AFC Bournemouth: Pugh rejects Almunia's dive claim

'I WOULD NEVER DIVE': AFC Bournemouth winger Marc Pugh

'I WOULD NEVER DIVE': AFC Bournemouth winger Marc Pugh

First published in Sport
Last updated
Bournemouth Echo: Photograph of the Author by

MARC Pugh rejected claims he had taken a dive to win Cherries a second penalty during their incident-packed 1-1 draw with Watford on Saturday.

Winger Pugh went to ground following a clash involving Hornets pair Manuel Almunia and Fitz Hall just 10 minutes after Cherries had been awarded their first spot-kick.

Former Arsenal goalkeeper Almunia, who subsequently saved Lewis Grabban’s second penalty, said neither he nor defender Hall had made any contact with Pugh.

Pugh, in an exclusive interview with the Daily Echo, said: “I felt somebody clip me from behind. I was clean through on goal so there was no need to go down because I would have had a tap in.

“I certainly thought it was a penalty but everyone else can make their own judgement after they have seen it again. I don’t agree with their goalkeeper’s view of the incident. I would never dive.

“Either the defender or the goalkeeper caught me and I felt the contact. I would have scored if I hadn’t been brought down.”

Almunia kept out Grabban’s second spot-kick and pulled off stunning saves from follow-up efforts from Cherries duo Matt Ritchie and Eunan O’Kane.

The Spaniard was beaten by Grabban’s first penalty which was awarded for a shirt tug on the Cherries striker.

And although Gabriele Angella received a straight red card for the infringement, television replays clearly showed he was the victim of a case of mistaken identity.

Almunia said: “For the first penalty, sometimes they are given and sometimes they aren’t. For the second one, I didn’t touch the player and neither did my team-mate. He fell down a couple of metres after the actions.

“I was so surprised when the referee pointed to the spot. I couldn’t believe it and thought he had given a goal-kick. I didn’t realise there was a striker around me and I only touched my team-mate.”

Pugh received the backing of his captain Tommy Elphick who said: “If you dive in, you are going to give away penalties. I am a big believer in staying on your feet and defending properly.

“All the time you are tugging at people’s shirts and diving in, you are vulnerable so I thought they were both definite penalties.

“I thought the second one was even more so than the first one and the referee ended up booking the centre-half so I don’t quite know how that works out. If the second player had been sent off, I think we would have gone on to win comfortably.”

Comments (62)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:53am Mon 20 Jan 14

TedMacsCherryPants says...

I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point!
I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point! TedMacsCherryPants
  • Score: -4

7:22am Mon 20 Jan 14

pokesdown1 says...

Diving, aka Simulation,as well as Yanking and Pulling in the Area,is now part of the game and we are the mugs paying to watch,and accept it,for or against.

In the words of most co-commentators on TV...He was entitled to go down.

Go Down is pro talk for Dive.
Diving, aka Simulation,as well as Yanking and Pulling in the Area,is now part of the game and we are the mugs paying to watch,and accept it,for or against. In the words of most co-commentators on TV...He was entitled to go down. Go Down is pro talk for Dive. pokesdown1
  • Score: -9

7:42am Mon 20 Jan 14

Solentcherry says...

Tommy, Lee and Cookie beware !. The master diver may be playing on Saturday.
Tommy, Lee and Cookie beware !. The master diver may be playing on Saturday. Solentcherry
  • Score: 15

7:49am Mon 20 Jan 14

ifordcherry says...

Watford are by far the most pathetic side at falling over as if shot that i have seen at our ground this season ....FACT...Go back to Luton and learn how to stand on your own 2 feet....Or should i say go back to Italy !!
Watford are by far the most pathetic side at falling over as if shot that i have seen at our ground this season ....FACT...Go back to Luton and learn how to stand on your own 2 feet....Or should i say go back to Italy !! ifordcherry
  • Score: -16

7:53am Mon 20 Jan 14

Afcbpete says...

Almunia was more than lucky not to be sent off, had he of been, the out come of the game could very well have been different. Watford were just a bunch of cheating prima donna's, and I'm certainly pleased I don't have to watch THAT every other week!!
Almunia was more than lucky not to be sent off, had he of been, the out come of the game could very well have been different. Watford were just a bunch of cheating prima donna's, and I'm certainly pleased I don't have to watch THAT every other week!! Afcbpete
  • Score: -8

8:27am Mon 20 Jan 14

susi.m says...

Watched the footage.
Watched the footage. susi.m
  • Score: 1

8:45am Mon 20 Jan 14

cherrygood says...

I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in.

If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances.

Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net.
I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in. If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances. Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net. cherrygood
  • Score: -7

9:07am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

TedMacsCherryPants wrote:
I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point!
Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall.

Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan.

I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.
[quote][p][bold]TedMacsCherryPants[/bold] wrote: I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point![/p][/quote]Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall. Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan. I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 23

9:19am Mon 20 Jan 14

Afcbpete says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
TedMacsCherryPants wrote:
I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point!
Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall.

Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan.

I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.
Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!!
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TedMacsCherryPants[/bold] wrote: I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point![/p][/quote]Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall. Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan. I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.[/p][/quote]Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!! Afcbpete
  • Score: -22

9:30am Mon 20 Jan 14

swanagecherrie says...

I think in the Ipswich game not sure tho Rantie had the same decision and decided to jump over the incoming goalkeeper, Willo said maybe he was a little to honest, players can't win on this one if it goes wrong. I do think after seeing it on t.v he got caught so went down that's the modern game now feel a little touch and down you go. I think Watford is the last team to complain as buy far the worst team seen at dean court for diving time wasting and trying to con the ref. However another game dominated by afcb and still no goals in open play and only one out of two penalty's looked a lot like Swansea yesterday nice neat pretty football 60% possession lost 1-3. Unfortunately good strikers cost a lot of money and with FFP rules we have to be careful I'm sure we will still stay up which is all we wanted this season. Bigger stadium needed if we do so we can continue to build our fan base.
I think in the Ipswich game not sure tho Rantie had the same decision and decided to jump over the incoming goalkeeper, Willo said maybe he was a little to honest, players can't win on this one if it goes wrong. I do think after seeing it on t.v he got caught so went down that's the modern game now feel a little touch and down you go. I think Watford is the last team to complain as buy far the worst team seen at dean court for diving time wasting and trying to con the ref. However another game dominated by afcb and still no goals in open play and only one out of two penalty's looked a lot like Swansea yesterday nice neat pretty football 60% possession lost 1-3. Unfortunately good strikers cost a lot of money and with FFP rules we have to be careful I'm sure we will still stay up which is all we wanted this season. Bigger stadium needed if we do so we can continue to build our fan base. swanagecherrie
  • Score: -1

9:31am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

cherrygood wrote:
I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in.

If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances.

Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net.
Look again and you will see Hall is blocking Almunia's path to Pugh. He could not bring him down if he wanted to. Hall got the ball legit and caused Hall to stumble and the ball was going away from goal. Hall's left boot touches Pugh's back leg and out comes a swan dive. Had he stayed on his feet he knew the goal line would have had at least two people in his path again and a tight angle.

That was why Almunia was so incensed, as a fellow pro was trying to get him sent off having already got a pen.

That would have been two players sent off in the space of 10 mins - both nothing to do with the incidents.

I was 3 rows into the South Stand with the penalty area line to my right.
[quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in. If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances. Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net.[/p][/quote]Look again and you will see Hall is blocking Almunia's path to Pugh. He could not bring him down if he wanted to. Hall got the ball legit and caused Hall to stumble and the ball was going away from goal. Hall's left boot touches Pugh's back leg and out comes a swan dive. Had he stayed on his feet he knew the goal line would have had at least two people in his path again and a tight angle. That was why Almunia was so incensed, as a fellow pro was trying to get him sent off having already got a pen. That would have been two players sent off in the space of 10 mins - both nothing to do with the incidents. I was 3 rows into the South Stand with the penalty area line to my right. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 15

9:39am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

ifordcherry wrote:
Watford are by far the most pathetic side at falling over as if shot that i have seen at our ground this season ....FACT...Go back to Luton and learn how to stand on your own 2 feet....Or should i say go back to Italy !!
What has that got to do with Pugh doing a swan dive and trying to get a fellow pro sent off.

It is not relevant.

The first as commented above is part of the game. The second is a disgrace. He said he did not know who caught him but he was b/determined to get a fellow pro sent off. The wrong one as it happened.

