Who's the w***** in the black?
-
proudtosaythatname
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:12 pm
Who's the w***** in the black?
It's just like old times again. Allow the thugs to kick Arsenal and send off our players if they even make as if to retaliate. If Gilberto deserved a straight red and 3 match ban (which he didn't, of course) then Savage should get 6 months in Wormwood Scrubs for common assault. And why wasn't Neill sent off for preventing VP's goal-scoring opportunity (ignore the fact that we scored anyway). Mr Styles is a prat of the first order, which he really must feel after his miserable performance. Maybe he did us a favour too - remember how the Van Diver/Vieira red card for a similar non-contact retaliation boosted the team's resolve and set the springboard for the Invincibles. The media - they pretend they love to watch us play - but they can't bear it when we win. Tough!
gooner.ed, who let Rob Styles' dad on the website??Rilo wrote:I'm sorry but Gilberto's was a red card offence. He lashed out, and as soon as he did it became a send off offence. Notice how he didn't protest, because he knew he would go.
Stop looking at the ref and Savage, Gilberto is 100% to blame for it. Someone with his experience should have known better.
-
proudtosaythatname
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:12 pm
Who's the w***** in the black?
Grandad Styles misses the point - a bit like his son, who convemiently misses what he wants to. Technically, yes, it was a red card: but the point is that Savage-by-nature provoked Gilberto to the extent that even Mother Teresa would have kicked out. Belatedly, Lily tried to pretend he didn't want Gil to be sent off - knowing the decision was irreversible. Actually, all he was doing was trying to avoid being sent off himself, which he clearly expected. Baby Styles' subsequent lack of a red for Neill just confirmed what we all knew by then - Styles hates 'stylish' Arsenal - and the feeling is mutual! 
1. RVP set the ball too far out ahead of himself, and the two defenders (particularly the one coming in from the left) would have made up the ground to make a challenge, so no, that wasn't a sending off offence.
2. Savage did provoke Gilberto, no doubt. But that doesn't alter the fact that Gilberto was completely in the wrong. Someone with his experience, and who is vice captain at a club full of young players, should be able to control himself and set an example. There is no point looking to blame everyone else in this situation, it just makes you look petty.
Sometimes you just need to accept that your player is in the wrong and let it go. Roles reversed, if Savage kicked out at Gil in the exact same way, you all would have been livid if he didn't go. Show a little consistency eh
2. Savage did provoke Gilberto, no doubt. But that doesn't alter the fact that Gilberto was completely in the wrong. Someone with his experience, and who is vice captain at a club full of young players, should be able to control himself and set an example. There is no point looking to blame everyone else in this situation, it just makes you look petty.
Sometimes you just need to accept that your player is in the wrong and let it go. Roles reversed, if Savage kicked out at Gil in the exact same way, you all would have been livid if he didn't go. Show a little consistency eh
-
elpelsarmy
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:47 am
Well said that man, doesnt change that Savage is a total wanker but at the end of the day Gilberto retaliated and because the rules dont allow for common sense he had to go. I dont agree that Neil should not have been sent off though, RVP was away and with his speed over ten yards the defenders would never have caught him in a million years which would have resulted in a goal scoring opportunity, That was denied so Neil should have walked. The defenders were behind RVP at the time, how many defenders could catch him in a race??
Unfortunately Gilberto did have to go in my opinion. It wasn't dangerous or malicious, and Savage was heavily provoking him and did make a 4 course meal of it. But with the rules as they are today you can't kick out at someone no matter how much contact you make.
As for Neill it was a synical poor excuse for a challenge. But again rules as they are, I think defenders were getting round so probably not a red card. However Kolo made him pay!!
However...... Gilberto risked getting a little bit of mud on Savage's sock and gets a 3 match ban. Tugay was lucky not to break Cesc's ankle with the ref stood 5 yards away looking straight at it, and all he gets is a yellow card?? If Styles wanted confirmation of how late and nasty the tackle was he just had to look at the state of Cesc's sock (and the skin underneath).
Yes Gilberto had to go but where is the logic and balance when a player gets 3 matches for something stupid but trivial, but nothing for a player who threatens serious injury to a player?? But of course with the rules, no retrospective action can be taken against Tugay as "the ref saw the incident". A load of bollocks and an F'ing disgrace.
As for Neill it was a synical poor excuse for a challenge. But again rules as they are, I think defenders were getting round so probably not a red card. However Kolo made him pay!!
However...... Gilberto risked getting a little bit of mud on Savage's sock and gets a 3 match ban. Tugay was lucky not to break Cesc's ankle with the ref stood 5 yards away looking straight at it, and all he gets is a yellow card?? If Styles wanted confirmation of how late and nasty the tackle was he just had to look at the state of Cesc's sock (and the skin underneath).
Yes Gilberto had to go but where is the logic and balance when a player gets 3 matches for something stupid but trivial, but nothing for a player who threatens serious injury to a player?? But of course with the rules, no retrospective action can be taken against Tugay as "the ref saw the incident". A load of bollocks and an F'ing disgrace.
