 Rydyn ni'n gweithio yw Lluca Deen's red card? Gyda ni'n credu y red card? Mae'n gorfodd arall, mae'n credu red card o'n urhyn iawn, mae'n unrhyw o'r trofodd, ond mae'n unrhyw o rhan o'r trofodd, mae'n cael ei ddweud o'r mynd yn ymgylch. Mae'n credu'r red card o'r trofodd, mae'n credu'r red card o'r trofodd Mae'n credu'r red card o'r trofodd, mae'n credu'r red card o'r trofodd, I was he doesn't change his stride, he's just running trying to get back, but I just think that contact is made on the back of the lad's ankle, and therefore I don't see how we could argue it's a red. What I would say is two things I would say. One, I don't see Everton getting it overturned, that's the first thing despite appealing, but what I would say is there might be a case for Everton to appeal the severity of it because I don't think it was dangerous play. Do you know what I mean? Where is Ritialisans? I don't think you can argue it was a red and it was dangerous play because he jumped into the tackle. I don't think that was the case with Luca Dean, so I still feel like, I feel like instead of a three match ban he should get a one match ban because I think it was a red card but I don't think it was an intentional dangerous challenge. That's my stance. No, no, I tend to agree with what you're saying. I think the problem was with us. Dean had just gone in for a tackle or he was in a challenge. He'd had a little nibble at me. He'd slipped out. Then he chased after him and the referee is looking at it and it almost looks like he's chasing it. He's getting some kind of retribution isn't he? You look at Dean's reaction afterwards, you can tell that he didn't actually mean it. You can tell that just by his body language. But when he puts his foot down and I know he's trying to get his stride and it almost like when he puts his foot on his calf and the lad, his foot just slides so Dean's foot slides and it just makes it look really, really bad. But it is dangerous play isn't it at the end of the day? It is dangerous play and I know he didn't mean it. And you're right for me that's a one match ban really. I don't see it should be three matches. I think it should be one match. They'll appeal it and we'll see what happens but I think it's that weird intent and I look at it with Robinson's last week and it's funny isn't it because it's basically the same thing but extra referees will say to us that's nothing. Well he put his foot down his calf but it's because yeah he mean a touch them blah blah blah and it's that weird intent again. You know I've put it on Twitter and people saying yeah but Andy Robinson meant it and look at Dean didn't. But the problem is for the referee, the referee doesn't know that intent. There's only one person who knows you meant to do it and that's the player who does it. So it's a very hard thing to gauge so I think it should be one match at most. Yeah I totally agree. I think the Robertson thing he jumped in he meant to do it. He should have been red card that there's no question about it. This was similar in terms of he caught him in the same area. Now Robertson hasn't even been booked and Luke of Deans was sent off so but you can't go from match to match and compare it because it doesn't really work like that with these referees. So I think while it's a red card I don't expect it to be a be surprised if it was rescinded personally but it should definitely be downgraded to a one match ban. See what makes you laugh is how the hell did that son ever get rescinded the challenge on Andre Gomez? How on earth can you rescind a player running after someone jumping in? The lad ends up with his foot pointing the other way and the FA decide the next day that it should have been rescinded. I think that's the essence of all of this when they rescinded son's red card last season. It's just so ridiculous. But this for me is a one match ban and the next match ban I think will be about right. Yeah we'll have to wait to see what happens on that one. Definitely.