Staying on feet - pots and kettles to Mr Pugh.
[quote][p][bold]ifordcherry[/bold] wrote: Watford are by far the most pathetic side at falling over as if shot that i have seen at our ground this season ....FACT...Go back to Luton and learn how to stand on your own 2 feet....Or should i say go back to Italy !![/p][/quote]What has that got to do with Pugh doing a swan dive and trying to get a fellow pro sent off. It is not relevant. The first as commented above is part of the game. The second is a disgrace. He said he did not know who caught him but he was b/determined to get a fellow pro sent off. The wrong one as it happened. Staying on feet - pots and kettles to Mr Pugh. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 17

9:43am Mon 20 Jan 14

CourtOffside says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in.

If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances.

Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net.
Look again and you will see Hall is blocking Almunia's path to Pugh. He could not bring him down if he wanted to. Hall got the ball legit and caused Hall to stumble and the ball was going away from goal. Hall's left boot touches Pugh's back leg and out comes a swan dive. Had he stayed on his feet he knew the goal line would have had at least two people in his path again and a tight angle.

That was why Almunia was so incensed, as a fellow pro was trying to get him sent off having already got a pen.

That would have been two players sent off in the space of 10 mins - both nothing to do with the incidents.

I was 3 rows into the South Stand with the penalty area line to my right.
You should have been ejected then.
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in. If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances. Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net.[/p][/quote]Look again and you will see Hall is blocking Almunia's path to Pugh. He could not bring him down if he wanted to. Hall got the ball legit and caused Hall to stumble and the ball was going away from goal. Hall's left boot touches Pugh's back leg and out comes a swan dive. Had he stayed on his feet he knew the goal line would have had at least two people in his path again and a tight angle. That was why Almunia was so incensed, as a fellow pro was trying to get him sent off having already got a pen. That would have been two players sent off in the space of 10 mins - both nothing to do with the incidents. I was 3 rows into the South Stand with the penalty area line to my right.[/p][/quote]You should have been ejected then. CourtOffside
  • Score: -8

9:48am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

Afcbpete wrote:
Almunia was more than lucky not to be sent off, had he of been, the out come of the game could very well have been different. Watford were just a bunch of cheating prima donna's, and I'm certainly pleased I don't have to watch THAT every other week!!
Pete - that would have been two men sent off in 10 mins who had not been the cause of the penalties.

Hall took the ball cleanly and his momentum meant a touch on Pugh's back leg. Not a pen as he has taken the ball and as Pugh took a swan dive - I think he protests too much.

Trying to get Almunia sent off having dived - what an a4se he is. I think Almunia is entitled to be peed off. It is his living and he is 36 so not a lot of games in the locker to have some pup pull one over the ref.
[quote][p][bold]Afcbpete[/bold] wrote: Almunia was more than lucky not to be sent off, had he of been, the out come of the game could very well have been different. Watford were just a bunch of cheating prima donna's, and I'm certainly pleased I don't have to watch THAT every other week!![/p][/quote]Pete - that would have been two men sent off in 10 mins who had not been the cause of the penalties. Hall took the ball cleanly and his momentum meant a touch on Pugh's back leg. Not a pen as he has taken the ball and as Pugh took a swan dive - I think he protests too much. Trying to get Almunia sent off having dived - what an a4se he is. I think Almunia is entitled to be peed off. It is his living and he is 36 so not a lot of games in the locker to have some pup pull one over the ref. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 14

9:57am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

CourtOffside wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in.

If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances.

Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net.
Look again and you will see Hall is blocking Almunia's path to Pugh. He could not bring him down if he wanted to. Hall got the ball legit and caused Hall to stumble and the ball was going away from goal. Hall's left boot touches Pugh's back leg and out comes a swan dive. Had he stayed on his feet he knew the goal line would have had at least two people in his path again and a tight angle.

That was why Almunia was so incensed, as a fellow pro was trying to get him sent off having already got a pen.

That would have been two players sent off in the space of 10 mins - both nothing to do with the incidents.

I was 3 rows into the South Stand with the penalty area line to my right.
You should have been ejected then.
Why? - I follow lots of clubs sunshine - Ayr Gretna Lincoln Forest Accrington Wolves Chelsea Reading Gillingham Plymouth Torguay Borehamwood Eastleigh.

I live closer to B'th than Watford
[quote][p][bold]CourtOffside[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in. If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances. Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net.[/p][/quote]Look again and you will see Hall is blocking Almunia's path to Pugh. He could not bring him down if he wanted to. Hall got the ball legit and caused Hall to stumble and the ball was going away from goal. Hall's left boot touches Pugh's back leg and out comes a swan dive. Had he stayed on his feet he knew the goal line would have had at least two people in his path again and a tight angle. That was why Almunia was so incensed, as a fellow pro was trying to get him sent off having already got a pen. That would have been two players sent off in the space of 10 mins - both nothing to do with the incidents. I was 3 rows into the South Stand with the penalty area line to my right.[/p][/quote]You should have been ejected then.[/p][/quote]Why? - I follow lots of clubs sunshine - Ayr Gretna Lincoln Forest Accrington Wolves Chelsea Reading Gillingham Plymouth Torguay Borehamwood Eastleigh. I live closer to B'th than Watford gloryhornet4
  • Score: 1

10:03am Mon 20 Jan 14

B'mth 56 says...

Afcbpete wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
TedMacsCherryPants wrote:
I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point!
Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall.

Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan.

I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.
Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!!
Gloryhornet - how can you say the ref didn't need help when he had already sent off one your players who was nowhere need the incident that led to the first penalty. And how can you say the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity for the second. Seems like you need help like the ref -you aren't related are you?
[quote][p][bold]Afcbpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TedMacsCherryPants[/bold] wrote: I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point![/p][/quote]Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall. Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan. I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.[/p][/quote]Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!![/p][/quote]Gloryhornet - how can you say the ref didn't need help when he had already sent off one your players who was nowhere need the incident that led to the first penalty. And how can you say the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity for the second. Seems like you need help like the ref -you aren't related are you? B'mth 56
  • Score: -7

10:21am Mon 20 Jan 14

swanagecherrie says...

Supports: Ayr Gretna Lincoln Forest Accrington Wolves Chelsea Reading Gillingham Plymouth Torguay Borehamwood Eastleigh.

Not gloryhornet ....Glory hunter surely one of these has to win each week :))
Supports: Ayr Gretna Lincoln Forest Accrington Wolves Chelsea Reading Gillingham Plymouth Torguay Borehamwood Eastleigh. Not gloryhornet ....Glory hunter surely one of these has to win each week :)) swanagecherrie
  • Score: 4

10:31am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

Afcbpete wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
TedMacsCherryPants wrote:
I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point!
Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall.

Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan.

I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.
Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!!
I am talking facts and will leave the sophistry to you.

Pete - all clubs do things no true supporters want to see - me included - don't like players rolling around on the floor and all that. Not proud of the Italian way - going down and looking at the ref for sympathy, and neither are Watford supporters. They like you like their football and are very knowledgeable about the game.

It is a step too far when pros try to get a player sent off. Pugh said he did not know who touched him, so he should let the ref make the decisions and not be an a4se.

Why is everyone after Almunia? - yes he should not have argued with the ref and he does time waste - but calling for an innocent guy to be sent off it is just silly.
[quote][p][bold]Afcbpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TedMacsCherryPants[/bold] wrote: I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point![/p][/quote]Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall. Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan. I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.[/p][/quote]Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!![/p][/quote]I am talking facts and will leave the sophistry to you. Pete - all clubs do things no true supporters want to see - me included - don't like players rolling around on the floor and all that. Not proud of the Italian way - going down and looking at the ref for sympathy, and neither are Watford supporters. They like you like their football and are very knowledgeable about the game. It is a step too far when pros try to get a player sent off. Pugh said he did not know who touched him, so he should let the ref make the decisions and not be an a4se. Why is everyone after Almunia? - yes he should not have argued with the ref and he does time waste - but calling for an innocent guy to be sent off it is just silly. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 13

10:36am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

B'mth 56 wrote:
Afcbpete wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
TedMacsCherryPants wrote:
I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point!
Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall.

Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan.

