shrimperjon
President
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 6,535
Which means " Southend Are due a HUGE win against Morecambe"
Morecombe had never beaten Wycombe before yesterday!
Which means " Southend Are due a HUGE win against Morecambe"
Morecombe had never beaten Wycombe before yesterday!
Funnily enough, when there's a sin bin involved, players start behaving themselves. I umpire hockey at the same level as League 1 in football, and I can tell you for a fact that when you make players concentrate more on their tackling you get a much more open, skillful game.
I agree that Cokers foul technically wasn't a red card - that wasn't my argument. But his foul was deliberate and cynical and for that IMHO he should be made to leave the pitch - my argument is that the rules need changing to do that.
I dont think it was , the tv footage appears to indicate that Coker tripped himself up pulling out of a challenge, fell behind the Luton player and brushed his back foot with his hand. Didnt look deliberate or cynical to meFunnily enough, when there's a sin bin involved, players start behaving themselves. I umpire hockey at the same level as League 1 in football, and I can tell you for a fact that when you make players concentrate more on their tackling you get a much more open, skillful game.
I agree that Cokers foul technically wasn't a red card - that wasn't my argument. But his foul was deliberate and cynical and for that IMHO he should be made to leave the pitch - my argument is that the rules need changing to do that.
Funnily enough, when there's a sin bin involved, players start behaving themselves. I umpire hockey at the same level as League 1 in football, and I can tell you for a fact that when you make players concentrate more on their tackling you get a much more open, skillful game.
I agree that Cokers foul technically wasn't a red card - that wasn't my argument. But his foul was deliberate and cynical and for that IMHO he should be made to leave the pitch - my argument is that the rules need changing to do that.
Surprising what a bit of pressure does to teams.Once news had filtered through that Bury were two up,Wycombe concede a goal and Southend lose arguably their best defender (albeit you did end up winning but he misses last game).
Cant be certain but who knows as in truth he did not need to be reckless as there were other defenders around that area.It was a rash challenge and he should be banned.It was similar to when our full back was sent off and missed 3 games.Seen it on the fl show.You're surely not suggesting that your lot scoring contributed to Cokes getting set off?? Behave! and he only misses out if an appeal fails, so it ain't over yet.
Cant be certain but who knows as in truth he did not need to be reckless as there were other defenders around that area.It was a rash challenge and he should be banned.It was similar to when our full back was sent off and missed 3 games.Seen it on the fl show.
Far from a WUM.Just try to be as true as i can be regarding teams and situations.Just because i think he should be banned does not make me a WUM.No matter whichever team he played for id be saying the same thing.If anything,its you being biased if you think a tackle like that deserves no ban.
I will give you that one then.Yeah, but the point is this is the Shrimper Zone message board so I'm completely allowed to be as biased as I want. And I want him available for Morecambe.
Cant be certain but who knows as in truth he did not need to be reckless as there were other defenders around that area.It was a rash challenge and he should be banned.It was similar to when our full back was sent off and missed 3 games.Seen it on the fl show.