AFC Bournemouth: Dismissed Harry Arter relieved by Cherries victory

Bournemouth Echo: SENT OFF: Harry Arter SENT OFF: Harry Arter

HARRY Arter thanked his Cherries team-mates for saving his bacon – even though he felt he had been unfortunate to see red during Saturday’s 2-1 win over QPR.

Arter was shown a straight red card by referee Jon Moss following a robust tackle on Rangers winger Junior Hoilett 20 minutes from time and will now serve a three-match ban.

He told the Daily Echo: “It was one of those tackles in the heat of the battle. The ball went loose, it was a 50-50 and maybe I went a little bit over the top.

“I was surprised because I thought it would be a yellow card at the most. But some referees have different opinions on tackles. It was disappointing. I am a player who plays on the front foot and tries to play with aggression and maybe it got the better of me.”

Arter added: “It was a fantastic result, albeit we finished with 10 men. When it was 11 versus 11, I thought we were by far the better team and, bar the first 20 minutes, we controlled the game.

“When it went to 10 versus 11, we showed a different side. We were gritty and resolute. I was thankful to the rest of the team that they carried on and didn’t concede because I would have felt even guiltier about what happened if we hadn’t won.”

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:25am Mon 7 Apr 14

TedMacsCherryPants says...

I'm not going to start Harry bashing, I've seen him put in some supremely timed tackles this season to break up play, he just got this one wrong. A shame he's not avalable for the next three games but the way our squad are able to step-up when called upon I fell confident that whoever gets the call will cover him.
I'm not going to start Harry bashing, I've seen him put in some supremely timed tackles this season to break up play, he just got this one wrong. A shame he's not avalable for the next three games but the way our squad are able to step-up when called upon I fell confident that whoever gets the call will cover him. TedMacsCherryPants
  • Score: 11

7:56am Mon 7 Apr 14

rednblack37 says...

I'd rather he wasn't missing, the only advantage is his enforced rest for two weeks means he'll be fresh for the run-in, where we will need all the energy he has to give. Eunan should get a chance again now and we know he's very capable at this level. Bring em on!!
I'd rather he wasn't missing, the only advantage is his enforced rest for two weeks means he'll be fresh for the run-in, where we will need all the energy he has to give. Eunan should get a chance again now and we know he's very capable at this level. Bring em on!! rednblack37
  • Score: 11

7:57am Mon 7 Apr 14

Exiled Red says...

Agreed.
IMHO he was our man of the match until that point and that was in a team where everyone was playing superbly.
O Kane is equally as good though and having witnessed the way we tore Reading apart in December, I have no doubt we will do it again tomorrow night.
In 40 years I have never been so excited for a game.
Agreed. IMHO he was our man of the match until that point and that was in a team where everyone was playing superbly. O Kane is equally as good though and having witnessed the way we tore Reading apart in December, I have no doubt we will do it again tomorrow night. In 40 years I have never been so excited for a game. Exiled Red
  • Score: 10

8:01am Mon 7 Apr 14

Fanfor45 says...

TedMacsCherryPants wrote:
I'm not going to start Harry bashing, I've seen him put in some supremely timed tackles this season to break up play, he just got this one wrong. A shame he's not avalable for the next three games but the way our squad are able to step-up when called upon I fell confident that whoever gets the call will cover him.
Good Morning TMCP.Like many I have played the highlights “more than once” and I specifically wanted to look at the tackle. Arter actually wins the ball with a foot barely off the ground. Studs were “up” but I think an appeal against this would carry a good chance of succeeding. The game has come to something when tackles like this in a physical game mixed with a little histronics from the fouled player mean that a red card is shown straight away. I agree with Harry that in the cold light of the moment a yellow card would have been reasonable but he had a right to try to win the ball and the ref doesn't have barrels of hindsight at the time either
[quote][p][bold]TedMacsCherryPants[/bold] wrote: I'm not going to start Harry bashing, I've seen him put in some supremely timed tackles this season to break up play, he just got this one wrong. A shame he's not avalable for the next three games but the way our squad are able to step-up when called upon I fell confident that whoever gets the call will cover him.[/p][/quote]Good Morning TMCP.Like many I have played the highlights “more than once” and I specifically wanted to look at the tackle. Arter actually wins the ball with a foot barely off the ground. Studs were “up” but I think an appeal against this would carry a good chance of succeeding. The game has come to something when tackles like this in a physical game mixed with a little histronics from the fouled player mean that a red card is shown straight away. I agree with Harry that in the cold light of the moment a yellow card would have been reasonable but he had a right to try to win the ball and the ref doesn't have barrels of hindsight at the time either Fanfor45
  • Score: 15

8:20am Mon 7 Apr 14

fuhamfc12 says...