I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.
Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!!
Gloryhornet - how can you say the ref didn't need help when he had already sent off one your players who was nowhere need the incident that led to the first penalty. And how can you say the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity for the second. Seems like you need help like the ref -you aren't related are you?
The rules are clear - one ref. I talk of facts and I am happy to leave the utter b0110cks to you as this is your skills set.
[quote][p][bold]B'mth 56[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Afcbpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TedMacsCherryPants[/bold] wrote: I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point![/p][/quote]Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall. Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan. I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.[/p][/quote]Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!![/p][/quote]Gloryhornet - how can you say the ref didn't need help when he had already sent off one your players who was nowhere need the incident that led to the first penalty. And how can you say the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity for the second. Seems like you need help like the ref -you aren't related are you?[/p][/quote]The rules are clear - one ref. I talk of facts and I am happy to leave the utter b0110cks to you as this is your skills set. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 0

10:43am Mon 20 Jan 14

Catwhiskers says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
B'mth 56 wrote:
Afcbpete wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
TedMacsCherryPants wrote:
I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point!
Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall.

Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan.

I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.
Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!!
Gloryhornet - how can you say the ref didn't need help when he had already sent off one your players who was nowhere need the incident that led to the first penalty. And how can you say the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity for the second. Seems like you need help like the ref -you aren't related are you?
The rules are clear - one ref. I talk of facts and I am happy to leave the utter b0110cks to you as this is your skills set.
Go away. You are even more boring than me...... Regards.
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B'mth 56[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Afcbpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TedMacsCherryPants[/bold] wrote: I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point![/p][/quote]Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall. Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan. I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.[/p][/quote]Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!![/p][/quote]Gloryhornet - how can you say the ref didn't need help when he had already sent off one your players who was nowhere need the incident that led to the first penalty. And how can you say the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity for the second. Seems like you need help like the ref -you aren't related are you?[/p][/quote]The rules are clear - one ref. I talk of facts and I am happy to leave the utter b0110cks to you as this is your skills set.[/p][/quote]Go away. You are even more boring than me...... Regards. Catwhiskers
  • Score: -8

10:51am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

swanagecherrie wrote:
Supports: Ayr Gretna Lincoln Forest Accrington Wolves Chelsea Reading Gillingham Plymouth Torguay Borehamwood Eastleigh.

Not gloryhornet ....Glory hunter surely one of these has to win each week :))
I follow - does not mean I support them. I watch Chelsea and Wolves to see them get beat.

As for Glory Hunter -wash your mouth out. For MOTD I would prefer to watch B'th v Yeovil over any Premiership side in any competition. If it were not for the money grabbing b'...ds, teams like B'th would be much better off.

I don't watch any Euro comp or MOTD - it makes me want to puke.

Don't treat me as an enemy - I am not.
[quote][p][bold]swanagecherrie[/bold] wrote: Supports: Ayr Gretna Lincoln Forest Accrington Wolves Chelsea Reading Gillingham Plymouth Torguay Borehamwood Eastleigh. Not gloryhornet ....Glory hunter surely one of these has to win each week :))[/p][/quote]I follow - does not mean I support them. I watch Chelsea and Wolves to see them get beat. As for Glory Hunter -wash your mouth out. For MOTD I would prefer to watch B'th v Yeovil over any Premiership side in any competition. If it were not for the money grabbing b'...ds, teams like B'th would be much better off. I don't watch any Euro comp or MOTD - it makes me want to puke. Don't treat me as an enemy - I am not. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 7

10:55am Mon 20 Jan 14

Noel. says...

Looked a clear penalty to me in the South Stand, and I can't fathom why the the defender wasn't also red-carded other than the ref not wanting to make a hard decision like sending off a second player so soon after the first.

As the goalie and the defender were attempting tackles aren't they committing an offense of a double tackle - which is a penalty.
Looked a clear penalty to me in the South Stand, and I can't fathom why the the defender wasn't also red-carded other than the ref not wanting to make a hard decision like sending off a second player so soon after the first. As the goalie and the defender were attempting tackles aren't they committing an offense of a double tackle - which is a penalty. Noel.
  • Score: -4

10:57am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

Catwhiskers wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
B'mth 56 wrote:
Afcbpete wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
TedMacsCherryPants wrote:
I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point!
Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall.

Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan.

I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.
Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!!
Gloryhornet - how can you say the ref didn't need help when he had already sent off one your players who was nowhere need the incident that led to the first penalty. And how can you say the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity for the second. Seems like you need help like the ref -you aren't related are you?
The rules are clear - one ref. I talk of facts and I am happy to leave the utter b0110cks to you as this is your skills set.
Go away. You are even more boring than me...... Regards.
Play nicely.

I was a bit OTT and I apologise.

We should save our bile for teams like Scousepool who have all the money but no true supporters.

Good luck on Saturday.

Regards and goodbye to all my readers.
[quote][p][bold]Catwhiskers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B'mth 56[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Afcbpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TedMacsCherryPants[/bold] wrote: I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point![/p][/quote]Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall. Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan. I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.[/p][/quote]Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!![/p][/quote]Gloryhornet - how can you say the ref didn't need help when he had already sent off one your players who was nowhere need the incident that led to the first penalty. And how can you say the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity for the second. Seems like you need help like the ref -you aren't related are you?[/p][/quote]The rules are clear - one ref. I talk of facts and I am happy to leave the utter b0110cks to you as this is your skills set.[/p][/quote]Go away. You are even more boring than me...... Regards.[/p][/quote]Play nicely. I was a bit OTT and I apologise. We should save our bile for teams like Scousepool who have all the money but no true supporters. Good luck on Saturday. Regards and goodbye to all my readers. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 7

11:06am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

Noel. wrote:
Looked a clear penalty to me in the South Stand, and I can't fathom why the the defender wasn't also red-carded other than the ref not wanting to make a hard decision like sending off a second player so soon after the first.

As the goalie and the defender were attempting tackles aren't they committing an offense of a double tackle - which is a penalty.
I'm off soon. Bye bye all.

I expect the ref was told in his shell like he messed up 10 mins before. If the ref sees the ball going away from goal - the guidelines are that it is not a goal scoring opportunity.

If it took over 2 mins to decide to send the wrong guy off - on a goal scoring opp, I think he was right not to do it twice in 10 mins, as it was Hall who caught Pugh.

The Championship gets failed Prem refs and up and coming refs to get games under their belts to go on the Prem list. Week in week out we have to suffers fools gladly.
[quote][p][bold]Noel.[/bold] wrote: Looked a clear penalty to me in the South Stand, and I can't fathom why the the defender wasn't also red-carded other than the ref not wanting to make a hard decision like sending off a second player so soon after the first. As the goalie and the defender were attempting tackles aren't they committing an offense of a double tackle - which is a penalty.[/p][/quote]I'm off soon. Bye bye all. I expect the ref was told in his shell like he messed up 10 mins before. If the ref sees the ball going away from goal - the guidelines are that it is not a goal scoring opportunity. If it took over 2 mins to decide to send the wrong guy off - on a goal scoring opp, I think he was right not to do it twice in 10 mins, as it was Hall who caught Pugh. The Championship gets failed Prem refs and up and coming refs to get games under their belts to go on the Prem list. Week in week out we have to suffers fools gladly. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 9

11:28am Mon 20 Jan 14

Blackandred says...

Aside from the friendly banter here, I thought that the ref and linesman in front of the east stand were shocking throughout the game. Given the number of clear decisions on things like throw ins that they got wrong, I'm not surprised that the second penalty was contentious and that he sent off the wrong player for the first one. I couldn't see the tackle on Pugh, so can't comment. However, I can comment on the general behaviour of the Watford players. So many of them went down under fairly soft challenges that we thought that there was a sniper in the stadium and the way they harangued the officials every time a decision was given against them was disappointing.

It’s a shame because it was one of the most enjoyable home games that I have watched this season. Watford play good football and continued to do so even after going one-nil up.
Aside from the friendly banter here, I thought that the ref and linesman in front of the east stand were shocking throughout the game. Given the number of clear decisions on things like throw ins that they got wrong, I'm not surprised that the second penalty was contentious and that he sent off the wrong player for the first one. I couldn't see the tackle on Pugh, so can't comment. However, I can comment on the general behaviour of the Watford players. So many of them went down under fairly soft challenges that we thought that there was a sniper in the stadium and the way they harangued the officials every time a decision was given against them was disappointing. It’s a shame because it was one of the most enjoyable home games that I have watched this season. Watford play good football and continued to do so even after going one-nil up. Blackandred
  • Score: 10

11:32am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

B'mth 56 wrote:
Afcbpete wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
TedMacsCherryPants wrote:
I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point!
Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall.

Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan.

I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.
Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!!
Gloryhornet - how can you say the ref didn't need help when he had already sent off one your players who was nowhere need the incident that led to the first penalty. And how can you say the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity for the second. Seems like you need help like the ref -you aren't related are you?
Refs don't need help from players - it is dissent.

Yes that applies to Almunia as well. Angella had to walk as there are precedents for longer bans for staying on the pitch for too long.

He had to go as then WFC can simply appeal a one match ban is "unduly harsh" and should be rescinded. Ekstrand cannot then be banned as the ref took no action. A win/win.

Not related to the ref - be nice please - that was so rude.
[quote][p][bold]B'mth 56[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Afcbpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TedMacsCherryPants[/bold] wrote: I really don’t know why Watford are complaining as I don’t think Pughie will win an Oscar for that fall with all of their play acting to compete with! IMO they should just shut-up and be grateful they got away with a point![/p][/quote]Almunia was not in the frame so he is entitled to complain, just as much as Pugh is entitled to be in denial he threw his arms over his head rather than a player "clipped" would put them at should level to break his fall. Hall took the ball off of him and taking Pugh at his word Hall's left leg clipped Pugh's back leg. By then the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity and Pugh having taken two strides was capable of staying upright. No need for the Klinsmann swan. I don't blame him for going horizontal - but trying to get Almunia sent off when by his own admission he didn't have a clue what caught him makes his behaviour a disgrace. Let the ref referee the game and get to the 18 yard line for the pen. The ref does not need help from Pugh - he had already given the penalty.[/p][/quote]Don't be such a hypocrite, look at the behaviour of your own team before you start shouting the odd's about anyone else. now jog on!![/p][/quote]Gloryhornet - how can you say the ref didn't need help when he had already sent off one your players who was nowhere need the incident that led to the first penalty. And how can you say the ball was going too wide to be a goal scoring opportunity for the second. Seems like you need help like the ref -you aren't related are you?[/p][/quote]Refs don't need help from players - it is dissent. Yes that applies to Almunia as well. Angella had to walk as there are precedents for longer bans for staying on the pitch for too long. He had to go as then WFC can simply appeal a one match ban is "unduly harsh" and should be rescinded. Ekstrand cannot then be banned as the ref took no action. A win/win. Not related to the ref - be nice please - that was so rude. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 4

11:43am Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

Blackandred wrote:
Aside from the friendly banter here, I thought that the ref and linesman in front of the east stand were shocking throughout the game. Given the number of clear decisions on things like throw ins that they got wrong, I'm not surprised that the second penalty was contentious and that he sent off the wrong player for the first one. I couldn't see the tackle on Pugh, so can't comment. However, I can comment on the general behaviour of the Watford players. So many of them went down under fairly soft challenges that we thought that there was a sniper in the stadium and the way they harangued the officials every time a decision was given against them was disappointing.

It’s a shame because it was one of the most enjoyable home games that I have watched this season. Watford play good football and continued to do so even after going one-nil up.
You are a credit to your club - good balanced and objective.

Lots of WFC players went down as the tempo was more than a week in week out game especially in the second half. A number of players picked up knocks and 2 went off by 50 mins. Cherries did their homework and took players out of their comfort zone. Some players were injury returners so not a lot of options. Watford could not use subs and risk finishing with 9 men or less!

Yes the Italian way of taking a rest is not good and it needs to be stamped out. You will get that when a visiting side in 1-0 up week in week out.
[quote][p][bold]Blackandred[/bold] wrote: Aside from the friendly banter here, I thought that the ref and linesman in front of the east stand were shocking throughout the game. Given the number of clear decisions on things like throw ins that they got wrong, I'm not surprised that the second penalty was contentious and that he sent off the wrong player for the first one. I couldn't see the tackle on Pugh, so can't comment. However, I can comment on the general behaviour of the Watford players. So many of them went down under fairly soft challenges that we thought that there was a sniper in the stadium and the way they harangued the officials every time a decision was given against them was disappointing. It’s a shame because it was one of the most enjoyable home games that I have watched this season. Watford play good football and continued to do so even after going one-nil up.[/p][/quote]You are a credit to your club - good balanced and objective. Lots of WFC players went down as the tempo was more than a week in week out game especially in the second half. A number of players picked up knocks and 2 went off by 50 mins. Cherries did their homework and took players out of their comfort zone. Some players were injury returners so not a lot of options. Watford could not use subs and risk finishing with 9 men or less! Yes the Italian way of taking a rest is not good and it needs to be stamped out. You will get that when a visiting side in 1-0 up week in week out. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 9

11:47am Mon 20 Jan 14

cherrygood says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
cherrygood wrote: I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in. If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances. Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net.
Look again and you will see Hall is blocking Almunia's path to Pugh. He could not bring him down if he wanted to. Hall got the ball legit and caused Hall to stumble and the ball was going away from goal. Hall's left boot touches Pugh's back leg and out comes a swan dive. Had he stayed on his feet he knew the goal line would have had at least two people in his path again and a tight angle. That was why Almunia was so incensed, as a fellow pro was trying to get him sent off having already got a pen. That would have been two players sent off in the space of 10 mins - both nothing to do with the incidents. I was 3 rows into the South Stand with the penalty area line to my right.
TV footage wasn't conclusive I saw Almunias hand catch Pughs leg so did pretty much everyone around me. I was behind the goal with an excellent view I didn't see it like you but we are all entitled to our own opinions.

We had a bunch of Watford supporters in front of us who over celebrated the goal and got moved ss a result. I don't have a major problem with away support in a home stand even though it not supposed to happen, but for gods sake don't celebrate like mad things when you score as it does incite trouble.

Saying that the banter with the Watford supporters was fun albeit things did get a nit heated at times and the flare was ridiculous. I do have a soft spot for Eatford as I lived in Hatfield in the mid eighties and went to Vicarage Road most Saturdays. Couldn't beat the uncovered terracing at the Vicatage Road end on a wet day!
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in. If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances. Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net.[/p][/quote]Look again and you will see Hall is blocking Almunia's path to Pugh. He could not bring him down if he wanted to. Hall got the ball legit and caused Hall to stumble and the ball was going away from goal. Hall's left boot touches Pugh's back leg and out comes a swan dive. Had he stayed on his feet he knew the goal line would have had at least two people in his path again and a tight angle. That was why Almunia was so incensed, as a fellow pro was trying to get him sent off having already got a pen. That would have been two players sent off in the space of 10 mins - both nothing to do with the incidents. I was 3 rows into the South Stand with the penalty area line to my right.[/p][/quote]TV footage wasn't conclusive I saw Almunias hand catch Pughs leg so did pretty much everyone around me. I was behind the goal with an excellent view I didn't see it like you but we are all entitled to our own opinions. We had a bunch of Watford supporters in front of us who over celebrated the goal and got moved ss a result. I don't have a major problem with away support in a home stand even though it not supposed to happen, but for gods sake don't celebrate like mad things when you score as it does incite trouble. Saying that the banter with the Watford supporters was fun albeit things did get a nit heated at times and the flare was ridiculous. I do have a soft spot for Eatford as I lived in Hatfield in the mid eighties and went to Vicarage Road most Saturdays. Couldn't beat the uncovered terracing at the Vicatage Road end on a wet day! cherrygood
  • Score: 7

12:07pm Mon 20 Jan 14

solihull cherry says...

Looking at the Football League Show it looked pretty clear that Hall slid over in front of Almunia and took Pugh out; a lot of penalties are given for much slighter contact.
Looking at the Football League Show it looked pretty clear that Hall slid over in front of Almunia and took Pugh out; a lot of penalties are given for much slighter contact. solihull cherry
  • Score: -5

12:09pm Mon 20 Jan 14

cherrygood says...

Sorry about all the spelling mistakes, beauty of tapping a post in on your phone!

