According to Ref Watch both Dermot Gallagher and Lee Mills said it was a red card because it was a reckless two footed lunge at full force. I just didn't see it that way at all, but it just goes to show how the same event can be interpreted differently. After hearing this, I don't think it will be overturned. The Vardy penalty was a penalty also, according to them. Mills said it was clever play, but was more of the opinion if a keeper comes running out like that he deserves to give away a penalty. It's more an attitude of punish the keeper rather than punish the striker for engineering a situation. By the way, Vardy has won the most penalties in Premier League history. They also showed a foul on Hughes on the edge of the box, and not even a foul was given. This time they did say it was a foul but outside the box so no penalty.
If you leave after 25 minutes, how do you know we're not going to win? You must miss all those really memorable comebacks
I really don't know. I think they tend to have a different opinion for similar events. Sometimes they will say it's a red, and sometimes they say it's not. They tend to contradict themselves even on the same show. With Gallagher, he will always defend referees unless it's 100% wrong. Grey areas he will always side with the official. Probably that much publicised tackle on Zaha will be in the back of people's mind when they make a judgement on Capoue. People can make their own minds up on whether we get a lot of favourable decisions or maybe are on the receiving end of a lot of bad calls.
Let's see what the review panel makes of it. Maybe I've not seen all the different camera angles, but what I've seen is Capoue react to a loose ball. He wasn't even running towards the ball. He took two strides forward. One foot was planted and the other did show studs but not at the opponent. His foot connected with the ball only. He was total control of his body at all times and it was perfectly timed. I don't see how that could be considered reckless. It was a fair challenge by both players. Not even a foul, IMO.
It's a classic 'orange card' tackle. Referee's call. I'd say it was reckless rather than dangerous and so a yellow card may well have been the outcome if Pawson had been able to see it a few times on VAR instead of having to replay it in his head. He had no idea Capoue made no contact with Ian Nachos. But I'll be surprised if it's now overturned after the event - it would need all 3 panel members to all agree it was the wrong call.
I think it was a perfectly timed tackle. Should have been applauded. Not even a foul, let alone yellow or orange as you put it. It was one of those that looked like it could have been bad in real time. The Leicester player is "acting" as if his leg has been smashed to pieces. You see the players' reaction and the crowd noise. It all goes into the melting pot to convince the referee something bad has occurred. That's the reality of it. Had Scott not taken any action, I'm sure Gallagher would have called it a brilliant piece of officiating. He'd be pointing out the fact that no contact was made, one foot was planted and Capoue got the ball. It should be overturned, but I have little faith it will be.
Some interesting comments on here as usual immediately after the game!! Quite a lot said we were absolutely dire and wasn't sure how we didn't get something out of the game as we created a lot of good chances!!! If you are atrocious it generally means you've been soundly beaten and did pretty much nothing throughout the whole game. What happened on Saturday was not a bad performance but just a case of not having a decent striker. I have never been a Holebas fan but he seems to be getting a lot of stick for his crossing ability which is better than most to be fair. He created the chance for Gray's header on Saturday, it's not his fault that Gray has the heading ability of Anne Boleyn. The two talking points from Saturday (red card and the penalty) I thought were correct. Capoue goes in two footed, whether he slipped or not, it's a two footed challenge which is a sending off. The penalty I believe would still have been given even with VAR. Yes Vardy is already going down before Foster gets to him but even if he hadn't Foster would have clattered him anyway. I would concentrate more on who let Vardy make that run in the first place I will really start to worry when we stop creating chances which currently we don't have a problem with. A goalscorer is what we need but don't most clubs and very good ones are at a premium. It's difficult as we can't go out and pay £40-£50m and even if we spent £30m it is no guarantee of Success (no pun intended). Lets not panic just yet. We have 20 points, we're in the top half and we are still playing some good football. City at home is not the most ideal game to have next when you are on a bad run but I'm not sure there is ever a good time to play them. I would agree with those that feel a change of formation or players is required. Femenia just hasn't looked good enough this year which is a shame as he proved last year he's an excellent player. If Janmaat is fit I would play him. Get Delefeou out on the wing with Pereyra on the other side and Hughes just behind Success. Chalobah and Doucoure as defensive midfielders. Kabasele in for Mariappa. Foster Janmaat Kabesele Cathcart Holebas Chalobah Doucoure Delefeou Hughes Pereyra Success
Playing semi well for three games is a better return than the other 'attackers' are delivering though, and that is my point.
Its interesting that Vardy doesn't seem to get the same sort of criticism for winning penalties as Zaha does - maybe its because he doesn't cry wolf and act like everyone is out to get him?
With the two contentious decisions, I think that they were correct, insomuch as that's what the de facto rules are of football, rather than what I believe them to actually be (I don't pretend to be an expert). For the penalty, in my honest view, it's not a penalty. I think Foster barely touched him and Vardy's only intention there was to fly to the floor and win a penalty. He's cheating in my opinion. However, we know that the rules these days are "if there's contact he's got a right to go to ground' which means that it will, 9 times out of 10, be given as a penalty. For the red, the argument will be about the position of his feet etc, however what I think makes it not a red in my genuine opinion, is that Capoue is on the ball. He's there first, which makes Innes Anchovie the tackler. Capoue has a right to go for the ball and his standing foot is very close to the ball, but it's not on the ball. How it will be perceived, however, is that two feet were involved and so it was a (soft) red, but not enough to get it overturned. Basically, there are lots of these types of decisions which can go either way, even with debate and multiple angles, however, it's hard not to feel that we're the recipients of the rough end of the stick with many of them. That penalty will always be given against us, but never for us. That red will always be given and upheld against us, but not for us. HB1 has convinced me. It's a conspiracy.
It’s also due to the fact, that although I don’t like it or agree with it, the vast majority of the time Vardy makes sure he is at least touched and his tumbles are quite convincing. Zaha does neither of these things.
We had a massive problem with refereeing decisions in Zola's first season. There was definitely something going on that season, I'm convinced of it. Since promotion the standard of refereeing improved dramatically. However, this season, for some reason the standard has dropped massively. In the past it was always Michael Oliver who was a **** towards Watford, but the others were mainly fair. We got the penalties and had a few bad decisions, but nothing on a big scale to cause concern. Since then it's gradually got worse. Now there are several referees you know without doubt when they are appointed will give you a hard time. Moss, Mason, Probert, Oliver and Taylor. These officials are constant offenders. Scott is actually ok, but he's not a good omen for us. We always seem to lose when he's in charge. I don't blame him for either decision, but I think he was conned both times.
I don't genuinely think it's a conspiracy but it's hard to feel that we're not getting the short end of the stick a lot more often than not
He's a great finisher and so damn fast, he would transform any non-top6 team. I think most of his penalties are genuine. He's nearly as good as Vydra.
Not helped by Deeney's comments in relation to the Zaha incident maybe? Mind you our discipline record doesn't seem quite as bad as in previous seasons...yet.
