They are suggesting the ball was already dead after a foul on Andy Butler before Nards challenge - no one that was there has mentioned this - had the whistle already gone?

http://www.htafc.com/page/MatchReport/0 ... 72,00.html

Well if the ball was already dead , why did the keeper come charging towards nardiello did he have the intent of getting a fellow professional sent off ?????

I remember a similar incident at chester a few year ago with nelson been sent off

but what should that have to do with anything, is my question. Reactions and/or extent of injuries should not determine what colour the card is, or if there should be a card at all - it surely should be the intent/malice involved.
A pure mistimed tackle should not even be a yellow card, and that is where ref's discretion has to be used. The linesman wants gassing for his input on that incident, and so does the ref - and all of Huddersfield's players involved in the melee.
How come we were the only people in the ground who could see the situation was being manufactured by their team?

A lot of it comes down to the pathetic amount of protection that keepers get these days. If Nardiello had comitted the foul on an outfield player then would he have got sent off? Doubtful. What's the difference? There is nothing in the rules that say a foul on a goalie is any more severe than a foul on an outfield player so unless Nardiello was guilty of serious fould play then he should have remained on the pitch.

It's the same with goalies and strikers going for the same ball, the slightest bit of contact and the goalie gets the free kick. It's the single most frustrating decision in football.

Referees are doing their very best to deprive us of points and success this season and it's starting to fck me off!

Good point

I'm a bit confused here with the comparisons to Carlton Cole's challenge.

Now I haven't seen last night's challenge yet, but the general consensus on Cole's challenge was that he should have been sent off. The gerneral consensus on Nardiello's challenge is that he shouldn't have been sent off, yet people are saying the tackles are similar.

You can't have it both ways.

For the record, I didn't think Cole's was a red. He had been knocked off his balance before he got his leg into Barrett's midriff/ball so there was no forward motion and no power behind the tackle. He just seem to put out his leg as he was falling.

I've only seen it on tv once and I think the nardiello challenge looks worse, hes going in at pace feet first and I looks as if the contact was with the keepers head which I know shouldnt make a difference - that said only one angle from last night not the two as in the Cole incident

cant a still be used for an appeal ?

stick it up then!

just seen it and to be fair dont think its that conclusive, ok ball not in keepers hands but you cant tell which direction he's sliding in from - it does show his studs are showing though - if those that were there say he made contact with the ball first thats good enough for me

The keeper charged out and didn't even get a touch on the ball, yet because Nardiello crashed into him he gets sent off. Didn't the keeper come out with just as much momentum Is football not a contact sport

yes, it is now

I remember when Nat Lofthouse used to bundle the goalie with the ball into the net and the goals stood.

You can attach it below when you press reply. Click that thing that says browse and upload it.

just watched it off the tele in slow motion and as has been said he gets to the ball either at the same time or just before the keepers outsretched fingers - so surely worth an appeal

The thing Mr Reef even though what you are saying is correct they'll say that Nardiello went in with 'intent'. This was something invented to cover shite officials who when they see replays and the player got the ball they have an insurance policy called 'intent'.

It's frustrating but pointless, these not nice people won't give a club like Pools the time of day.

Did we not have a major foul given against us once....not because it was a foul but because the player intended to foul? I seem to remember something like that.