ian1964 10,826 Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share Posted December 31, 2009 I hate to be the odd one out again but i don't think it is as clear cut as everyone's saying. Firstly Intent is enough to send him off. Secondly miller did move his leg. It was difficult to see from the camera angle, but i thought his calf muscle did actually catch Dodds. There is no doubt that the Dodds play-acted and it was never a sending off but i am not so sure the ref will retract it. It was stupid of miller to give him the option to send him off. So how does that make you the odd one out Pete ?,that's all we are saying, '' it was never a red card and Dods cheated '', 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,511 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 So how does that make you the odd one out Pete ?,that's all we are saying, '' it was never a red card and Dods cheated '', I don't think the ref will change it and i do think he does have a reason not to change. While i don't particularly agree that there was any intent and any contact was minimal with his calf muscle i can see why the referee won't change his mind. (If that makes sense.) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,826 Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share Posted December 31, 2009 I don't think the ref will change it and i do think he does have a reason not to change. While i don't particularly agree that there was any intent and any contact was minimal with his calf muscle i can see why the referee won't change his mind. (If that makes sense.) At the end of the day it wasn't a red card. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 I don't think the ref will change it and i do think he does have a reason not to change. While i don't particularly agree that there was any intent and any contact was minimal with his calf muscle i can see why the referee won't change his mind. (If that makes sense.) I didn't think he'd change his mind, I just thought SFA bureaucracy would mean they wouldn't hear it in time. Wont so quick to sort out Loovens were they. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,826 Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share Posted December 31, 2009 I didn't think he'd change his mind, I just thought SFA bureaucracy would mean they wouldn't hear it in time. Wont so quick to sort out Loovens were they. I think the difference there was that the ref never seen that incident and it went to a video review panel which is made up of third party and doesn't involve anyone from the SFA,I could be wrong though 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.