He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down.

He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game. fuhamfc12
  • Score: -20

9:58am Mon 7 Apr 14

UOBCherry says...

fuhamfc12 wrote:
He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.
[quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.[/p][/quote]How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off. UOBCherry
  • Score: 11

10:34am Mon 7 Apr 14

fuhamfc12 says...

UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.
Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat.

This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.
[quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.[/p][/quote]How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.[/p][/quote]Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins. fuhamfc12
  • Score: -5

10:35am Mon 7 Apr 14

fuhamfc12 says...

fuhamfc12 wrote:
UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.
Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat.

This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.
Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all.
[quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.[/p][/quote]How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.[/p][/quote]Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.[/p][/quote]Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all. fuhamfc12
  • Score: -5

10:39am Mon 7 Apr 14

In Absentia says...

Let's stop kidding ourselves here. If Hoilett had performed that tackle on Arter, we'd have been screaming for a red card. The ref doesn't have the benefit of watching a replay a dozen times in slow motion. Players are fully aware that if they slide in with studs showing they risk a red card even if they touch the ball first. Their momentum still takes them through the player afterwards. He's responsible for the decisions he makes on the pitch, this time he made a bad one.
Let's stop kidding ourselves here. If Hoilett had performed that tackle on Arter, we'd have been screaming for a red card. The ref doesn't have the benefit of watching a replay a dozen times in slow motion. Players are fully aware that if they slide in with studs showing they risk a red card even if they touch the ball first. Their momentum still takes them through the player afterwards. He's responsible for the decisions he makes on the pitch, this time he made a bad one. In Absentia
  • Score: 0

10:45am Mon 7 Apr 14

fuhamfc12 says...

In Absentia wrote:
Let's stop kidding ourselves here. If Hoilett had performed that tackle on Arter, we'd have been screaming for a red card. The ref doesn't have the benefit of watching a replay a dozen times in slow motion. Players are fully aware that if they slide in with studs showing they risk a red card even if they touch the ball first. Their momentum still takes them through the player afterwards. He's responsible for the decisions he makes on the pitch, this time he made a bad one.
Totally agree.
[quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: Let's stop kidding ourselves here. If Hoilett had performed that tackle on Arter, we'd have been screaming for a red card. The ref doesn't have the benefit of watching a replay a dozen times in slow motion. Players are fully aware that if they slide in with studs showing they risk a red card even if they touch the ball first. Their momentum still takes them through the player afterwards. He's responsible for the decisions he makes on the pitch, this time he made a bad one.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. fuhamfc12
  • Score: -2

10:52am Mon 7 Apr 14

a real supporter says...

UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.
Absolutely right "he won the ball". a little reckless but a yellow card would have been enough. Harry had 2 problems the first being a dangerous missed tackle early in the game that the referee spoke to him about. His second (and AFCB's) was the ref himself. Once again the ref was star struck with a so-called big name team playing ‘little ol’ Bournemouth. The number of decisions that went QPR's way and unpunished was scandalous. Examples of which, numerous breaking up of play by bringing down our players on the breakaway, a deliberate handball, Richard Dunne once again getting away with countless professional fouls (same as up there) and receiving just a yellow in the last few minutes, Joe Jordan standing in our box trying to cause trouble. Yet Harry gets a verbal caution and a straight red for 2 tackles. A decision, which the ref had already decided to give without giving himself time to think or speak with his linesman. To hasty I’m afraid and a decision that could have cost us. Perhaps the ref could also explain where the extra 5 mins time came from and why we played 8 mins, with the game only stopping when the ball eventually went out of play. Respect is a two-way thing and we get very little from officials at our club
[quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.[/p][/quote]How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.[/p][/quote]Absolutely right "he won the ball". a little reckless but a yellow card would have been enough. Harry had 2 problems the first being a dangerous missed tackle early in the game that the referee spoke to him about. His second (and AFCB's) was the ref himself. Once again the ref was star struck with a so-called big name team playing ‘little ol’ Bournemouth. The number of decisions that went QPR's way and unpunished was scandalous. Examples of which, numerous breaking up of play by bringing down our players on the breakaway, a deliberate handball, Richard Dunne once again getting away with countless professional fouls (same as up there) and receiving just a yellow in the last few minutes, Joe Jordan standing in our box trying to cause trouble. Yet Harry gets a verbal caution and a straight red for 2 tackles. A decision, which the ref had already decided to give without giving himself time to think or speak with his linesman. To hasty I’m afraid and a decision that could have cost us. Perhaps the ref could also explain where the extra 5 mins time came from and why we played 8 mins, with the game only stopping when the ball eventually went out of play. Respect is a two-way thing and we get very little from officials at our club a real supporter
  • Score: 8

11:17am Mon 7 Apr 14

fuhamfc12 says...

