reason it is listed as serious injury in the laws is because it is absolutely not expected that every time a player is down and suggest that their head is injured that the game is stopped.
The referee is required to actually see the head injury - and since our own medical team didn't spot a head injury happening then it doesn't feel like a bit of an unfair level of expectation.
The expectation is that a match official attempts to assess severity of the injury prior to stopping the game. That means assessing the nature of a collision, and the nature of the action afterwards and also taking into account impact on the game of stopping at that moment.
I've stopped games for knee injuries. Two have been cruciate injuries simple from landing on the ground after jumping for a header. On both occasions the ball was in a neutral area on the halfway line. As such as the benefit of being able to see the movement of the knee on the landing justified stopping the game.
I've equally played on where a player has gone down and held his head after a corner. The ball fell to an opponent who then scored. By the time I got to him 3 seconds later he was up and rubbing the top of his head - he didn't even need treatment and there was not a single suggestion the goal should have been disallowed.
In hindsight it was a serious injury. It took a few minutes for Hunt to deteriorate to the point of that mind and did so fully under supervision of medical staff who had been brought on.
I think football would make for an interesting spectacle if everytime a player indicates that their head is hurt we immediately stop the game wherever it is. Players already attempt to game this usually when CBs lose the ball and leave strikers one on one they go down hold their head in hope. It's the gamesmanship that was mentioned by Danny O'Connor and what he thought Hunt was doing initially.
Thank God we will have a game to discuss later. Even if we lose it will be less boring than this turgid stuff.theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:06 pmI left the building at 2.34eddie-rowles wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:38 pmI see you guys went for the full 48 hours argument as opposed to the cheaper 24 hours
The arguments that Gramps gets into tend to become rather tedious because he just seems to enjoy being a pain in his a....darlo2001uk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:55 pmThank God we will have a game to discuss later. Even if we lose it will be less boring than this turgid stuff.theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:06 pmI left the building at 2.34eddie-rowles wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:38 pmI see you guys went for the full 48 hours argument as opposed to the cheaper 24 hours
That’s twice in this thread now you’ve brought me up randomly.Old Git wrote:The arguments that Gramps gets into tend to become rather tedious because he just seems to enjoy being a pain in his a....darlo2001uk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:55 pmThank God we will have a game to discuss later. Even if we lose it will be less boring than this turgid stuff.theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:06 pmI left the building at 2.34eddie-rowles wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:38 pmI see you guys went for the full 48 hours argument as opposed to the cheaper 24 hours
No one is forcing you to read it. Or comment....darlo2001uk wrote:Thank God we will have a game to discuss later. Even if we lose it will be less boring than this turgid stuff.theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:06 pmI left the building at 2.34eddie-rowles wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:38 pmI see you guys went for the full 48 hours argument as opposed to the cheaper 24 hours
Not sure it's random considering your the main poster in this thread.Darlogramps wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:38 pmThat’s twice in this thread now you’ve brought me up randomly.Old Git wrote:The arguments that Gramps gets into tend to become rather tedious because he just seems to enjoy being a pain in his a....darlo2001uk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:55 pmThank God we will have a game to discuss later. Even if we lose it will be less boring than this turgid stuff.theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:06 pmI left the building at 2.34eddie-rowles wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:38 pm
I see you guys went for the full 48 hours argument as opposed to the cheaper 24 hours
I think you’re secretly in love. I’m spoken for Old Git, sorry.