If you're a goalkeeper and you're injured you go down, otherwise you risk the game not stopping and not being in position as the last line of defence. Maybe you don't go down as if you're auditioning for the National Theatre, and TBH it was a bit dramatic, but you don't just hop around.
I think our man made a meal of it to get him sent off , it happens all the time and he is not unique in his actions but I think it is wrong . If I think of any times when someone has flicked out a foot at me man or boy , on or off a pitch I can not remember going to ground on any occasion and he is a similar size to me . The other guy should not have kicked him though and needs to take some of the responsibility imo .
I for one am enjoying these attempts at defending the indefensible. I don't remember watching Rivaldo pretending the ball had hit him in the face and thinking "if only Wycombe players showed that level of professionalism".
All of this " it is just a part of the modern game" stuff is tosh, as is the idea that it is a "theatrical" game. Your efforts at theatre would not be applauded if you were playing your mates in the park, would they?
Pleased we won, and pleased when I see us playing out a game at the corner flag, but play acting is a bridge too far for me.
All of this " it is just a part of the modern game" stuff is tosh, as is the idea that it is a "theatrical" game. Your efforts at theatre would not be applauded if you were playing your mates in the park, would they?
Pro football is a theatrical game. If you think that every time a player hits the deck it's because of the laws of physics then you're kidding yourself.
I don't think I'm the only one whose initial reaction to seeing a pro footballer (from any team) on the floor is 'he will live'.
Everyone knows, the referee knows, the fans know, the players know that it's just a way of saying 'I've been fouled, give me a free kick'. That's why it's important for the ref to ignore players' OTT reactions.
You must have noticed that honesty with the referee isn't very highly valued in modern pro football. Surely we can agree on that. Also we can agree that it's a shame. I'd love to hear your solution though! Talented and destined for the top as he is, Matt Ingram isn't going to rid the world of play-acting. Maybe he is. If you're reading Matt.... Good luck!
@CUFCfan if you're so worried about 'stepping on people's toes' maybe you should work out what you're doing here on a Wycombe Wanderers message board calling our player a cheat because your player kicked him. How's the appeal coming along by the way? Maybe it's Mr Money you should be writing to because as far as I'm aware even your own manager doesn't have the conviction to dispute the decision with the league. Prefers to moan about it in the press. At least he's got the sense not to look for sympathy on a Wycombe fans' message board...
Ignoring the 'who did what' bit. The bottom line is that Wycombe are accused of being 'cheats' for seeking to reduce the opposition to 10 men. It is undoubtedly true that Ingram and one or two others were seeking to do just that. Is that cheating? The referee makes the decisions. Is he aiding and abetting cheating?
@floyd said:
But Pseudonymous the play acting isn't what caused the red card is it? The CU player kicked out at Matt and was rightly sent off.
I remember once Maradona - one of the most skillful players ever to take to a football pitch - saying on camera that hoodwinking the referee is one of the 'skills of the game' that should be practiced. He was a lot less great in my eyes after that.
I just wonder if all players are under instructions from our management to do all they can (legally) to get other players sent off, or whether it's something they decide themselves? The ref should have told Ingram to get up and stop p*ssing about on the floor - it was a nothing incident that barely merited a talking to. Call me naive, but "win at all costs" doesn't sit comfortably with me at all.
Ainsworth's always been a bit of a dirty player on the pitch, and a loudmouth off it. I imagine he instructs his players in the same school of thought.
You might as well try and enjoy it. If he was playing/managing for an opponent, you'd absolutely hate him getting one over on us.
@LordMandeville said:
Ignoring the 'who did what' bit. The bottom line is that Wycombe are accused of being 'cheats' for seeking to reduce the opposition to 10 men. It is undoubtedly true that Ingram and one or two others were seeking to do just that. Is that cheating? The referee makes the decisions. Is he aiding and abetting cheating?
When I got into my school cricket team I did not appeal for the opponent's wicket unless I thought it had gone. The captain explained that it was my job to appeal and let the umpire make the call. Blooms did the right thing upon seeing his keeper down and Matty going down after getting kicked is entirely understandable.
