davids
Player Valuation: £70m
I'm sure his missus has a spare couple of minutes to post " stop this nonsense"Not being funny mate, but I reckon he has other stuff on his mind at the moment.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm sure his missus has a spare couple of minutes to post " stop this nonsense"Not being funny mate, but I reckon he has other stuff on his mind at the moment.
No excuse from the rs tho.Not being funny mate, but I reckon he has other stuff on his mind at the moment.
You realise they have already stated that VAR checked it and deemed it didn't pass the threshold for a red card.VAR could have applied rule of reckless endangerment under rule 12 (serious foul play in other words) and reviewed the tackle, irrespective of the offside. I'm not suggesting this would have resulted in a red, but it was definitely within VAR's jurisdiction to review.
No excuse from the rs tho.
You realise they have already stated that VAR checked it and deemed it didn't pass the threshold for a red card.
Nope they already stated they reviewed it.To the best of my knowledge, they have said they didn't review. If I am wrong apologies in advance
Not the least, fits their usual behaviour. Imagine the outcry if the tables were turned an we sent death threats to VVD.You surprised?
Nope they already stated they reviewed it.
Because under the rules the whistle had already gone so there was nothing they could do.I would you love you to source that - I don't get how anyone can review and not come to conclusion it was a red, fair play if they did
Because under the rules the whistle had already gone so there was nothing they could do.
If he was getting a ban it would’ve happened days ago.
If you already know why are you asking the question?That is just incorrect, it couldnt have been a penalty, but still a red .....
VAR could have also applied rule of reckless endangerment under rule 12 (serious foul play in other words) and reviewed the tackle, irrespective of the offside. I'm not suggesting this would have resulted in a red, but it was definately within VAR's jurisdiction to review.
If you are referring to a retrospective ban, yes they said he cant get one because the incident was seen.
If you already know why are you asking the question?
He wasn’t sent off and he’s not getting a ban and that’s pretty much the end of it.
There’s very little we can do the RS need to come out and say something which of course they won’t. They’re onto a right winner here, they’re totally appeasing the fans and they’re going to get every refereeing decision and stop teams tackling their players in the coming gamesExactly, more importantly who’s arsed now?
The bigger issue now is how Everton deal with the slimey media and their RS cronies who’s dangerous rhetoric have led to death threats to his girlfriend and baby son.
Do your own research. It was stated on the BBC the next day. Why are you so insistent it should be a red? Game was nearly a week ago now. Weird you are still pushing him to have been sent off.I would you love you to source that - I don't get how anyone can review and not come to conclusion it was a red, fair play if they did