He didn't win the ball. He caught the player and got sent off. As for the ref, we will never agree with what decisions they make unless it goes our way. The 5 mins extra time would be for the 2 goals that were scored, and the subs that were made.

With the remark of respect, I agree, however teams and officials will not other teams or players if you tackle the way arter did that got him sent off. I do note that arter likes to get in the referees faces if a player is kicked or pushed. He has done that a lot this season.
He didn't win the ball. He caught the player and got sent off. As for the ref, we will never agree with what decisions they make unless it goes our way. The 5 mins extra time would be for the 2 goals that were scored, and the subs that were made. With the remark of respect, I agree, however teams and officials will not other teams or players if you tackle the way arter did that got him sent off. I do note that arter likes to get in the referees faces if a player is kicked or pushed. He has done that a lot this season. fuhamfc12
  • Score: -7

11:20am Mon 7 Apr 14

RED LETTER DAY says...

THE REF gave Harry a lecture earlier in the game when he did another bobsleigh tackle on someone else, so he had been warned. . . .
THE REF gave Harry a lecture earlier in the game when he did another bobsleigh tackle on someone else, so he had been warned. . . . RED LETTER DAY
  • Score: 2

11:27am Mon 7 Apr 14

fuhamfc12 says...

RED LETTER DAY wrote:
THE REF gave Harry a lecture earlier in the game when he did another bobsleigh tackle on someone else, so he had been warned. . . .
Agreed, he deserved to get sent off. He didn't learn from being spoken to early on in the game.
[quote][p][bold]RED LETTER DAY[/bold] wrote: THE REF gave Harry a lecture earlier in the game when he did another bobsleigh tackle on someone else, so he had been warned. . . .[/p][/quote]Agreed, he deserved to get sent off. He didn't learn from being spoken to early on in the game. fuhamfc12
  • Score: -5

11:32am Mon 7 Apr 14

tms444 says...

Harry will be a miss but we have the players to step in and see us through, Shaun McDonlad never lets us down, Eunan O'Kane needs to find that form that had us all purring a few weeks ago and Andrew Surman has slowly improved as the season has gone on, let's face it, whatever happens in the remaining six games (in my opinion) we have been treated to fantastic football and a supreme team spirit that is just a joy to watch. Turning point of the season...... Signing Lee Camp
Harry will be a miss but we have the players to step in and see us through, Shaun McDonlad never lets us down, Eunan O'Kane needs to find that form that had us all purring a few weeks ago and Andrew Surman has slowly improved as the season has gone on, let's face it, whatever happens in the remaining six games (in my opinion) we have been treated to fantastic football and a supreme team spirit that is just a joy to watch. Turning point of the season...... Signing Lee Camp tms444
  • Score: 10

11:33am Mon 7 Apr 14

UOBCherry says...

fuhamfc12 wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.
Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.
Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all.
This still does not explain how you believe he made "no attempt for the ball" when replays show his foot quite clearly making considerable contact with the ball. Thats not a difference of opinion that's just blindness on your part, probably caused by the standard dislike of Harry Arter.
Where Arter admits he went over the top, he means he went in a little too hard and because its clear that he got the ball, whilst stretching for a fifty/fifty rather that deliberately going in to hurt the player that should have been deemed reckless rather than excessive. Arter hasn't let himself down, he was entitled to go for that challenge and he's come out the end with a harsh decision that could so easily have been less particularly had it of been committed by one of the stars at QPR. I can see why the ref's given it in real time, but he's unfortunate, and in this instance your Arter bashing is unjust.
[quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.[/p][/quote]How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.[/p][/quote]Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.[/p][/quote]Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all.[/p][/quote]This still does not explain how you believe he made "no attempt for the ball" when replays show his foot quite clearly making considerable contact with the ball. Thats not a difference of opinion that's just blindness on your part, probably caused by the standard dislike of Harry Arter. Where Arter admits he went over the top, he means he went in a little too hard and because its clear that he got the ball, whilst stretching for a fifty/fifty rather that deliberately going in to hurt the player that should have been deemed reckless rather than excessive. Arter hasn't let himself down, he was entitled to go for that challenge and he's come out the end with a harsh decision that could so easily have been less particularly had it of been committed by one of the stars at QPR. I can see why the ref's given it in real time, but he's unfortunate, and in this instance your Arter bashing is unjust. UOBCherry
  • Score: 8

11:38am Mon 7 Apr 14

Judaas says...