As for theatricks on the park, our group used to applaud the best simulation of the day! Streeteise we are now, destined for glory perhaps. COYB!
@Grawlix said:
"The ref should have told Ingram to get up and stop p*ssing about on the floor - it was a nothing incident that barely merited a talking to. Call me naive, but "win at all costs" doesn't sit comfortably with me at all."
@LordMandeville said:
Ignoring the 'who did what' bit. The bottom line is that Wycombe are accused of being 'cheats' for seeking to reduce the opposition to 10 men. It is undoubtedly true that Ingram and one or two others were seeking to do just that. Is that cheating? The referee makes the decisions. Is he aiding and abetting cheating?
Not sure if it's cheating but it is weasley and I'm not into weasley
@LordMandeville said:
Ignoring the 'who did what' bit. The bottom line is that Wycombe are accused of being 'cheats' for seeking to reduce the opposition to 10 men. It is undoubtedly true that Ingram and one or two others were seeking to do just that. Is that cheating? The referee makes the decisions. Is he aiding and abetting cheating?
That would be an odd interpretation. Unless he is biased, the referee is the arbiter. A bit much to pass the blame onto him to the extent that "being conned" can be cast as "assisting cheating". Every wrong decision a referee makes, both he and the wronged team are being cheated.
@floyd said:
But Pseudonymous the play acting isn't what caused the red card is it? The CU player kicked out at Matt and was rightly sent off.
Acting wasn't the only cause the sending off, but surely you wouldn't argue it didn't contribute to the decision? I agree the initial kick was needed ti give Ingram the opportunity to do what he did.
@Pseudonymous said:
Acting wasn't the only cause the sending off, but surely you wouldn't argue it didn't contribute to the decision? I agree the initial kick was needed ti give Ingram the opportunity to do what he did.
It's impossible to say isn't it? Wasn't Matt Bloomfield as culpable running at the ref when he probably hadn't seen what put Matt Ingram on the floor?
I'm not defending the actions of either player, but by the letter, and the spirit of the law, the red card was deserved.
Richard Money should blame himself, when he decided which player to stick on the keeper, he should have chosen one with the right temperament.
The player on the keeper is often not chosen for his heading ability, but to niggle and disrupt the keepers sight and access to the ball.
You go in there knowing you are playing barely within the laws of the game, and should
know you are gonna get some treatment from the defending side.
To lash out at the first touch of contact shows your not the man for the job, and more
foolish, is the management's decision to allocate you that job.
Comments
If you're a goalkeeper and you're injured you go down, otherwise you risk the game not stopping and not being in position as the last line of defence. Maybe you don't go down as if you're auditioning for the National Theatre, and TBH it was a bit dramatic, but you don't just hop around.
I think our man made a meal of it to get him sent off , it happens all the time and he is not unique in his actions but I think it is wrong . If I think of any times when someone has flicked out a foot at me man or boy , on or off a pitch I can not remember going to ground on any occasion and he is a similar size to me . The other guy should not have kicked him though and needs to take some of the responsibility imo .
What most of you are ignoring is that Ingram deliberately looked for McGeehan's feet and stepped on them.
I hope you lot stay down.
Then we'll play you next season and thrash you home and away. Cheats.
Is it that you need new rivals now you never play Peterbrough now? All a bit mid-noughties Reading isn't it?
You're getting boring now
Yep he's made the same point in several posts luckily we have a game tomorrow and can all move on.
Col U fan?
@CUFCfan Cry me a river
I for one am enjoying these attempts at defending the indefensible. I don't remember watching Rivaldo pretending the ball had hit him in the face and thinking "if only Wycombe players showed that level of professionalism".
All of this " it is just a part of the modern game" stuff is tosh, as is the idea that it is a "theatrical" game. Your efforts at theatre would not be applauded if you were playing your mates in the park, would they?
