Bamford - referees don't like our captains

[SwitchBLADE Smiles]

100% a dive and it was completely unnecessary. 3-1 up, 1 on 1 situation, already on a booking and he chucks himself on the floor rather than taking the shot on. Deserved second yellow that absolutely nobody can complain about.

This is the side of Bamford I don’t like. He has all the ability and technical skill to be a top level striker, but these kind of antics can (and invariably do) blow up in your face. When it works it’s ‘smart’ forward play, but when it doesn’t you look stupid. Just don’t take the risk.

 

[chesblade]

According to sky his 1st ever red card

 

[Harry's Game]

Clear dive stupid whilst on a yellow and after he’s has played so well too.

Still looking for the bright side he can have a rest next weekend while we have a free hit at Millwall and then he is fresh for the Oxford game,

 

[Nedski]

I'll never understand why a striker would dive instead of shoot, it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Robben was always the worst - he could dribble past an entire defence and midfield then slot it away, but he'd rather dive for the penalty instead.

 

[Cassius Kray]

Bamford's first yellow was extremely harsh imo. Not like he was shouting at the ref or booting the ball away, just a minor display of frustration.

The dive was 100% a yellow and a stupid thing to do. Hope he apologises for it. But as others have noted, their players also dived multiple times and the ref did nothing. If he's not booking them I don't see what his justification was for booking Bamford.

If there's contact it isn't a dive. That's the current rules.

This is completely wrong. If someone dives to the floor and then gets brushed as they're on the way down, it isn't a foul.

 

[YES Blade]

Should’ve been subbed off really, with the way he’s been playing and on a yellow, it would’ve made sense to save his legs for Millwall.

 

[Champagneblade]

100% dive. It's those antics that a lot of our fans used as a reason for not signing him.

View attachment 229650

I know it sounds daft but when he was theough why didn’t he just shoot to the goalie’s right? I thought going around him was the harder option!

It’s a soft yellow but daft too if there was any doubt. But if you’re being so strict then send off the keeper this week and the lad who fouled McCallum last week. It just seems at the moment any decision like this comes down harshly on us and leniently on out opponents.

 

[JD88]

It was a dive and you could see what he was going to do a couple of seconds before he did. Poor from Bamford

 

[Geordie Blade]

I'll never understand why a striker would dive instead of shoot, it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Robben was always the worst - he could dribble past an entire defence and midfield then slot it away, but he'd rather dive for the penalty instead.

Also, the ‘best’ outcome that he could have hoped for would be a red card. That would mean we get five minutes against ten men, when we’re already 3-1 or 4-1 up. But… it would mean that Ipswich would be without their first choice keeper in their next game. Against Preston - a team that were supposedly trying to catch. So it would even have benefited us if the dive had worked.

 

[JustLookin]

Bamford gonna Bamf.

 

[Dkc]

If that's a Liverpool or Man City player and it goes to VR in the PL it's a pen. Any contact means it's given.

 

[Carlton Blade]

It takes a certain personality to be a referee. They often have to make the match about them and hate it when anyone questions them. Last week it was Tanganga who made some valid points to the ref regarding the Soumare sending off - as soon as he committed a foul he was off. This week Bamford had spoke to the ref not long before the second Yellow and he is off.

Looking at the Sky replay the goalie definitely made contact, we have a strong case to appeal, but what do you think the FA will do - Typically, only about 10% to 20% of appealed red cards are successfully overturned and you risk and increased ban. Clubs only appeal when they believe it is clearly wrong the FA just back the Ref's.

It was a blatant dive, he started falling before the keeper got there. He was apologising before he hit the floor.

I don't like referees. Bamford got himself sent off and knew he'd fucked up immediately

 

[Bladesman]

The first yellow is more daft from the ref given everything that had gone on in the match before. Their players trying to go for ours at half time for example and all Bamford has done is complain that the ball went out off their player and his tackle was fair (which it was by the way)

Their players spent most the match falling over also makes his second yellow for his dive somewhat unfair.

 

[JohnDenver]

Also, the ‘best’ outcome that he could have hoped for would be a red card. That would mean we get five minutes against ten men, when we’re already 3-1 or 4-1 up. But… it would mean that Ipswich would be without their first choice keeper in their next game. Against Preston - a team that were supposedly trying to catch. So it would even have benefited us if the dive had worked.

I’m not sure Ipswich being without that keeper would disadvantage them.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

The first yellow is more daft from the ref given everything that had gone on in the match before. Their players trying to go for ours at half time for example and all Bamford has done is complain that the ball went out off their player and his tackle was fair (which it was by the way)

Their players spent most the match falling over also makes his second yellow for his dive somewhat unfair.

Most refs apply some common sense. A red for a second dubious yellow, 99% don't give it because it is too harsh for what happened.
Not yesterday's bell end.

 

[Linz]

Most refs apply some common sense. A red for a second dubious yellow, 99% don't give it because it is too harsh for what happened.
Not yesterday's bell end.

