Forrester's cards

[Bristol Red Rover]

The second one has been discussed elsewhere - ref acting to the letter of the law, Forrester should have had his brain switched on.

The first I've looked at many times from the two slightly different angles given on the player highlights.

Forrester was running in at full pace and had to adjust his stride to get the ball, which he did. In doing so he'd have been a little off balance, though possibly still went over a little bit too easily. The City defender definitely missed the ball and seems to have pulled out from going for the ball but still made a movement with his foot in the path of Forrester where Harry's feet were going to be, and I'm 90% certain he caught Harrry's foot.

That to me is a penalty. I can't see how the ref can be certain that there was no foul. He was going on Forrester going over a bit too easy and that he adjusted his stride (in order to get to the ball) which meant he was caught by the City defender. If his stride had been consistent he'd have missed the defenders feet, but also missed the ball.

Refs make mistakes, so I can forgive him for not giving a penalty, but then giving a yellow is wrong. Letter of the law again, coupled with the idea that there has to be a decision one way or the other rather than allowing for the grey area. The law for cards for diving should be changed so cards are only given for clear dives, and not for when a player falls a little too easily when fouled nor when the ref isn't certain there wasn't a foul.

[DonnyNoel]

I'm not saying it is/isn't a penalty but I think a booking for diving is the one booking a player should be able to appeal given the referee (whom I usually side with) is labelling the player a cheat.

If a ref got a decision wrong and booked me for a tackle where I played the ball I'd mark that down as one of those things that may even out over a season but if a black mark was incorrectly cast against my character I'd want the chance to clear my name.

[GazLaz]

He made a right meal of it, let's be honest.

[wing commander]

   I think you can over analyse incidents...Bookings happen some are justified some are harsh..I've seen us get away with a few this year..Bottom line for me was he had been booked..He knew it and even though he has gone once already this season he still gave the ref a descision to make which was beyond stupid...I don't care wether he's apologised or not he wants fining and reminding he owes us and its about time he started paying it back....

[nice one rovers]

I thought from the thread title, he'd been given his cards!

[steve@dcfd]

He is out for two games being his second red card. That's means he as been available for 5 out of 10 games up to Next Saturday.

[glosterred]

Both yellows were stupid - the first, looks like a dive, the second, like Evina - what was he thinking?

COYR

[Dagenham Rover]

Picture in yesterdays Star clearly shows the defenders foot  "standing" on the side of Foresters foot

[GazLaz]

Picture in yesterdays Star clearly shows the defenders foot  "standing" on the side of Foresters foot

There can be contact and it still be a dive.

[Dagenham Rover]

He was very clearly stood on the side of his foot, however tbf the ref apeared to be behind and to the other side.
I would suggest there is no way the ref could have said it was a dive or a penalty because of his position

[glosterred]

The dive was Klinnsmanesque

COYR

[Bristol Red Rover]

The dive was Klinnsmanesque

COYR

In looks maybe, but that was because Forrester was running at pace, having to check his stride to get to the ball and got tripped up. From that point he did make a meal of it, but nailed on pen for me. The yellow for a dive is pathetic by the ref.

[Dagenham Rover]

Unfortunately the photo I mentioned is not in the online edition only the printed version and as I read somebody elses I haven't got one to be able to scan

[RobTheRover]

Sorry to hijack the thread title but.....

[uptonson]

What suspension did Forrester get.  There were loads of different ideas last night but it seems he only got a one match ban.  No mention of a suspension on FA website.

[bobjimwilly]

"Suspended from all first team football until the Club have completed 2 first team matches for a Sending Off in a match played on 13/09/2014."

http://nav.thefa.com/sitecore/content/TheFA/Home/TheFA/~/link.aspx?_id=D6CA03B6740C4E78A1E74E2493E9199B&_z=z

[Sammy Chung was King]

Come on just because he plays for us,it was a dive,not enough contact to knock a flea over,he shouldn't have done it,he has combined cheating & immaturity in his two cards.
He needs to grow up to get the best out of the undoubted ability he has,just because other players cheat it doesn't make it right,it's supposed to be a mans game,where has sporting behaviour and respecting a fellow player gone?

[RJHeader]

Come on just because he plays for us,it was a dive,not enough contact to knock a flea over,he shouldn't have done it,he has combined cheating & immaturity in his two cards.
He needs to grow up to get the best out of the undoubted ability he has,just because other players cheat it doesn't make it right,it's supposed to be a mans game,where has sporting behaviour and respecting a fellow player gone?

Is there a replay for it anywhere? I saw it on the day and thought straight away it was a pen, mainly for the speed he was running you dont need much of a touch to go down.

You've also got to be clever in situations like that, theres a difference between diving and playing for a pen/freekick. In modern day football you have to do the latter to win games unfortunately. Gary Neville sums it up perfectly in some of his rants on MNF

[Dagenham Rover]

As I said before there was a picture in the printed edition of the Star that clearly showed the the defender stood on the side of Foresters foot