Pleased we won, and pleased when I see us playing out a game at the corner flag, but play acting is a bridge too far for me.
But @Pseudonymous the play acting isn't what caused the red card is it? The CU player kicked out at Matt and was rightly sent off.
Pro football is a theatrical game. If you think that every time a player hits the deck it's because of the laws of physics then you're kidding yourself.
I don't think I'm the only one whose initial reaction to seeing a pro footballer (from any team) on the floor is 'he will live'.
Everyone knows, the referee knows, the fans know, the players know that it's just a way of saying 'I've been fouled, give me a free kick'. That's why it's important for the ref to ignore players' OTT reactions.
You must have noticed that honesty with the referee isn't very highly valued in modern pro football. Surely we can agree on that. Also we can agree that it's a shame. I'd love to hear your solution though! Talented and destined for the top as he is, Matt Ingram isn't going to rid the world of play-acting. Maybe he is. If you're reading Matt.... Good luck!
@CUFCfan if you're so worried about 'stepping on people's toes' maybe you should work out what you're doing here on a Wycombe Wanderers message board calling our player a cheat because your player kicked him. How's the appeal coming along by the way? Maybe it's Mr Money you should be writing to because as far as I'm aware even your own manager doesn't have the conviction to dispute the decision with the league. Prefers to moan about it in the press. At least he's got the sense not to look for sympathy on a Wycombe fans' message board...
Ignoring the 'who did what' bit. The bottom line is that Wycombe are accused of being 'cheats' for seeking to reduce the opposition to 10 men. It is undoubtedly true that Ingram and one or two others were seeking to do just that. Is that cheating? The referee makes the decisions. Is he aiding and abetting cheating?
I remember once Maradona - one of the most skillful players ever to take to a football pitch - saying on camera that hoodwinking the referee is one of the 'skills of the game' that should be practiced. He was a lot less great in my eyes after that.
I just wonder if all players are under instructions from our management to do all they can (legally) to get other players sent off, or whether it's something they decide themselves? The ref should have told Ingram to get up and stop p*ssing about on the floor - it was a nothing incident that barely merited a talking to. Call me naive, but "win at all costs" doesn't sit comfortably with me at all.
Ainsworth's always been a bit of a dirty player on the pitch, and a loudmouth off it. I imagine he instructs his players in the same school of thought.
You might as well try and enjoy it. If he was playing/managing for an opponent, you'd absolutely hate him getting one over on us.
When I got into my school cricket team I did not appeal for the opponent's wicket unless I thought it had gone. The captain explained that it was my job to appeal and let the umpire make the call. Blooms did the right thing upon seeing his keeper down and Matty going down after getting kicked is entirely understandable.
As for theatricks on the park, our group used to applaud the best simulation of the day! Streeteise we are now, destined for glory perhaps. COYB!
Agree 100%
Not sure if it's cheating but it is weasley and I'm not into weasley
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Weasley#/image/File:Ron_Weasley_poster.jpg
That would be an odd interpretation. Unless he is biased, the referee is the arbiter. A bit much to pass the blame onto him to the extent that "being conned" can be cast as "assisting cheating". Every wrong decision a referee makes, both he and the wronged team are being cheated.
Acting wasn't the only cause the sending off, but surely you wouldn't argue it didn't contribute to the decision? I agree the initial kick was needed ti give Ingram the opportunity to do what he did.
It's impossible to say isn't it? Wasn't Matt Bloomfield as culpable running at the ref when he probably hadn't seen what put Matt Ingram on the floor?
I'm not defending the actions of either player, but by the letter, and the spirit of the law, the red card was deserved.
Richard Money should blame himself, when he decided which player to stick on the keeper, he should have chosen one with the right temperament.
The player on the keeper is often not chosen for his heading ability, but to niggle and disrupt the keepers sight and access to the ball.
You go in there knowing you are playing barely within the laws of the game, and should
know you are gonna get some treatment from the defending side.
To lash out at the first touch of contact shows your not the man for the job, and more
foolish, is the management's decision to allocate you that job.