: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:54 pm  

Nemanja wrote:

It's not the same though.

The linesman of the Chelsea game said he saw the incident and didn't think it warranted a foul, that's why no action could be taken.

The referee didn't see the Beckford incident but has decided that had he seen the incident he would have sent him off, that's why the FA can act.

I agree that it is a $hite ruling, but hey, that's the FA all over.

so why did he book him at the time then?

Is Alan Wiley admitting to booking Beckford for an incident he nor his linesman saw?

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:55 pm  

he says he booked for the push and didn't see the elbow

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:59 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

he says he booked for the push and didn't see the elbow

yeah, i bet he did,

pound to a penny they have seen it after and are looking for away around their own idiotic loophole which seems to only apply to the top 4

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:35 pm  

rhinoms wrote:

That's unbelievable
Yet beckford was booked for the clash and has still been charged yet the keeper who clearly dropped his elbow on beckford gets off!!

Read the link.

The referee has said he booked Beckford for an incident running up to the elbow.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:37 pm  

Nemanja wrote:

Read the link.

The referee has said he booked Beckford for an incident running up to the elbow.

The refs talking bollox as usual all he did before it was push the defender off who'd pushed him.
The elbow was retaliation for the keeper doing it to him!!
Wiley has always been a w#*k#r.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:38 pm  

tad rhino wrote: rubbish mate. he could be charged yet the F.A. looked at it and chose not to. like you say thats the F.A. all over. whilst beckford deserves everything he got the millwall player has got away with a clear elbow on robinson and dare i say if beckford was wearing a man u, chelsea, liverpool shirt he would have got away with it I thought the FA said Boswinga couldn't be charged as the linesman said he saw the incident and felt no action was required though? This seems to back up that argument as well. Although, it seems it's a FIFA rule not the FA.

tad rhino wrote: rubbish mate. he could be charged yet the F.A. looked at it and chose not to. like you say thats the F.A. all over. whilst beckford deserves everything he got the millwall player has got away with a clear elbow on robinson and dare i say if beckford was wearing a man u, chelsea, liverpool shirt he would have got away with it I thought the FA said Boswinga couldn't be charged as the linesman said he saw the incident and felt no action was required though? This seems to back up that argument as well. Although, it seems it's a FIFA rule not the FA.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:39 pm  

Nemanja wrote: I thought the FA said Boswinga couldn't be charged as the linesman said he saw the incident and felt no action was required though? This seems to back up that argument as well. Although, it seems it's a FIFA rule not the FA. im sure the linesman could have seen 'a push' and a different incident,

Nemanja wrote: I thought the FA said Boswinga couldn't be charged as the linesman said he saw the incident and felt no action was required though? This seems to back up that argument as well. Although, it seems it's a FIFA rule not the FA. im sure the linesman could have seen 'a push' and a different incident,

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:11 pm  

The incident deserved a ban, although Beckford was given a clip by the keeper first. How's he getting banned and Fusemi not though?

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:31 pm  

Matt23 wrote:

The incident deserved a ban, although Beckford was given a clip by the keeper first. How's he getting banned and Fusemi not though?

It's a Leeds thing. Nobody likes Leeds. Been like that since mid 1960's.

One rule for Leeds. One rule for everyone else, except Man Utd where such rule is even more lenient.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:55 pm  

Longun wrote:

It's a Leeds thing. Nobody likes Leeds. Been like that since mid 1960's.

One rule for Leeds. One rule for everyone else, except Man Utd where such rule is even more lenient.