Martin,
You describe the second challenge from Atkinson as ‘a foul but no more than that’, however look at this from the Referee’s point of view.
Remembering that despite football being a game where we all have differing opinions and viewpoints, some more partisan than others and some ‘better’ than others, that the only person whose viewpoint and opinion counts is that of the referee.
The referee had earlier cautioned Atkinson for a reckless challenge upon an opponent where thankfully for Atkinson, he was not off the floor and only using one foot in the challenge. At this point he would have been warned as to his future conduct by the referee.
Atkinson then, when he has let the Swindon player get the advantage in a chase up the pitch, deliberately trips him to break up play. The ball is not within playing distance and Atkinson takes the Swindon players back foot. It ‘reeks of an anywhere up the pitch’ to break up play foul. Which is unsporting at best and can be deemed by many, correctly in my opinion, as being cynical. It may be the fact that this foul can quite easily interpreted as cynical that sold it to the referee as a caution. Either way after the first reckless challenge, any challenge put in afterwards, unless delivered with Gary Pollard like accuracy, would be on the same level as playing Russian roulette with a handgrenade. It would be interesting as to what is put in the Referee’s report for the second caution. If the second caution is reported as unsporting behaviour then Mr Atkinson has brought it on himself as he made the Referee’s mind up for him. I don’t think we have at the club, thankfully, players clever enough to be this cynical and get away with it.
Every now and again I like to disagree with you as it is part of football. Thanks for the years of match reports and long may they continue.