And it was a smoke bomb not a flare, got the word flare in my head for some strange reason.
Sorry about all the spelling mistakes, beauty of tapping a post in on your phone! And it was a smoke bomb not a flare, got the word flare in my head for some strange reason. cherrygood
  • Score: 2

12:12pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

cherrygood wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
cherrygood wrote: I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in. If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances. Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net.
Look again and you will see Hall is blocking Almunia's path to Pugh. He could not bring him down if he wanted to. Hall got the ball legit and caused Hall to stumble and the ball was going away from goal. Hall's left boot touches Pugh's back leg and out comes a swan dive. Had he stayed on his feet he knew the goal line would have had at least two people in his path again and a tight angle. That was why Almunia was so incensed, as a fellow pro was trying to get him sent off having already got a pen. That would have been two players sent off in the space of 10 mins - both nothing to do with the incidents. I was 3 rows into the South Stand with the penalty area line to my right.
TV footage wasn't conclusive I saw Almunias hand catch Pughs leg so did pretty much everyone around me. I was behind the goal with an excellent view I didn't see it like you but we are all entitled to our own opinions.

We had a bunch of Watford supporters in front of us who over celebrated the goal and got moved ss a result. I don't have a major problem with away support in a home stand even though it not supposed to happen, but for gods sake don't celebrate like mad things when you score as it does incite trouble.

Saying that the banter with the Watford supporters was fun albeit things did get a nit heated at times and the flare was ridiculous. I do have a soft spot for Eatford as I lived in Hatfield in the mid eighties and went to Vicarage Road most Saturdays. Couldn't beat the uncovered terracing at the Vicatage Road end on a wet day!
I was able to freeze frame the footage - to the naked eye it looks like MA got to Pugh, slowed down it shows FH was the one who caught Pugh's back leg - as he slid through on the tackle. MA could not have got to Pugh if he tried as he had FH in his way and if MA wanted a piece of Pugh he missed by a foot.
[quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: I had a clear view of the incident not more that twenty feet or so away, and Almunia's hand caught his Pugh's leg which knocked him out of his stride and meant he couldn't get the shot in. If you try to stay on your feet the chance goes and the ref blows for a goal kick. If you go down you stand a chance of getting a penalty which was the right decision in the circumstances. Mind you I wish he'd had the confidence to slot the ball past the keeper instead of trying to walk the ball in the net.[/p][/quote]Look again and you will see Hall is blocking Almunia's path to Pugh. He could not bring him down if he wanted to. Hall got the ball legit and caused Hall to stumble and the ball was going away from goal. Hall's left boot touches Pugh's back leg and out comes a swan dive. Had he stayed on his feet he knew the goal line would have had at least two people in his path again and a tight angle. That was why Almunia was so incensed, as a fellow pro was trying to get him sent off having already got a pen. That would have been two players sent off in the space of 10 mins - both nothing to do with the incidents. I was 3 rows into the South Stand with the penalty area line to my right.[/p][/quote]TV footage wasn't conclusive I saw Almunias hand catch Pughs leg so did pretty much everyone around me. I was behind the goal with an excellent view I didn't see it like you but we are all entitled to our own opinions. We had a bunch of Watford supporters in front of us who over celebrated the goal and got moved ss a result. I don't have a major problem with away support in a home stand even though it not supposed to happen, but for gods sake don't celebrate like mad things when you score as it does incite trouble. Saying that the banter with the Watford supporters was fun albeit things did get a nit heated at times and the flare was ridiculous. I do have a soft spot for Eatford as I lived in Hatfield in the mid eighties and went to Vicarage Road most Saturdays. Couldn't beat the uncovered terracing at the Vicatage Road end on a wet day![/p][/quote]I was able to freeze frame the footage - to the naked eye it looks like MA got to Pugh, slowed down it shows FH was the one who caught Pugh's back leg - as he slid through on the tackle. MA could not have got to Pugh if he tried as he had FH in his way and if MA wanted a piece of Pugh he missed by a foot. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 13

12:29pm Mon 20 Jan 14

watford1881 says...

ifordcherry wrote:
Watford are by far the most pathetic side at falling over as if shot that i have seen at our ground this season ....FACT...Go back to Luton and learn how to stand on your own 2 feet....Or should i say go back to Italy !!
Proper nob ain't ya.. Bunch of cheats..
[quote][p][bold]ifordcherry[/bold] wrote: Watford are by far the most pathetic side at falling over as if shot that i have seen at our ground this season ....FACT...Go back to Luton and learn how to stand on your own 2 feet....Or should i say go back to Italy !![/p][/quote]Proper nob ain't ya.. Bunch of cheats.. watford1881
  • Score: 5

12:30pm Mon 20 Jan 14

watford1881 says...

Sad little retirement town..
Sad little retirement town.. watford1881
  • Score: -6

12:33pm Mon 20 Jan 14

watford1881 says...

4 points and a League Cup game Vs. U.. Gotta be happy about that...
4 points and a League Cup game Vs. U.. Gotta be happy about that... watford1881
  • Score: -8

12:43pm Mon 20 Jan 14

ColinPep1 says...

It was Hall who should've been sent off for bringing down Pugh, not Almunia.
It was Hall who should've been sent off for bringing down Pugh, not Almunia. ColinPep1
  • Score: -2

12:47pm Mon 20 Jan 14

mark.s says...

Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc?

The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers. mark.s
  • Score: -5

1:20pm Mon 20 Jan 14

watford1881 says...

mark.s wrote:
Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc?

The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..
[quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.[/p][/quote]Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it.. watford1881
  • Score: 7

1:24pm Mon 20 Jan 14

watford1881 says...

I was in the middle at it was all good natured.. Things were thrown by Bournmouth supporters behind the goal.. These things happen when supporters have passion.. You will never see thing being thrown by home supporters reported as that are all quite behaved........ Not true.....
I was in the middle at it was all good natured.. Things were thrown by Bournmouth supporters behind the goal.. These things happen when supporters have passion.. You will never see thing being thrown by home supporters reported as that are all quite behaved........ Not true..... watford1881
  • Score: 6

1:43pm Mon 20 Jan 14

cherrygood says...

watford1881 wrote:
Sad little retirement town..
Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live.
[quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: Sad little retirement town..[/p][/quote]Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live. cherrygood
  • Score: -1

1:47pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

watford1881 wrote:
ifordcherry wrote:
Watford are by far the most pathetic side at falling over as if shot that i have seen at our ground this season ....FACT...Go back to Luton and learn how to stand on your own 2 feet....Or should i say go back to Italy !!
Proper nob ain't ya.. Bunch of cheats..
Look guys may I please arbitrate your dispute.

1881 no need to imply B'th are cheats. You are stating the obvious.

Cherry don't be rude - no need. If you are not bright - don't make it obvious by going to print.

1881 - it is knob, not nob.
[quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ifordcherry[/bold] wrote: Watford are by far the most pathetic side at falling over as if shot that i have seen at our ground this season ....FACT...Go back to Luton and learn how to stand on your own 2 feet....Or should i say go back to Italy !![/p][/quote]Proper nob ain't ya.. Bunch of cheats..[/p][/quote]Look guys may I please arbitrate your dispute. 1881 no need to imply B'th are cheats. You are stating the obvious. Cherry don't be rude - no need. If you are not bright - don't make it obvious by going to print. 1881 - it is knob, not nob. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 6

1:49pm Mon 20 Jan 14

molbol says...

watford1881 wrote:
mark.s wrote:
Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc?

The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..
Oh - so it was the police or the stewards that threw the flare on the pitch - thanks for clearing that up!
[quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.[/p][/quote]Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..[/p][/quote]Oh - so it was the police or the stewards that threw the flare on the pitch - thanks for clearing that up! molbol
  • Score: -4

1:55pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

cherrygood wrote:
watford1881 wrote:
Sad little retirement town..
Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live.
I agree Cherry.

1881 - keep the conversation adult. It will go over their heads but ho hum.
[quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: Sad little retirement town..[/p][/quote]Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live.[/p][/quote]I agree Cherry. 1881 - keep the conversation adult. It will go over their heads but ho hum. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 8

1:59pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

molbol wrote:
watford1881 wrote:
mark.s wrote:
Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc?

The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..
Oh - so it was the police or the stewards that threw the flare on the pitch - thanks for clearing that up!
And pray enlighten us what trouble the Watford fans caused? Oh yes, some stood up. Fork me - what a crime.

Flare - no friend of mine. Pond life and whoever you support - don't need idiots like that.
[quote][p][bold]molbol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.[/p][/quote]Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..[/p][/quote]Oh - so it was the police or the stewards that threw the flare on the pitch - thanks for clearing that up![/p][/quote]And pray enlighten us what trouble the Watford fans caused? Oh yes, some stood up. Fork me - what a crime. Flare - no friend of mine. Pond life and whoever you support - don't need idiots like that. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 6

2:00pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

molbol wrote:
watford1881 wrote:
mark.s wrote:
Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc?