I accept he should have been sent off, but more importantly so should have Dunne. One of the most cynical fouls ever. I cannot believe the ref treated it differently, one was over commitment, the other was intent. Without doubt Dunne should have gone.
I accept he should have been sent off, but more importantly so should have Dunne. One of the most cynical fouls ever. I cannot believe the ref treated it differently, one was over commitment, the other was intent. Without doubt Dunne should have gone. Judaas
  • Score: 7

11:40am Mon 7 Apr 14

fuhamfc12 says...

UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.
Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.
Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all.
This still does not explain how you believe he made "no attempt for the ball" when replays show his foot quite clearly making considerable contact with the ball. Thats not a difference of opinion that's just blindness on your part, probably caused by the standard dislike of Harry Arter.
Where Arter admits he went over the top, he means he went in a little too hard and because its clear that he got the ball, whilst stretching for a fifty/fifty rather that deliberately going in to hurt the player that should have been deemed reckless rather than excessive. Arter hasn't let himself down, he was entitled to go for that challenge and he's come out the end with a harsh decision that could so easily have been less particularly had it of been committed by one of the stars at QPR. I can see why the ref's given it in real time, but he's unfortunate, and in this instance your Arter bashing is unjust.
I like arter, I've said he is a good player. I think there are a number of comments on here from others that say he was correctly dismissed. He was spoken to in the first half, tried the same tackle in the first half and failed. This isn't about disliking him. I've said he will be a miss for them as he is a quality midfielder.

It has nothing to do with it being against QPR, it's down to him and him only. How many other players made tackles like him in the game from afcb?
[quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.[/p][/quote]How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.[/p][/quote]Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.[/p][/quote]Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all.[/p][/quote]This still does not explain how you believe he made "no attempt for the ball" when replays show his foot quite clearly making considerable contact with the ball. Thats not a difference of opinion that's just blindness on your part, probably caused by the standard dislike of Harry Arter. Where Arter admits he went over the top, he means he went in a little too hard and because its clear that he got the ball, whilst stretching for a fifty/fifty rather that deliberately going in to hurt the player that should have been deemed reckless rather than excessive. Arter hasn't let himself down, he was entitled to go for that challenge and he's come out the end with a harsh decision that could so easily have been less particularly had it of been committed by one of the stars at QPR. I can see why the ref's given it in real time, but he's unfortunate, and in this instance your Arter bashing is unjust.[/p][/quote]I like arter, I've said he is a good player. I think there are a number of comments on here from others that say he was correctly dismissed. He was spoken to in the first half, tried the same tackle in the first half and failed. This isn't about disliking him. I've said he will be a miss for them as he is a quality midfielder. It has nothing to do with it being against QPR, it's down to him and him only. How many other players made tackles like him in the game from afcb? fuhamfc12
  • Score: -9

12:27pm Mon 7 Apr 14

abc100 says...

fuhamfc12 wrote:
He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
Up until a few weeks ago when I looked at his yellow card record it was a booking every three games on average, not that bad for a central midfielder that plays on the edge, it wasn't a great tackle although he did get the ball first, only a yellow for me, think that's only his second sending off for us maybe three, I will definatly check his record when I'm home later
[quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.[/p][/quote]Up until a few weeks ago when I looked at his yellow card record it was a booking every three games on average, not that bad for a central midfielder that plays on the edge, it wasn't a great tackle although he did get the ball first, only a yellow for me, think that's only his second sending off for us maybe three, I will definatly check his record when I'm home later abc100
  • Score: 6

1:22pm Mon 7 Apr 14

UOBCherry says...

