|
Post by pawlo on Feb 22, 2004 13:33:33 GMT 1
persistant fouling??? If Luke was booked again for persistant fouling, then it's no-ones fault but the ref How on earth is it the refs fault? Yes the ref was crap, but he stood in front of Luke and told him twice " No More", and what did Luke do, instead of staying clear of the fray for a few minutes, he went getting mixed up in it virtualy straight away. Whether he did enough to deserve a booking for the second time is debateable, but Luke was given plenty of warnings. I agree his second booking was not a foul in the same sence that their sent of players was, but Luke showed a shocking lack of maturity in allowing himself to get dragged into it again so soon after being told not to.
|
|
|
Post by skipwithrob on Feb 22, 2004 17:05:33 GMT 1
The point was that Luke did not persistantly foul. The ref interpreted it as persistant fouling, but half the free kicks that were given against him should never have been given against him, including the one that got him sent off. Thus it was no-one elses fault other than the refs that Luke got sent off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2004 18:20:45 GMT 1
How on earth is it the refs fault? Whether he did enough to deserve a booking for the second time is debateable. PAB mate, read the two lines in your post. They totally contradict each other. I'm not going to say that Luke shouldn't have played it cooler. However, he should not have got sent off yesterday. That is most people's point I think?
|
|
|
Post by Mart-The-Shrew on Feb 22, 2004 19:42:31 GMT 1
The final time the ref penalised Luke before he was sent off he wa waving his arms in such an over the top way that it was clearly saying that's his last foul Mr Quinn (ie get him off now) I think Quinn knew he screwed up as he was saying on radio Shropshire he was trying to get Cramb on but it was too late. I may be wrong but there seemed an awful long time between that foul and the next one which saw the end of Luke .
Also I have to say that I think one of the big reasons for our improvement in the second half was the aggression of Luke and whilst last season Luke getting sent off was a serious cause for concern, this season we have any number of strikers who could do a job. Avanti Luke!keep seeing the red mist !!!
|
|
|
Post by peterjones1 on Feb 22, 2004 19:53:14 GMT 1
Jody and Cramb were both stripped and ready to come on after Lukes final warning, then Quinn sat them back down and brought Edwards on for Tolley instead
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 22, 2004 19:55:03 GMT 1
O'Connor got injured at that time and had to receive treatment from Deano, that probably put some doubt into Quinn's mind over what substitutions to make
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Feb 22, 2004 20:06:59 GMT 1
I don't think he should have been sent off, of course not
Skippy is right that half the free kicks against him were out of order, he was being singled out unfairly by the ref, yes.
But the reason he got a second yellow wasn't for that foul i don't think, it was for the five fouls that the ref stacked up in his mind, warned Luke about, warned Luke again and then sent him off
It was the same with Cramb at Chester, sometimes the ref just goes for a player and Cramb had the sense to get himself subbed before he got sent off
I do think the ref was wrong, i think Rodgers could have been a bit more chilled and Quinn certainly missed his chance to protect Rodgers.
|
|
|
Post by skipwithrob on Feb 22, 2004 23:49:04 GMT 1
Agree Throb, I'm just amazed and dissapointed that people are suggesting that Luke is a tw@t and that he shouldnt be playing.
|
|
|
Post by P'boro shrew on Feb 23, 2004 0:03:13 GMT 1
How people can call for Luke to be sold or critise him is beyond me....! Yes he is low on confidence and maybe trying to hard but the goals will come. All I can say is that they have very short memories this boy is quality....! slagging him off will not help...!
|
|
|
Post by skipwithrob on Feb 23, 2004 0:20:18 GMT 1
herehere
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Feb 23, 2004 3:44:40 GMT 1
For the record, I dont think Luke is a tw*t, and I dont want to see him leave. But he certainly is not the player he was 12 - 18 months ago. His first touch, his pace and his eye for goal seem to have gone for the time being. He still is in my opinion a great little player though because as we know, scoring goals is only part of a strikers role, and Luke does scare the cr*p out of defences and draw people in, leaving space for others. But, Luke got himself sent off yesterday, the ref was a dick but Luke was really pushing his luck. How many times was Luke spoken to by the ref?
|
|
|
Post by sara and sabrina on Feb 24, 2004 15:30:13 GMT 1
i dont think luke rodgers should of been sent off because he is really great a t footie he is a quality footie player and most younger lads wana play like him cause he is so good
|
|
|
Post by Mr T on Feb 24, 2004 16:08:37 GMT 1
If it was a case of Quinn thinking O'Conner might be injured then surely he should have delayed Tolley's substitution in case he needed to bring Edwards on for O'Connor instead of delaying Cramb for Rogers.
It was obvious rodgers was on his last warning so he should have been subbed at the first opportunity.
If there was enough time to bring Edwards on for Tolley then there was also enough time to bring Cramb on for Rogers.
|
|