The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..
Oh - so it was the police or the stewards that threw the flare on the pitch - thanks for clearing that up!
Not much point in asking you anything as you will say the police fitted you up.
[quote][p][bold]molbol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.[/p][/quote]Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..[/p][/quote]Oh - so it was the police or the stewards that threw the flare on the pitch - thanks for clearing that up![/p][/quote]Not much point in asking you anything as you will say the police fitted you up. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 1

2:06pm Mon 20 Jan 14

cherrygood says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
watford1881 wrote: Sad little retirement town..
Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live.
I agree Cherry. 1881 - keep the conversation adult. It will go over their heads but ho hum.
I haven't seen much educated comment from you two so far, which is a shame, because good natured banter is much more rewarding than a belittling competition.
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: Sad little retirement town..[/p][/quote]Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live.[/p][/quote]I agree Cherry. 1881 - keep the conversation adult. It will go over their heads but ho hum.[/p][/quote]I haven't seen much educated comment from you two so far, which is a shame, because good natured banter is much more rewarding than a belittling competition. cherrygood
  • Score: -5

2:07pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

watford1881 wrote:
mark.s wrote:
Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc?

The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..
It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters.

Move on
[quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.[/p][/quote]Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..[/p][/quote]It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on gloryhornet4
  • Score: 9

2:25pm Mon 20 Jan 14

smhinto says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
watford1881 wrote:
mark.s wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..
It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on
Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away.
.
Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.[/p][/quote]Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..[/p][/quote]It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on[/p][/quote]Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away. . Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford smhinto
  • Score: -10

2:48pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

cherrygood wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
watford1881 wrote: Sad little retirement town..
Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live.
I agree Cherry. 1881 - keep the conversation adult. It will go over their heads but ho hum.
I haven't seen much educated comment from you two so far, which is a shame, because good natured banter is much more rewarding than a belittling competition.
OK a bit beneath me. Sorry.

You will find WFC supporters very knowledgeable about football and that may be because the glory hunters push off to Spurs Arsenal and Chelsea leaving a higher ratio of true fans.

In the same ilk you find WFC fans know how much hard work has been put in by your supporters to keep the club in existence and willed you to claw yourselves away from the points deduction that could have taken you out of the league.

I have been with you since 1967 when locked in league cup replays as neither of our sides could buy a goal - to the present day. If I were offered a season ticket to your ground and an option to a season ticket to any premiership ground, I would take your ground any day. You are true supporters not plastic supporters.

Let me indulge in banter - but NEVER EVER forget there is no banter without respect and for you guys I have it spades. Same for any of the old third div sides I was happy to watch in the 60's.

For Man U, L'pool Chelsea et al - couldn't give a poo if they all went bust. If Bournemouth did I would. Just wish you were still "and Boscombe Athletic"
[quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: Sad little retirement town..[/p][/quote]Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live.[/p][/quote]I agree Cherry. 1881 - keep the conversation adult. It will go over their heads but ho hum.[/p][/quote]I haven't seen much educated comment from you two so far, which is a shame, because good natured banter is much more rewarding than a belittling competition.[/p][/quote]OK a bit beneath me. Sorry. You will find WFC supporters very knowledgeable about football and that may be because the glory hunters push off to Spurs Arsenal and Chelsea leaving a higher ratio of true fans. In the same ilk you find WFC fans know how much hard work has been put in by your supporters to keep the club in existence and willed you to claw yourselves away from the points deduction that could have taken you out of the league. I have been with you since 1967 when locked in league cup replays as neither of our sides could buy a goal - to the present day. If I were offered a season ticket to your ground and an option to a season ticket to any premiership ground, I would take your ground any day. You are true supporters not plastic supporters. Let me indulge in banter - but NEVER EVER forget there is no banter without respect and for you guys I have it spades. Same for any of the old third div sides I was happy to watch in the 60's. For Man U, L'pool Chelsea et al - couldn't give a poo if they all went bust. If Bournemouth did I would. Just wish you were still "and Boscombe Athletic" gloryhornet4
  • Score: 5

3:08pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

smhinto wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
watford1881 wrote:
mark.s wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..
It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on
Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away.
.
Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford
It is part of being on the end of a sprawl of housing on the outskirts of London post war. London to me has no redeeming features and no you would not go to Watford for a day out.

Bournemouth has been transient for years and has tired shops and no investment. I have gone to Bournemouth loads of times - Harry Ramsden is the nearest to 5 star dining you have.

We all have our crosses to bear.
[quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.[/p][/quote]Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..[/p][/quote]It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on[/p][/quote]Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away. . Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford[/p][/quote]It is part of being on the end of a sprawl of housing on the outskirts of London post war. London to me has no redeeming features and no you would not go to Watford for a day out. Bournemouth has been transient for years and has tired shops and no investment. I have gone to Bournemouth loads of times - Harry Ramsden is the nearest to 5 star dining you have. We all have our crosses to bear. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 5

3:15pm Mon 20 Jan 14

cherrygood says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
watford1881 wrote: Sad little retirement town..
Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live.
I agree Cherry. 1881 - keep the conversation adult. It will go over their heads but ho hum.
I haven't seen much educated comment from you two so far, which is a shame, because good natured banter is much more rewarding than a belittling competition.
OK a bit beneath me. Sorry. You will find WFC supporters very knowledgeable about football and that may be because the glory hunters push off to Spurs Arsenal and Chelsea leaving a higher ratio of true fans. In the same ilk you find WFC fans know how much hard work has been put in by your supporters to keep the club in existence and willed you to claw yourselves away from the points deduction that could have taken you out of the league. I have been with you since 1967 when locked in league cup replays as neither of our sides could buy a goal - to the present day. If I were offered a season ticket to your ground and an option to a season ticket to any premiership ground, I would take your ground any day. You are true supporters not plastic supporters. Let me indulge in banter - but NEVER EVER forget there is no banter without respect and for you guys I have it spades. Same for any of the old third div sides I was happy to watch in the 60's. For Man U, L'pool Chelsea et al - couldn't give a poo if they all went bust. If Bournemouth did I would. Just wish you were still "and Boscombe Athletic"
Clearly you are a die hard long term hornets supporter and you have my respect after that eloquntly put post.

I have a limited knowledge of your history although asSaturdayearlier I used to frequent Vicarage Road in the mid eighties when I was living in the area, Hatfield, WGC, St Albans and the like.

As a football fan i was spoilt for choice with the London clubs Watford and Luton all in division one. You won't be pleased to hear that i went to Vicarage Road one Saturday then Kenilworth Road the following week as they always had their home games on alternate weeks.

I was wondering if you were a little bit concerned about the way your season is going after the decent start and almost gaining auto promotion last season?
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: Sad little retirement town..[/p][/quote]Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live.[/p][/quote]I agree Cherry. 1881 - keep the conversation adult. It will go over their heads but ho hum.[/p][/quote]I haven't seen much educated comment from you two so far, which is a shame, because good natured banter is much more rewarding than a belittling competition.[/p][/quote]OK a bit beneath me. Sorry. You will find WFC supporters very knowledgeable about football and that may be because the glory hunters push off to Spurs Arsenal and Chelsea leaving a higher ratio of true fans. In the same ilk you find WFC fans know how much hard work has been put in by your supporters to keep the club in existence and willed you to claw yourselves away from the points deduction that could have taken you out of the league. I have been with you since 1967 when locked in league cup replays as neither of our sides could buy a goal - to the present day. If I were offered a season ticket to your ground and an option to a season ticket to any premiership ground, I would take your ground any day. You are true supporters not plastic supporters. Let me indulge in banter - but NEVER EVER forget there is no banter without respect and for you guys I have it spades. Same for any of the old third div sides I was happy to watch in the 60's. For Man U, L'pool Chelsea et al - couldn't give a poo if they all went bust. If Bournemouth did I would. Just wish you were still "and Boscombe Athletic"[/p][/quote]Clearly you are a die hard long term hornets supporter and you have my respect after that eloquntly put post. I have a limited knowledge of your history although asSaturdayearlier I used to frequent Vicarage Road in the mid eighties when I was living in the area, Hatfield, WGC, St Albans and the like. As a football fan i was spoilt for choice with the London clubs Watford and Luton all in division one. You won't be pleased to hear that i went to Vicarage Road one Saturday then Kenilworth Road the following week as they always had their home games on alternate weeks. I was wondering if you were a little bit concerned about the way your season is going after the decent start and almost gaining auto promotion last season? cherrygood
  • Score: 5

3:22pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

smhinto wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
watford1881 wrote:
mark.s wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..
It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on
Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away.
.
Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford
If you call Northwood a stones throw from Watford - can you play cricket for Bartley in the New Forest next season?