fuhamfc12 wrote:
UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.
Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.
Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all.
This still does not explain how you believe he made "no attempt for the ball" when replays show his foot quite clearly making considerable contact with the ball. Thats not a difference of opinion that's just blindness on your part, probably caused by the standard dislike of Harry Arter. Where Arter admits he went over the top, he means he went in a little too hard and because its clear that he got the ball, whilst stretching for a fifty/fifty rather that deliberately going in to hurt the player that should have been deemed reckless rather than excessive. Arter hasn't let himself down, he was entitled to go for that challenge and he's come out the end with a harsh decision that could so easily have been less particularly had it of been committed by one of the stars at QPR. I can see why the ref's given it in real time, but he's unfortunate, and in this instance your Arter bashing is unjust.
I like arter, I've said he is a good player. I think there are a number of comments on here from others that say he was correctly dismissed. He was spoken to in the first half, tried the same tackle in the first half and failed. This isn't about disliking him. I've said he will be a miss for them as he is a quality midfielder. It has nothing to do with it being against QPR, it's down to him and him only. How many other players made tackles like him in the game from afcb?
We'll beg to differ over the dismisal (although I notice that those suggesting it was a definite red are being voted down, suggesting they are in the minority). However, you have still yet to explain how you reach the conclusion that he made "no attempt for the ball" when he quite clearly got it. It's this willingness to conclude that Arter went in with a deliberately aggressive mindset rather than making an honest attempt to get the ball that leads me to conclude you aren't that much of a fan of Arter. Have another go at explaining how you came to the "no attempt for the ball" conclusion.
[quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.[/p][/quote]How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.[/p][/quote]Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.[/p][/quote]Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all.[/p][/quote]This still does not explain how you believe he made "no attempt for the ball" when replays show his foot quite clearly making considerable contact with the ball. Thats not a difference of opinion that's just blindness on your part, probably caused by the standard dislike of Harry Arter. Where Arter admits he went over the top, he means he went in a little too hard and because its clear that he got the ball, whilst stretching for a fifty/fifty rather that deliberately going in to hurt the player that should have been deemed reckless rather than excessive. Arter hasn't let himself down, he was entitled to go for that challenge and he's come out the end with a harsh decision that could so easily have been less particularly had it of been committed by one of the stars at QPR. I can see why the ref's given it in real time, but he's unfortunate, and in this instance your Arter bashing is unjust.[/p][/quote]I like arter, I've said he is a good player. I think there are a number of comments on here from others that say he was correctly dismissed. He was spoken to in the first half, tried the same tackle in the first half and failed. This isn't about disliking him. I've said he will be a miss for them as he is a quality midfielder. It has nothing to do with it being against QPR, it's down to him and him only. How many other players made tackles like him in the game from afcb?[/p][/quote]We'll beg to differ over the dismisal (although I notice that those suggesting it was a definite red are being voted down, suggesting they are in the minority). However, you have still yet to explain how you reach the conclusion that he made "no attempt for the ball" when he quite clearly got it. It's this willingness to conclude that Arter went in with a deliberately aggressive mindset rather than making an honest attempt to get the ball that leads me to conclude you aren't that much of a fan of Arter. Have another go at explaining how you came to the "no attempt for the ball" conclusion. UOBCherry
  • Score: 6

2:15pm Mon 7 Apr 14

a real supporter says...

UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.
Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.
Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all.
This still does not explain how you believe he made "no attempt for the ball" when replays show his foot quite clearly making considerable contact with the ball. Thats not a difference of opinion that's just blindness on your part, probably caused by the standard dislike of Harry Arter. Where Arter admits he went over the top, he means he went in a little too hard and because its clear that he got the ball, whilst stretching for a fifty/fifty rather that deliberately going in to hurt the player that should have been deemed reckless rather than excessive. Arter hasn't let himself down, he was entitled to go for that challenge and he's come out the end with a harsh decision that could so easily have been less particularly had it of been committed by one of the stars at QPR. I can see why the ref's given it in real time, but he's unfortunate, and in this instance your Arter bashing is unjust.
I like arter, I've said he is a good player. I think there are a number of comments on here from others that say he was correctly dismissed. He was spoken to in the first half, tried the same tackle in the first half and failed. This isn't about disliking him. I've said he will be a miss for them as he is a quality midfielder. It has nothing to do with it being against QPR, it's down to him and him only. How many other players made tackles like him in the game from afcb?
We'll beg to differ over the dismisal (although I notice that those suggesting it was a definite red are being voted down, suggesting they are in the minority). However, you have still yet to explain how you reach the conclusion that he made "no attempt for the ball" when he quite clearly got it. It's this willingness to conclude that Arter went in with a deliberately aggressive mindset rather than making an honest attempt to get the ball that leads me to conclude you aren't that much of a fan of Arter. Have another go at explaining how you came to the "no attempt for the ball" conclusion.
Just watched it on the Football League Show and he defiantly got the ball first and in fact caught Hoilett on the boot even though Hoilett was rolling around holding his ankle. Watch and see for yourself on the I player it's conclusive. Clearly you have a problem with Arter maybe even AFCB. I'm also confused about your name. What are you doing on here? have you flip flopped to a team on the way up rather than the jokers in South West London. I think we’ve got another troll to join Shito, Milton arse bandit and the swindle knob.
[quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.[/p][/quote]How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.[/p][/quote]Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.[/p][/quote]Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all.[/p][/quote]This still does not explain how you believe he made "no attempt for the ball" when replays show his foot quite clearly making considerable contact with the ball. Thats not a difference of opinion that's just blindness on your part, probably caused by the standard dislike of Harry Arter. Where Arter admits he went over the top, he means he went in a little too hard and because its clear that he got the ball, whilst stretching for a fifty/fifty rather that deliberately going in to hurt the player that should have been deemed reckless rather than excessive. Arter hasn't let himself down, he was entitled to go for that challenge and he's come out the end with a harsh decision that could so easily have been less particularly had it of been committed by one of the stars at QPR. I can see why the ref's given it in real time, but he's unfortunate, and in this instance your Arter bashing is unjust.[/p][/quote]I like arter, I've said he is a good player. I think there are a number of comments on here from others that say he was correctly dismissed. He was spoken to in the first half, tried the same tackle in the first half and failed. This isn't about disliking him. I've said he will be a miss for them as he is a quality midfielder. It has nothing to do with it being against QPR, it's down to him and him only. How many other players made tackles like him in the game from afcb?[/p][/quote]We'll beg to differ over the dismisal (although I notice that those suggesting it was a definite red are being voted down, suggesting they are in the minority). However, you have still yet to explain how you reach the conclusion that he made "no attempt for the ball" when he quite clearly got it. It's this willingness to conclude that Arter went in with a deliberately aggressive mindset rather than making an honest attempt to get the ball that leads me to conclude you aren't that much of a fan of Arter. Have another go at explaining how you came to the "no attempt for the ball" conclusion.[/p][/quote]Just watched it on the Football League Show and he defiantly got the ball first and in fact caught Hoilett on the boot even though Hoilett was rolling around holding his ankle. Watch and see for yourself on the I player it's conclusive. Clearly you have a problem with Arter maybe even AFCB. I'm also confused about your name. What are you doing on here? have you flip flopped to a team on the way up rather than the jokers in South West London. I think we’ve got another troll to join Shito, Milton arse bandit and the swindle knob. a real supporter
  • Score: 6

