1st- 2nd April Match Thread

[Harrier94]

This could really mess up Cheltenham's title bid and FGR really need to take advantage if they want to win it.

 

[CTFCfan99]

It was clumsy and stupid, I don't dispute that. But reading your forum you'd think he'd murdered someone

We'll cope, Morgan-Smith will step in up front and we have Billy Waters as a good backup.

 

[les.gtfc]

It was clumsy and stupid, I don't dispute that. But reading your forum you'd think he'd murdered someone

We'll cope, Morgan-Smith will step in up front and we have Billy Waters as a good backup.

Clumsy?? Are you serious. He knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Son of Cod]

Clumsy, stupid and malicious. It's not the worst thing that's happened on a football pitch, but he deserves it. Glad to see it punished correctly, even if it does help FGR.

Clumsy?? Are you serious. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Clumsy in the sense that he lacked the finesse to make it look accidental?

 

[GuiseleySteve]

Ooh goody that will massively improve our chance of points on Saturday

 

[Master D]

If it wasn't live on TV would he have got done?

 

[les.gtfc]

If it wasn't live on TV would he have got done?

It states that it was the match observer (referees assessor) who reported the matter to the FA so probably yes, he would still have been reported.

 

[Harrier94]

It states that it was the match observer (referees assessor) who reported the matter to the FA so probably yes, he would still have been reported.

Plus all games are recorded and you could probably have still seen the stamp from the main camera position.

 

[CTFCfan99]

Would have been reported but wouldn't have had the 3/4 different angles on it. Also, do we get a retrospective penalty for that first half handball?

 

[Greenacres]

It states that it was the match observer (referees assessor) who reported the matter to the FA so probably yes, he would still have been reported.

Although it is quite useful, for those reviewing the matter, when the opinion of the match observer is backed up by footage of the incident shot from several different viewpoints. Not much doubt that he stood on the Grimsby keeper and could probably have avoided doing so, no wonder McKeown was so angry...and he ended up getting booked for protesting...mind you, showing stud marks on your right buttock to the ref might have resulted in a longer ban than Wright got.

 

[PaulHaddock]

Would have been reported but wouldn't have had the 3/4 different angles on it. Also, do we get a retrospective penalty for that first half handball?

Only if we get one for the reverse fixture that wasn't given.

 

[Master D]

It states that it was the match observer (referees assessor) who reported the matter to the FA so probably yes, he would still have been reported.

He'd have done very well to spot it in real time and even better to see it was deliberate from just seeing it once live with a lot of players in front of his view running all over the place celebrating a goal. I'm not sure any on pitch official could see this in real time either as they'd usually be running back to halfway. So I wonder if the assessors watch the whole game back on the club's DVD of the game before submitting their report. I'd wager he has caught a glimpse of it on a screen nearby at the time or after the game. We've all been to games in this league where you see players involved in stuff off the ball away from the ref and nothing comes of it retrospectively.

In any case, justice has been served, but it just opens up a can of worms I think.

 

[Southern Shayman]

The overreaction to this on Grimsby's forum has been an amazing read.

I think the embarassing response from your club trumps any forum meltdown.

Especially when everyone has seen the video and seen the blatant stamp. Three games isn't enough of a ban IMO