Re: Faraimo : Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:47 am  

The Reason wrote:

What is a “ foul to the head “?

Your post doesn’t make much sense .

Is it not pretty self-explanatory?
A foul to the head is foul play involving contact with the head. I genuinely can't believe that's had to be spelt out!

The Reason wrote:

What was risky ?

Rushing in on a player to put in a big shot. It's always risky.

The Reason wrote:

Who said it was “a foul to the head “ ?

If there was no apparent foul to the head, why was he sent off?

Re: Faraimo : Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:51 am  

The Reason wrote:

“It was risky. But it wasn't intentional because if it was, he'd have actually smashed his face in and he definitely would have needed to go off “

Wow !

What's the wow for?

If any player wished to do intentionally harm another player by use of shoulder to the head, it would indeed smash their face in. It's not hard to miss if intending to do it.

You seem to be struggling with your comprehension this weekend.

Re: Faraimo : Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:15 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

What's the wow for?

If any player wished to do intentionally harm another player by use of shoulder to the head, it would indeed smash their face in. It's not hard to miss if intending to do it.

You seem to be struggling with your comprehension this weekend.

So if a player uses his shoulder to the head of an opponent it would “smash his face in “.

And I am “struggling with my comprehension “..

Explain struggling with my comprehension ....you are making a fool of yourself .

Re: Faraimo : Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:44 pm  

Not had the chance to re watch the game yet.Probably won't tbh.If it had been Carney on Kelly doing same you lot would have been howling for red. I didn't notice anything out of ordinary from Stand and agree Kendall wasn't going to penalise the tackle. Just one of those things and if it had cost you the game I could understand the bleating.

Re: Faraimo : Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:16 am  

[quote="craig hkr"]Not had the chance to re watch the game yet.Probably won't tbh.If it had been Carney on Kelly doing same you lot would have been howling for red. I didn't notice anything out of ordinary from Stand and agree Kendall wasn't going to penalise the tackle. Just one of those things and if it had cost you the game I could understand the bleating.[/quote]

Weird post. Part of been a fan is screaming red, doesn’t invalidate the debate afterwards.

Re: Faraimo : Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:37 am  

He went for the hit and got it wrong. I was apoplectic at the time that he got sent off but he did contact the head. The only thing I disagree with is looking at it a dozen times in slow motion. The game isn't played in slow motion.

Re: Faraimo : Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:24 am  

The Reason wrote:

So if a player uses his shoulder to the head of an opponent it would “smash his face in “.

And I am “struggling with my comprehension “..

Explain struggling with my comprehension ....you are making a fool of yourself .

Explain struggling with comprehension? The fact I'm having to explain it is proof you're struggling with it!

When you keep needing to ask questions about what things mean, it shows a lack of comprehension.

Let me fill in the blanks that so so conveniently left out of your first line: if a player, in a "clear attempt to injure" (your words), was to use a shoulder in the tackle and aim for the head in that situation, it would indeed smash his face in.

Which part are you struggling with? Tell me what you think it means and I'll help you.