2:30pm Mon 7 Apr 14

abc100 says...

abc100 wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
Up until a few weeks ago when I looked at his yellow card record it was a booking every three games on average, not that bad for a central midfielder that plays on the edge, it wasn't a great tackle although he did get the ball first, only a yellow for me, think that's only his second sending off for us maybe three, I will definatly check his record when I'm home later
For those that go about Arters disciplinary problems this us what it is according to the facts on line,

Appearances 140
Yellow cards 43
Red cards 2

A yellow card every 3.25 games ish, so not bad for a player that plays on the edge, he does need to try to keep his mouth zipped though!!!!
[quote][p][bold]abc100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.[/p][/quote]Up until a few weeks ago when I looked at his yellow card record it was a booking every three games on average, not that bad for a central midfielder that plays on the edge, it wasn't a great tackle although he did get the ball first, only a yellow for me, think that's only his second sending off for us maybe three, I will definatly check his record when I'm home later[/p][/quote]For those that go about Arters disciplinary problems this us what it is according to the facts on line, Appearances 140 Yellow cards 43 Red cards 2 A yellow card every 3.25 games ish, so not bad for a player that plays on the edge, he does need to try to keep his mouth zipped though!!!! abc100
  • Score: 3

2:37pm Mon 7 Apr 14

TedMacsCherryPants says...

^^
Milton Arser is remarkably conspicuous by his absence today, I can't think why!!??
^^ Milton Arser is remarkably conspicuous by his absence today, I can't think why!!?? TedMacsCherryPants
  • Score: 1

2:49pm Mon 7 Apr 14

fuhamfc12 says...

a real supporter wrote:
UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
UOBCherry wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.
How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.
Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.
Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all.
This still does not explain how you believe he made "no attempt for the ball" when replays show his foot quite clearly making considerable contact with the ball. Thats not a difference of opinion that's just blindness on your part, probably caused by the standard dislike of Harry Arter. Where Arter admits he went over the top, he means he went in a little too hard and because its clear that he got the ball, whilst stretching for a fifty/fifty rather that deliberately going in to hurt the player that should have been deemed reckless rather than excessive. Arter hasn't let himself down, he was entitled to go for that challenge and he's come out the end with a harsh decision that could so easily have been less particularly had it of been committed by one of the stars at QPR. I can see why the ref's given it in real time, but he's unfortunate, and in this instance your Arter bashing is unjust.
I like arter, I've said he is a good player. I think there are a number of comments on here from others that say he was correctly dismissed. He was spoken to in the first half, tried the same tackle in the first half and failed. This isn't about disliking him. I've said he will be a miss for them as he is a quality midfielder. It has nothing to do with it being against QPR, it's down to him and him only. How many other players made tackles like him in the game from afcb?
We'll beg to differ over the dismisal (although I notice that those suggesting it was a definite red are being voted down, suggesting they are in the minority). However, you have still yet to explain how you reach the conclusion that he made "no attempt for the ball" when he quite clearly got it. It's this willingness to conclude that Arter went in with a deliberately aggressive mindset rather than making an honest attempt to get the ball that leads me to conclude you aren't that much of a fan of Arter. Have another go at explaining how you came to the "no attempt for the ball" conclusion.
Just watched it on the Football League Show and he defiantly got the ball first and in fact caught Hoilett on the boot even though Hoilett was rolling around holding his ankle. Watch and see for yourself on the I player it's conclusive. Clearly you have a problem with Arter maybe even AFCB. I'm also confused about your name. What are you doing on here? have you flip flopped to a team on the way up rather than the jokers in South West London. I think we’ve got another troll to join Shito, Milton arse bandit and the swindle knob.
Nope, I follow afcb like it or not. I saw what I saw call me blind or whatever suits. The conclusion is he got sent off. He admitted it himself. I went over the top he has said.

