Quote ="rover 2000"it wasn't a ridiculous decision but maybe 10 minutes to cool down and think about it would have been right, it was very late and at the head ,a bit silly really as the ball had long gone but imo not particularly malicious so yellow card ,officials and video refs are erratic and continue to blight the game every week'"
If you watch, and re-watch, and play in slow motion every incident, it is possible to see something, good or bad, that wasn't seen in the original incident.
A lot more tackles, with far worse head contact, occurred yesterday, and went unpunished, purely because there was no hold up in play for a video ref to watch them.
As has been said, neither of the officials closest to the action saw anything in it other than a big hit. and play would have continued, had the facility to replay (time and time again) the tackle not been available.
Having watched it, again and again. It is my opinion that it was not a deliberate attempt to attack the head nor was it an attempt to injure, it was simply a 'Big Hit'.
It was Bentham's opinion that it was. I accept that. I think his decision was ridiculous. That is my opinion, which is irrelevant because I have no influence on what happened.
My original point was that Rovers got their 'payback' because of that decision.
To be able to play almost the full match against 12 men, should have been a gift, which should have lead to a comfortable win.
That FC created the illusion, on several occasions, that KR were the team with only 12 men, should be of grave concern to supporters and team members alike.
Granted, if you had had McGuire, and or Lunt on the field it may have made a difference.
