Shrimpsvoices

According to AdamSmitz on Twitter, the Hughes sending off gets worse the more you watch it?
Is this man rabidly bias. Probably. Deluded? Definitely.

Denying a goal scoring opportunity, pulled him back a yard outside the D, straight red, goodbye.
Get over it you bitter one eyed idiot.


Feel better now, Nurse? Nurse?

I've seen the footage just the once on Channel 5 and it was a sending off any day of the week.

Never a more obvious sending off has there EVER been.

It was on a par with Kevin Moran in the 1985 Cup Final for being an obvious walking offence!!!

Made all the sweeter with it being Sammy The Shrimp, sorry, Mark Hughes, doing the offending too !!!

Freez wrote:According to AdamSmitz on Twitter, the Hughes sending off gets worse the more you watch it?
Is this man rabidly bias. Probably. Deluded? Definitely.

Denying a goal scoring opportunity, pulled him back a yard outside the D, straight red, goodbye.
Get over it you bitter one eyed idiot.


Feel better now, Nurse? Nurse?

If they think it was such a bad decision , are they appealing ?

He looks like a 14/15 year old he's maybe abit salty due to losing

And I have put if they don't think it is a foul why haven't they appealed,oh they know that its a foul and pointless appealing it to get a extra match ban

From behind the goal with my rain socked eyes I thought; 'wonder if the defender is getting back there' - it was at the other end of the ground from us.

Having seen the replay Hughes has given the referee no option but to give the red card - an excellent decision. The covering defender is diagonally behind Hughes, ahead of Stockton is the goal; the defender isn't cutting across from a wide area to block a shot or put in the challenge, he is coming from behind Stockton. The pull-back has denied Cole a clear shot at goal. Sugar with those grapes?!?

Spot on. Also Hughes's pull obviously slows Cole down just as he's bursting through so hed of been even further ahead of the other defender. If you only look at the positions 'after' the pull then you could claim there was cover but not when the incident happend. it was definitly a goalscoring opportunity. No argument.

Trevor wrote:Spot on. Also Hughes's pull obviously slows Cole down just as he's bursting through so hed of been even further ahead of the other defender. If you only look at the positions 'after' the pull then you could claim there was cover but not when the incident happend. it was definitly a goalscoring opportunity. No argument.

Having a read of the Accrington forum, they are claiming that it was at least "six of one, half a dozen of the other" in that Stockton was pulling Hughes shirt / grabbing him first. Conveniently you can't see any of this as the camera only pans to them once Hughes is man handling him as Stockton tries to burst past.

Do I read correctly from jon MFC fan's post that if a club appeals and fails, this results in an extended ban ?

Yes, extended ban, and I believe extra costs!
I believe it is to deter clubs from appealing every decision.

Somewhat unfortunate for us that Luke is away for 2 games albeit representing his country whilst 'thug' Hughes gets only a 1 match ban for physical abuse.....

Christies Child wrote:Somewhat unfortunate for us that Luke is away for 2 games albeit representing his country whilst 'thug' Hughes gets only a 1 match ban for physical abuse.....

Looked more like a hug than a thug!

Well I thought it was a sending off on the day and having watched the replay several times I cant possibly see how it can be anything else, pathetic really we beat them at last in the league on their ground and they just cant accept it.

talking about penalties