You can't defend him when he has admitted what he has done.
[quote][p][bold]a real supporter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UOBCherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: He was not unfortunate, it was studs up, wet service, no attempt for the ball. He is a great player, however his yellow and red card record isn't that great. Not many people will agree but I for one feel he let him self down. He will be a big miss for the next 3 games, with reading which is such a big game.[/p][/quote]How can you say he made "no attempt for the ball" when he actually gets a foot on the ball. It was studs up with one foot which makes contact with the ball. Certainly because that one foot was studs up it could be argued to be a reckless challenge and thus worthy of a yellow card but given that it was only one foot which makes clear contact with the ball and not the player (its not like he goes over the ball and contacts the player's leg) it certainly shouldn't have been deemed excessive force, which is the criteria for a red card, and he should not have been sent off.[/p][/quote]Difference of opinions, the fact is he let him self down, which put the team under pressure for the last 20 mins of the game. If I recall correctly arter tried the same sort of tackle in the first half on sat. This is my opinion of what I saw, again only he will know if he was right or wrong, the fact is he let him self down and put the team on the back foot for the last 20 mins.[/p][/quote]Arter even admits he went over the top. That sais it all.[/p][/quote]This still does not explain how you believe he made "no attempt for the ball" when replays show his foot quite clearly making considerable contact with the ball. Thats not a difference of opinion that's just blindness on your part, probably caused by the standard dislike of Harry Arter. Where Arter admits he went over the top, he means he went in a little too hard and because its clear that he got the ball, whilst stretching for a fifty/fifty rather that deliberately going in to hurt the player that should have been deemed reckless rather than excessive. Arter hasn't let himself down, he was entitled to go for that challenge and he's come out the end with a harsh decision that could so easily have been less particularly had it of been committed by one of the stars at QPR. I can see why the ref's given it in real time, but he's unfortunate, and in this instance your Arter bashing is unjust.[/p][/quote]I like arter, I've said he is a good player. I think there are a number of comments on here from others that say he was correctly dismissed. He was spoken to in the first half, tried the same tackle in the first half and failed. This isn't about disliking him. I've said he will be a miss for them as he is a quality midfielder. It has nothing to do with it being against QPR, it's down to him and him only. How many other players made tackles like him in the game from afcb?[/p][/quote]We'll beg to differ over the dismisal (although I notice that those suggesting it was a definite red are being voted down, suggesting they are in the minority). However, you have still yet to explain how you reach the conclusion that he made "no attempt for the ball" when he quite clearly got it. It's this willingness to conclude that Arter went in with a deliberately aggressive mindset rather than making an honest attempt to get the ball that leads me to conclude you aren't that much of a fan of Arter. Have another go at explaining how you came to the "no attempt for the ball" conclusion.[/p][/quote]Just watched it on the Football League Show and he defiantly got the ball first and in fact caught Hoilett on the boot even though Hoilett was rolling around holding his ankle. Watch and see for yourself on the I player it's conclusive. Clearly you have a problem with Arter maybe even AFCB. I'm also confused about your name. What are you doing on here? have you flip flopped to a team on the way up rather than the jokers in South West London. I think we’ve got another troll to join Shito, Milton arse bandit and the swindle knob.[/p][/quote]Nope, I follow afcb like it or not. I saw what I saw call me blind or whatever suits. The conclusion is he got sent off. He admitted it himself. I went over the top he has said. You can't defend him when he has admitted what he has done. fuhamfc12
  • Score: -5

4:18pm Mon 7 Apr 14

pete woodley says...

fuhamfc12,WHY do you have to keep on making adverse comments against Arter,You have stated your opinion now several times,wasnt once enough,why keep on and on.I have played over 500 games myself locally,and also refereed,and i would not say it was a sending off offence,thats my opinion and i think a lot more think it,more than agree with you.
fuhamfc12,WHY do you have to keep on making adverse comments against Arter,You have stated your opinion now several times,wasnt once enough,why keep on and on.I have played over 500 games myself locally,and also refereed,and i would not say it was a sending off offence,thats my opinion and i think a lot more think it,more than agree with you. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Mon 7 Apr 14

fuhamfc12 says...

pete woodley wrote:
fuhamfc12,WHY do you have to keep on making adverse comments against Arter,You have stated your opinion now several times,wasnt once enough,why keep on and on.I have played over 500 games myself locally,and also refereed,and i would not say it was a sending off offence,thats my opinion and i think a lot more think it,more than agree with you.
As I am entitled to my own opinion. You may well of played and refereed however you didn't play sat did you?