I will pay your annual sub if your arm is that good.

BTW what trouble did Watford fans cause? How many left the pen? One idiot with a flare. The police were not concerned as they let the stewards be centre stage.
[quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.[/p][/quote]Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..[/p][/quote]It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on[/p][/quote]Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away. . Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford[/p][/quote]If you call Northwood a stones throw from Watford - can you play cricket for Bartley in the New Forest next season? I will pay your annual sub if your arm is that good. BTW what trouble did Watford fans cause? How many left the pen? One idiot with a flare. The police were not concerned as they let the stewards be centre stage. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 3

3:24pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

Noel. wrote:
Looked a clear penalty to me in the South Stand, and I can't fathom why the the defender wasn't also red-carded other than the ref not wanting to make a hard decision like sending off a second player so soon after the first.

As the goalie and the defender were attempting tackles aren't they committing an offense of a double tackle - which is a penalty.
You need to go on a coaching course - wide of the mark on what a double tackle is.
[quote][p][bold]Noel.[/bold] wrote: Looked a clear penalty to me in the South Stand, and I can't fathom why the the defender wasn't also red-carded other than the ref not wanting to make a hard decision like sending off a second player so soon after the first. As the goalie and the defender were attempting tackles aren't they committing an offense of a double tackle - which is a penalty.[/p][/quote]You need to go on a coaching course - wide of the mark on what a double tackle is. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 1

4:05pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Solentcherry says...

About ten posts ago you said you were going. Please do so.
About ten posts ago you said you were going. Please do so. Solentcherry
  • Score: -9

4:06pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

cherrygood wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
cherrygood wrote:
watford1881 wrote: Sad little retirement town..
Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live.
I agree Cherry. 1881 - keep the conversation adult. It will go over their heads but ho hum.
I haven't seen much educated comment from you two so far, which is a shame, because good natured banter is much more rewarding than a belittling competition.
OK a bit beneath me. Sorry. You will find WFC supporters very knowledgeable about football and that may be because the glory hunters push off to Spurs Arsenal and Chelsea leaving a higher ratio of true fans. In the same ilk you find WFC fans know how much hard work has been put in by your supporters to keep the club in existence and willed you to claw yourselves away from the points deduction that could have taken you out of the league. I have been with you since 1967 when locked in league cup replays as neither of our sides could buy a goal - to the present day. If I were offered a season ticket to your ground and an option to a season ticket to any premiership ground, I would take your ground any day. You are true supporters not plastic supporters. Let me indulge in banter - but NEVER EVER forget there is no banter without respect and for you guys I have it spades. Same for any of the old third div sides I was happy to watch in the 60's. For Man U, L'pool Chelsea et al - couldn't give a poo if they all went bust. If Bournemouth did I would. Just wish you were still "and Boscombe Athletic"
Clearly you are a die hard long term hornets supporter and you have my respect after that eloquntly put post.

I have a limited knowledge of your history although asSaturdayearlier I used to frequent Vicarage Road in the mid eighties when I was living in the area, Hatfield, WGC, St Albans and the like.

As a football fan i was spoilt for choice with the London clubs Watford and Luton all in division one. You won't be pleased to hear that i went to Vicarage Road one Saturday then Kenilworth Road the following week as they always had their home games on alternate weeks.

I was wondering if you were a little bit concerned about the way your season is going after the decent start and almost gaining auto promotion last season?
Cherry

Good on you sir.

I think it is a case of teams do their homework as AFCB did on Watford. Matej Vydra, Almen Abdi, Nat Chaloba Jonathan Hogg were like the Botham Garner & Richards playing for Somerset - the other players were like the Jackson brothers there behind Michael to so "Do Wup". Great players but only Abdi is still on the books and he played his first League game since August as a sub on Sat after a career threatening injury.

Watford have lost 2 away games but 7 at home as teams sit back and defend what they have at Vic Rd but in their own turf they have to attack.

Yes I know there is a lot of play acting in the Watford team, but like the banks going boob glands up I have no control over it.

The 6-1 uh hum was down to letting the game get away, but as Sat showed keep it tight and you can keep Watford quiet as like AFCB - not a lot in the penalty area to shout about.

Luton - just be grateful they were there in your hour if need to finish below you in the Div2 when you needed them. Other than that they have no redeeming features. Eric Morecambe and a 40 year career of only 4 diff jokes, a plastic pitch that took the skin off my thigh when my office hired it out, a Tory MP a4se chairman spouting rubbish leading to a ban of away fans.

The curse of losing a play off final is like starting the next season with a 10 point deduction.

Good luck for Saturday. L'pool have a trad of not winning FA Cup away games and having to win at Anfield - hope you trouser a lot of cash from 2 games and a bit of TV money.

Some of my readers want to "greet me" - I am running the next B'th half marathon in Watford kit for Lymington Hospice - so kick me some other time.
[quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: Sad little retirement town..[/p][/quote]Why do people come on opposing fans forums and make childish remarks like this, i don't get the mentality. You can slag Bournemouth town down as much as you like but having been to Watford many a time I know from expereince where I would rather live.[/p][/quote]I agree Cherry. 1881 - keep the conversation adult. It will go over their heads but ho hum.[/p][/quote]I haven't seen much educated comment from you two so far, which is a shame, because good natured banter is much more rewarding than a belittling competition.[/p][/quote]OK a bit beneath me. Sorry. You will find WFC supporters very knowledgeable about football and that may be because the glory hunters push off to Spurs Arsenal and Chelsea leaving a higher ratio of true fans. In the same ilk you find WFC fans know how much hard work has been put in by your supporters to keep the club in existence and willed you to claw yourselves away from the points deduction that could have taken you out of the league. I have been with you since 1967 when locked in league cup replays as neither of our sides could buy a goal - to the present day. If I were offered a season ticket to your ground and an option to a season ticket to any premiership ground, I would take your ground any day. You are true supporters not plastic supporters. Let me indulge in banter - but NEVER EVER forget there is no banter without respect and for you guys I have it spades. Same for any of the old third div sides I was happy to watch in the 60's. For Man U, L'pool Chelsea et al - couldn't give a poo if they all went bust. If Bournemouth did I would. Just wish you were still "and Boscombe Athletic"[/p][/quote]Clearly you are a die hard long term hornets supporter and you have my respect after that eloquntly put post. I have a limited knowledge of your history although asSaturdayearlier I used to frequent Vicarage Road in the mid eighties when I was living in the area, Hatfield, WGC, St Albans and the like. As a football fan i was spoilt for choice with the London clubs Watford and Luton all in division one. You won't be pleased to hear that i went to Vicarage Road one Saturday then Kenilworth Road the following week as they always had their home games on alternate weeks. I was wondering if you were a little bit concerned about the way your season is going after the decent start and almost gaining auto promotion last season?[/p][/quote]Cherry Good on you sir. I think it is a case of teams do their homework as AFCB did on Watford. Matej Vydra, Almen Abdi, Nat Chaloba Jonathan Hogg were like the Botham Garner & Richards playing for Somerset - the other players were like the Jackson brothers there behind Michael to so "Do Wup". Great players but only Abdi is still on the books and he played his first League game since August as a sub on Sat after a career threatening injury. Watford have lost 2 away games but 7 at home as teams sit back and defend what they have at Vic Rd but in their own turf they have to attack. Yes I know there is a lot of play acting in the Watford team, but like the banks going boob glands up I have no control over it. The 6-1 uh hum was down to letting the game get away, but as Sat showed keep it tight and you can keep Watford quiet as like AFCB - not a lot in the penalty area to shout about. Luton - just be grateful they were there in your hour if need to finish below you in the Div2 when you needed them. Other than that they have no redeeming features. Eric Morecambe and a 40 year career of only 4 diff jokes, a plastic pitch that took the skin off my thigh when my office hired it out, a Tory MP a4se chairman spouting rubbish leading to a ban of away fans. The curse of losing a play off final is like starting the next season with a 10 point deduction. Good luck for Saturday. L'pool have a trad of not winning FA Cup away games and having to win at Anfield - hope you trouser a lot of cash from 2 games and a bit of TV money. Some of my readers want to "greet me" - I am running the next B'th half marathon in Watford kit for Lymington Hospice - so kick me some other time. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 4

4:09pm Mon 20 Jan 14

mossy 1 says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
smhinto wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
watford1881 wrote:
mark.s wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..
It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on
Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away.
.
Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford
It is part of being on the end of a sprawl of housing on the outskirts of London post war. London to me has no redeeming features and no you would not go to Watford for a day out.