My personal favourite was the fourth official with his 188 appearances for Chippingham Town explaining the game of football to Alan Knill...

 

[JohnDenver]

Most refs apply some common sense. A red for a second dubious yellow, 99% don't give it because it is too harsh for what happened.
Not yesterday's bell end.

The common sense bit would be to leave his card in his pocket for the first. It was pretty minor stuff. But I want to see every player booked who dives for a penalty like that. Zero tolerance.

There’s not staying on your feet when genuinely caught (the Soton lad on Wednesday has learned that), and then there’s pure scuba. And Bamford was the latter.

 

[Snowflake]

I'd not mind if there was consistency to it but the amount of opposition players I have seen taken a dive in the box at the lane and not even get booked for it.

Surely Seriki should have been booked if the ref didn’t th it was a penalty ?

 

[Yewsman]

Remember when Steve Gerrard took that dive against us? He still got the shot off but Liverpool got the free kick (or penalty, I can't remember) for intent What's the difference with this?

Don't get me wrong, I hate diving and I hate that it happens but a little consistency would be nice. If you're booking Bamford there's at least 3 Ipswich players should have been booked also.

UTBFTP

It was a penalty given to Liverpool against Chris Morgan. There was no contact at all but the ref (can’t remember his name but many others will) justified the decision on the basis that Morgs had intended to bring him down. That was the first time any one had said a foul could be given just for intent. I am not sure whether the rules of football state that intent is sufficient!
Liverpool scored from the pen and got a 1-1 draw after we had taken the lead from a Rob Hulse header.

 

[Bladesman]

Surely Seriki should have been booked if the ref didn’t th it was a penalty ?

Wilder said exactly that in his post match.

 

[Carlton Blade]

If there's contact it isn't a dive. That's the current rules. It doesn't mean it's a pen either although that's the way the game has increasing gone ("there was contact"; "he had the right to go down" etc is the narrative). I totally agree that it should be a dive if a player goes down with the referee interpreting that he didn't have too. It would transform the game for the better.

We also have the issue of players buying fouls. Eliciting contact, anticipating it and winning a free kick. Last week at Charlton Bamford does it. He should get a nailed on penalty according to current rules as their player falls for it hook, line and sinker. He doesn't.This week he tries to make the keeper bring him down and he fails. On neither occasion is he trying to score the goal or gain an in play advantage.

He started falling before the contact. Based on what you've said here, do you still think it's a foul? What if the forward initiated the contact? Still a foul?

 

[Snowflake]

Wilder said exactly that in his post match.

Maybe I should do the post match interviews ?

 

[Carlton Blade]

People always get upset about diving. I think intentional fouls to stop attacks are much worse and should be a straight red. They are often wildly out of control lunges to block a player's path and kill the whole point of the game. Greatest could very easily have injured Cannon yesterday.

They aren't 'professional', it's cheating.

 

[Bladesman]

No red card….

 

[Mumbo]

I don’t see how anyone can be positive there was no contact, only Bamford and the keeper
know for sure.

 

[Mumbo]

No red card….

Wow… That’s a pretty damming photograph,
and a straight red.

 

[JohnDenver]

No red card….

When they showed that goal on the big screen, I asked wtf is the keeper doing there? Meeting an onrushing attacker with your feet up is either incompetence or cowardice.

Don’t think it’s a red but that keeper didn’t look at all good.

 

[Geordie Blade]

No red card….

Wow… That’s a pretty damming photograph,
and a straight red.

When they showed that goal on the big screen, I asked wtf is the keeper doing there? Meeting an onrushing attacker with your feet up is either incompetence or cowardice.

Don’t think it’s a red but that keeper didn’t look at all good.

I don’t think the keeper does anything wrong. He has every right to come out and spread himself. If O’Hare stays up, he’d just jump over him and there’s no problem (this happens for almost all one-on-ones).

It’s the defender who pushes O’Hare over who should get a red. It’s a very clear push, and it was clearly endangered an opponent (by pushing him over into an oncoming keeper). Really dangerous play from the defender, and cowardly too, since he knew he wasn’t getting the ball.

 

[JohnDenver]

I don’t think the keeper does anything wrong. He has every right to come out and spread himself. If O’Hare stays up, he’d just jump over him and there’s no problem (this happens for almost all one-on-ones).

It’s the defender who pushes O’Hare over who should get a red. It’s a very clear push, and it was clearly endangered an opponent (by pushing him over into an oncoming keeper). Really dangerous play from the defender, and cowardly too, since he knew he wasn’t getting the ball.

I agree those little pushes are very common and dangerous.

But I still think the keeper shouldn’t be on his arse with his boots raised.

 

[Grey Blade]

And the first yellow was pure stupidity.

Funnily enough a player in the Prem kicked an advertising hoarding yesterday but as far as I could tell he wasn't cautioned.
Daft thing to do but I wish he'd kicked it harder and broken it then there would have been less flashing lights to distract us.