Again, he got sent off for a ridiculous challenge. I have said above that he is a good player, I don't have anything against him. I have said he let himself down. You may not agree which is fine, but again this is my opinion which I'm entitled to.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: fuhamfc12,WHY do you have to keep on making adverse comments against Arter,You have stated your opinion now several times,wasnt once enough,why keep on and on.I have played over 500 games myself locally,and also refereed,and i would not say it was a sending off offence,thats my opinion and i think a lot more think it,more than agree with you.[/p][/quote]As I am entitled to my own opinion. You may well of played and refereed however you didn't play sat did you? Again, he got sent off for a ridiculous challenge. I have said above that he is a good player, I don't have anything against him. I have said he let himself down. You may not agree which is fine, but again this is my opinion which I'm entitled to. fuhamfc12
  • Score: -1

6:27pm Mon 7 Apr 14

pete woodley says...

26 comments,9 of them from fuhamfc12,doesnt he sound very arrogant.seems like a personal grudge to me.
26 comments,9 of them from fuhamfc12,doesnt he sound very arrogant.seems like a personal grudge to me. pete woodley
  • Score: -1

6:50pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Sergeant Blast says...

fuhamfc12 wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
fuhamfc12,WHY do you have to keep on making adverse comments against Arter,You have stated your opinion now several times,wasnt once enough,why keep on and on.I have played over 500 games myself locally,and also refereed,and i would not say it was a sending off offence,thats my opinion and i think a lot more think it,more than agree with you.
As I am entitled to my own opinion. You may well of played and refereed however you didn't play sat did you?

Again, he got sent off for a ridiculous challenge. I have said above that he is a good player, I don't have anything against him. I have said he let himself down. You may not agree which is fine, but again this is my opinion which I'm entitled to.
Please go for a walk or do something else now. This has become boring.
[quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: fuhamfc12,WHY do you have to keep on making adverse comments against Arter,You have stated your opinion now several times,wasnt once enough,why keep on and on.I have played over 500 games myself locally,and also refereed,and i would not say it was a sending off offence,thats my opinion and i think a lot more think it,more than agree with you.[/p][/quote]As I am entitled to my own opinion. You may well of played and refereed however you didn't play sat did you? Again, he got sent off for a ridiculous challenge. I have said above that he is a good player, I don't have anything against him. I have said he let himself down. You may not agree which is fine, but again this is my opinion which I'm entitled to.[/p][/quote]Please go for a walk or do something else now. This has become boring. Sergeant Blast
  • Score: 1

8:54pm Mon 7 Apr 14

pete woodley says...

Sergeant Blast wrote:
fuhamfc12 wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
fuhamfc12,WHY do you have to keep on making adverse comments against Arter,You have stated your opinion now several times,wasnt once enough,why keep on and on.I have played over 500 games myself locally,and also refereed,and i would not say it was a sending off offence,thats my opinion and i think a lot more think it,more than agree with you.
As I am entitled to my own opinion. You may well of played and refereed however you didn't play sat did you?

Again, he got sent off for a ridiculous challenge. I have said above that he is a good player, I don't have anything against him. I have said he let himself down. You may not agree which is fine, but again this is my opinion which I'm entitled to.
Please go for a walk or do something else now. This has become boring.
Was that addressed to me.
[quote][p][bold]Sergeant Blast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fuhamfc12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: fuhamfc12,WHY do you have to keep on making adverse comments against Arter,You have stated your opinion now several times,wasnt once enough,why keep on and on.I have played over 500 games myself locally,and also refereed,and i would not say it was a sending off offence,thats my opinion and i think a lot more think it,more than agree with you.[/p][/quote]As I am entitled to my own opinion. You may well of played and refereed however you didn't play sat did you? Again, he got sent off for a ridiculous challenge. I have said above that he is a good player, I don't have anything against him. I have said he let himself down. You may not agree which is fine, but again this is my opinion which I'm entitled to.[/p][/quote]Please go for a walk or do something else now. This has become boring.[/p][/quote]Was that addressed to me. pete woodley
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
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