Bournemouth has been transient for years and has tired shops and no investment. I have gone to Bournemouth loads of times - Harry Ramsden is the nearest to 5 star dining you have.

We all have our crosses to bear.
Clearly your knowledge of Bournemouth`s eateries needs updating.Obviously Macdonalds is your idea of fine dining.
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.[/p][/quote]Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..[/p][/quote]It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on[/p][/quote]Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away. . Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford[/p][/quote]It is part of being on the end of a sprawl of housing on the outskirts of London post war. London to me has no redeeming features and no you would not go to Watford for a day out. Bournemouth has been transient for years and has tired shops and no investment. I have gone to Bournemouth loads of times - Harry Ramsden is the nearest to 5 star dining you have. We all have our crosses to bear.[/p][/quote]Clearly your knowledge of Bournemouth`s eateries needs updating.Obviously Macdonalds is your idea of fine dining. mossy 1
  • Score: -4

5:06pm Mon 20 Jan 14

gloryhornet4 says...

mossy 1 wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
smhinto wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
watford1881 wrote:
mark.s wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..
It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on
Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away.
.
Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford
It is part of being on the end of a sprawl of housing on the outskirts of London post war. London to me has no redeeming features and no you would not go to Watford for a day out.

Bournemouth has been transient for years and has tired shops and no investment. I have gone to Bournemouth loads of times - Harry Ramsden is the nearest to 5 star dining you have.

We all have our crosses to bear.
Clearly your knowledge of Bournemouth`s eateries needs updating.Obviously Macdonalds is your idea of fine dining.
My allegory to the waste of a good area around the pier.

Children - please don't eat Macdonalds.

To Solentcherry - I am getting a lot of positive scores as I treat people with respect - bum face.
[quote][p][bold]mossy 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.[/p][/quote]Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..[/p][/quote]It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on[/p][/quote]Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away. . Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford[/p][/quote]It is part of being on the end of a sprawl of housing on the outskirts of London post war. London to me has no redeeming features and no you would not go to Watford for a day out. Bournemouth has been transient for years and has tired shops and no investment. I have gone to Bournemouth loads of times - Harry Ramsden is the nearest to 5 star dining you have. We all have our crosses to bear.[/p][/quote]Clearly your knowledge of Bournemouth`s eateries needs updating.Obviously Macdonalds is your idea of fine dining.[/p][/quote]My allegory to the waste of a good area around the pier. Children - please don't eat Macdonalds. To Solentcherry - I am getting a lot of positive scores as I treat people with respect - bum face. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 3

6:20pm Mon 20 Jan 14

big_afcb_fan says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
mossy 1 wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
smhinto wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
watford1881 wrote:
mark.s wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.
Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..
It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on
Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away.
.
Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford
It is part of being on the end of a sprawl of housing on the outskirts of London post war. London to me has no redeeming features and no you would not go to Watford for a day out.

Bournemouth has been transient for years and has tired shops and no investment. I have gone to Bournemouth loads of times - Harry Ramsden is the nearest to 5 star dining you have.

We all have our crosses to bear.
Clearly your knowledge of Bournemouth`s eateries needs updating.Obviously Macdonalds is your idea of fine dining.
My allegory to the waste of a good area around the pier.

Children - please don't eat Macdonalds.

To Solentcherry - I am getting a lot of positive scores as I treat people with respect - bum face.
schizophrenic
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mossy 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark.s[/bold] wrote: Has any investigation been done regarding the behavior of the traveling support in the second half, trouble with the stewards and the smoke bomb etc? The fact it needed the vast majority of the stewards and police in the entire stadium to keep the Watford support from causing more trouble is a sad indictment of their followers.[/p][/quote]Or a sad indictment of Bournemouths stewarding and policing.. Depending on which was you look at it..[/p][/quote]It is not. Back to juvenile arguments - next it will ban football as supporters are hooligans. Every club has mindless idiots. Just that sort of brainless twaddle that Luton came up with. Forgetting it was their supporters who were causing trouble in their own ground - so they banned away supporters. Move on[/p][/quote]Agreed - During my time in the RAF i served at the Permanent Joint HQ at Northwood of which just a stones throw away from Watford. I also resided in Uxbridge for a while, also not too far away. . Watford is a town that is stuck in the 1970's i.e outdated, crumby shops and rough-house 'boozers' (the Crown seems to stick in my mind) and you are right where would one sooner reside Bournemouth or Watford[/p][/quote]It is part of being on the end of a sprawl of housing on the outskirts of London post war. London to me has no redeeming features and no you would not go to Watford for a day out. Bournemouth has been transient for years and has tired shops and no investment. I have gone to Bournemouth loads of times - Harry Ramsden is the nearest to 5 star dining you have. We all have our crosses to bear.[/p][/quote]Clearly your knowledge of Bournemouth`s eateries needs updating.Obviously Macdonalds is your idea of fine dining.[/p][/quote]My allegory to the waste of a good area around the pier. Children - please don't eat Macdonalds. To Solentcherry - I am getting a lot of positive scores as I treat people with respect - bum face.[/p][/quote]schizophrenic big_afcb_fan
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Mon 20 Jan 14

canfordcherry says...

swanagecherrie wrote:
Supports: Ayr Gretna Lincoln Forest Accrington Wolves Chelsea Reading Gillingham Plymouth Torguay Borehamwood Eastleigh.

Not gloryhornet ....Glory hunter surely one of these has to win each week :))
Christ at this rate of support I would be surprised if he's not there Sat cheering on the Scousers.
[quote][p][bold]swanagecherrie[/bold] wrote: Supports: Ayr Gretna Lincoln Forest Accrington Wolves Chelsea Reading Gillingham Plymouth Torguay Borehamwood Eastleigh. Not gloryhornet ....Glory hunter surely one of these has to win each week :))[/p][/quote]Christ at this rate of support I would be surprised if he's not there Sat cheering on the Scousers. canfordcherry
  • Score: -4

9:38pm Mon 20 Jan 14

PozzoHornet says...

Gotta laugh at the number of Bournemouth fans hiding behind the lazy 'Watford players are all divers from Italy' insult and thus completely ignoring the fact that Pugh took two steady strides away from the incident, realised he was unlikely to score from the angle he would find himself at and with the ball running away from goal on his weak foot, and so decided he would go to ground in the hope of gaining a penalty. Oh well, justice was done from some fantastic goalkeeping. I wouldn't have taken a point at the start of the match, but given we had ten men for the last half an hour, I can't really complain too much.
Gotta laugh at the number of Bournemouth fans hiding behind the lazy 'Watford players are all divers from Italy' insult and thus completely ignoring the fact that Pugh took two steady strides away from the incident, realised he was unlikely to score from the angle he would find himself at and with the ball running away from goal on his weak foot, and so decided he would go to ground in the hope of gaining a penalty. Oh well, justice was done from some fantastic goalkeeping. I wouldn't have taken a point at the start of the match, but given we had ten men for the last half an hour, I can't really complain too much. PozzoHornet
  • Score: 5

10:07pm Mon 20 Jan 14

big_afcb_fan says...

must be boring watching the udinese b team every week, no wonder these hornets are so obsessed with us!!
must be boring watching the udinese b team every week, no wonder these hornets are so obsessed with us!! big_afcb_fan
  • Score: -7

11:58pm Mon 20 Jan 14

MickL says...

A lot of Watford fans on here today. Thanks for visiting, folks!
A lot of Watford fans on here today. Thanks for visiting, folks! MickL
  • Score: 4

5:04pm Thu 23 Jan 14

watford1881 says...

Glory is a mummy's boy.. He argues fir and against depending on who his talking with.. Maybe behind a key board he is hard as nails while being soft as puppy sh*t....
Glory is a mummy's boy.. He argues fir and against depending on who his talking with.. Maybe behind a key board he is hard as nails while being soft as puppy sh*t.... watford1881
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree