Watched the game back this morning and that shoulder charge was shocking . A clear attempt to injure Atkin.
Red card was deserved , I think he will get a two match ban . I don’t think their coaches comments after the game will go in Faraimos favour either.

You actually believe that? Seriously?

I have looked at it twice and I thought it should have been sin bin at most but that aside we need better players fast

tbf he had his arms wrapped round, if it wasn't on telly nothing would have been done, it was just a hard shot. if it had been a head shot how come he didn't go off for a concussion test? he should have by the law, anyway good to have the derby back, good crowd and good atmosphere,

It looked like a shoulder to the face to me but to say hes gone in to hurt him i very much doubt, the games played that fast that i doubt players have the time to think and ponder how there going to tackle someone, its more of an instinct.
Red card seems harsh but it wont be the last challenge we see like that so lets see how consistent they are

A yellow card , and on report . Atkin didn’t go off for the head shot . If he got a red , surely Atkin should have gone off for a head assessment.

Why? So a player that commits foul play and receives a red card warrants the player the offence was against to have a head assesment ?

It was a bad one , the intent was there .

Wasn't a shoulder charge (See HKRofficial's top derby moments to see one by Murrell), didn't hit the head. To accuse a pro of deliberately trying to injure another is stupid. I think he will get a two match ban. Our coaches commented on how the VR influenced decisions to the detriment of the specatacle.

Well, we agreed on one thing I guess.

Have a nice weekend.

#coyh

The only person who knows what intent there was, is Faraimo. Everyone else is speculating, with the benefit of TV replays.
IMO he doesn't intend to attack the head, or to injure, he merely puts a 'big hit' on.

Certainly worthy of a yellow, it was clumsy and poor technique, not at all malicious. Red was a bit harsh imo but if you put in those sorts of hits you’ve risk that especially on TV. Given he was off for 70 mins, probably get 1 game imo rather than 2. Not too much worry, we’ve got the cover and depth.

If a player has meant to have committed a foul to the head so bad that it warrants a red card, surely that player would need a head assessment to make sure he's safe to play? Player safety and all that?

Or, in the real world, he went for a big hit, got it slightly wrong in the the whiplash brought the head forward (wasn't direct contact) and wasn't quick enough to hit him before he passed it.

It was risky. But it wasn't intentional because if it was, he'd have actually smashed his face in and he definitely would have needed to go off.

I wouldn't even say the one Patton did on him a few weeks back was intentional and that was far far worse.

If a player is not concussed why would they need a concussion test? For me the tackle was poorly executed and the fact his feet are off the floor will also go against him.
It is not a shoulder charge as he has arms around the player but his shoulder does make contact with the head so I think a red was the right decision in the end (at the time I thought it was a terrible decision as you usually do when it is against your team.)
Was there intent, I doubt Faraimo went out to intentionally attack Atkins head.
Be interesting to see what Faraimo gets at the disciplinary this week, I would expect 2-3 games.

Not sure about it being a deliberate attempt to injure an opponent, but its a red card everyday of the week.

Wouldnt be at all surprised if he got 4-6 games.

How do you know if he's concussed or not without the test? You can't just take a player's word for it. If he was hit in the head that hard that he stayed down and if the challenge was that bad it was deemed a red card, then that player should definitely have been checked.

At the end of the day, if it was an attack to the head and he was unable to get back up, you should always check the player properly.

He got 1 match (nearly 2 with the 71 minutes from yesterday)

What is a “ foul to the head “?

Your post doesn’t make much sense .

What was risky ?

Who said it was “a foul to the head “ ?

“It was risky. But it wasn't intentional because if it was, he'd have actually smashed his face in and he definitely would have needed to go off “

Wow !



“

Which coaches?

I thought the technique was perfect, not late, not a shoulder not high.. If you hit someone that had in the chin/head they are going to be spark out, he wasn't so it proves he hit him in the chest. I'd be staggered if he even got a 1 match ban for it. Seems he got sent off for a tackle that could have been bad, but wasn't..

Your right except the technique wasn't right it was late it was high so apart from them mistakes your spot on

Is it not pretty self-explanatory?
A foul to the head is foul play involving contact with the head. I genuinely can't believe that's had to be spelt out!


Rushing in on a player to put in a big shot. It's always risky.


If there was no apparent foul to the head, why was he sent off?

What's the wow for?

If any player wished to do intentionally harm another player by use of shoulder to the head, it would indeed smash their face in. It's not hard to miss if intending to do it.

You seem to be struggling with your comprehension this weekend.

So if a player uses his shoulder to the head of an opponent it would “smash his face in “.

And I am “struggling with my comprehension “..

Explain struggling with my comprehension ....you are making a fool of yourself .

Not had the chance to re watch the game yet.Probably won't tbh.If it had been Carney on Kelly doing same you lot would have been howling for red. I didn't notice anything out of ordinary from Stand and agree Kendall wasn't going to penalise the tackle. Just one of those things and if it had cost you the game I could understand the bleating.

Weird post. Part of been a fan is screaming red, doesn’t invalidate the debate afterwards.