Trent was booked for time wasting.
Make of that what you will.
5 Likes
itās quite clearly an agenda. And itās not even me being sarcastic
2 Likes
Wouldnāt even have been a foul 10 years ago, but probably a red nowadays
He wasnāt he was booked for throwing ball away.
after he got fouled in the first place
2 Likes
Iāve posted many a time that thereās been an agenda against us since the Premier League started. Itās down to the cityās anti-establishment stance.
6 Likes
Ugly bug obvious foulā¦but oh no coz heās a barcode
1 Like
I would call it an unlucky red.
Last man, itās a foul. However I donāt think there was any intent by VvD. In real time it looked like an excellent tackle.
However it was a red by letter of the law.
2 Likes
w.r.t VVDās red card , there is no way there was an obvious goal scoring opportunity there. Even if he had the ball , and VVD hadnāt tackledā¦ that wasnāt a goal chance
Itās a shit fucking decision
2 Likes
Official reason was ādelaying the restartā, ie time wasting
2 Likes
who reads the law ?
Yeah
Virgil doesnāt do those tackles unless heās damn sure he gets the ball. He isnāt a dirty cunt tackler like the other guys. This decision was a fucking disgrace.
1 Like
Real time . It is a clean tackle. Fucking idiot milking it
1 Like
I assume they will seek clarification on the new rule and decide what to do next and whether they appeal it.
2 Likes
As I posted in the āRefereesā thread, if any other team commits that same foul, itās a yellow card.
Disgusting decision.
6 Likes
He clipped his foot. It was clearly a foul.
Thereās no way itās a clear goal scoring opportunity given the momentum of the striker. Do people expect to believe that heās going to stop and then do a wonder shot to beat the keeper?