We didn't appeal Naughton's red card

[Pat Rice Spurs fan]

So are we looking at Kaboul at right back for the next game?

How about we start Lennon there, if he's good at covering his fullback anyway.

 

[JerryGarcia]

How about we start Lennon there, if he's good at covering his fullback anyway.

Are you Van Gaal in disguise?

 

[IGSpur]

I'm sure it will be Dier.

Cheer up mate, I don't think it'll be that bad

 

[Pat Rice Spurs fan]

Are you Van Gaal in disguise?

No, still Ossie.

 

[ThorntonSpur]

no disrespect to qpr but if our next game was say everton at home we would have appealed.

 

[Tit&Ham]

Only 1 game? Damn... Was hoping he at least got 2

 

[leffe186]

It was a harsh red but it was defensible in the laws of the game. For that reason, it makes sense they didn't appeal.

This. It would have been funny/depressing if we'd had it overturned on appeal though, as wouldn't that have been four out of our last five reds in the league overturned? Hudd, Rose, Kaboul, then Naughton?

I'm pretty sure I've missed a couple out here, but still, that's pretty damning.

 

[Yid-ol]

I'm sure it will be Dier.

Kabouls not that bad at rb

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Has anyone ever seen a sending off in similar circumstances ?

I have never seen one.

 

[SlunkSoma]

Think we are keeping our powder dry personally. Appealing this offence which could go either way (although harsh) could work against us in future.

 

[SlunkSoma]

Has anyone ever seen a sending off in similar circumstances ?

I have never seen one.

No. It was quite telling that even Tommo on SSN was amazed, given that he is usually anti Spurs. Even still I think we'll take this one on the chin.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

No. It was quite telling that even Tommo on SSN was amazed, given that he is usually anti Spurs. Even still I think we'll take this one on the chin.

Even Tony Wanker West Ham Gale said it was harsh.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

I think it was harsh, but unfortunately it was defensible from the standpoint of the referees discretion. He did not have to send him off, in my view, but declaring that it was a penalty that prevented a clear goal scoring opportunity seems to be a reasonable, if harsh, view.

In that circumstance, and considering we won, almost no chance of winning an appeal.

I think the more important lesson here is that Naughton has to know to keep his arms down, and behind his back, when defending in the box.

 

[theShiznit]

I think it was harsh, but unfortunately it was defensible from the standpoint of the referees discretion. He did not have to send him off, in my view, but declaring that it was a penalty that prevented a clear goal scoring opportunity seems to be a reasonable, if harsh, view.

In that circumstance, and considering we won, almost no chance of winning an appeal.

I think the more important lesson here is that Naughton has to know to keep his arms down, and behind his back, when defending in the box.

But there is no way they would add an extra game to a suspension.

Going in for a block with your arms already up whilst 2 meters from goal and right up the striker's backside is hardly a goal line save.

And Chamberlain had a red for this overturned last season because the ball wasn't going in, and that was with a Sylvester Stallone-esque diving save.

So no way it could be deemed frivilous .

So we have nothing to lose (except Naughton for one game)

Unless Poch is hoping to try something new without Naugthon against QPR in the hope that it may come off?

Cannot fathom any other reason for us not appealing?

 

[leffe186]

It's pretty obvious that the only reason we're not appealing is that we think the chance, however remote, that this might be considered frivolous is greater than the chance that we might actually win. I agree. Move on.

 

[SpursManChris]

we would lose are only RB at the moment for another game... Vs Liverpool

How?

 

[Yid-ol]

How?

If you appeal a red card and you are wrong, they add an extra game ban on. Think it's for wasting time and to stop all teams just appealing.

 

[talkshowhost86]

I think it was a ludicrous decision.

Surely it's only a red card if you deliberately stop a certain goal. As it was doubtful whether the ball was going in, and Lloris was still in position I just can't see how the penalty wasn't enough.

But I can understand why we haven't appealed it. If there's any debate about it being a wrong decision then the authorities will back the ref so it's not worth risking an extra game suspension unless you're 100% sure they'll overturn it.

 

[Marty]

A three game ban would've been worth appealing. One game just isn't worth the hassle.

 

[Coyboy]

I think it was a ludicrous decision.

Surely it's only a red card if you deliberately stop a certain goal. As it was doubtful whether the ball was going in, and Lloris was still in position I just can't see how the penalty wasn't enough.

But I can understand why we haven't appealed it. If there's any debate about it being a wrong decision then the authorities will back the ref so it's not worth risking an extra game suspension unless you're 100% sure they'll overturn it.

No I can see the rationale. If he had fouled him to prevent him taking a shot on goal one-on-one it's a clear red and no one disputes it. You get a red for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, Naughton denied Nolan's shot going anywhere near the goal. Whether it was handball in the first place and therefore a penalty, I'm less sure as the rule on that seems to change each time the wind blows.

But if it's handball, it's a red just as if he had fouled him when he was about to take a short range shot it's a red.