|
Post by jdl on Nov 18, 2018 21:54:32 GMT
Anyone else notice that they have now removed the offending bar from the goalposts? So we don't get anymore non goal goals Thank god for that - I was pointing them out to my daughter, but couldn't see them. Thought my eyes really had gone!
|
|
|
Post by hongkongstone on Nov 19, 2018 2:31:39 GMT
I can only repeat, that ten yards away, Phillips got the ball cleanly, was nowhere near their man and it was a completely fair tackle. What it looked like from other perspectives is in the eyes of the beholders, but where I was standing: foul, no;yellow card, never; red card - you must be joking! Watching Stones TV, whilst the challange itself was fair and good MP did initially jump in two-footed. This is possibly what the referee saw and as such made up his mind very early on without further due consideration.
|
|
|
Post by shamstone on Nov 19, 2018 4:56:15 GMT
For me I think Romaine and Cassidy will terrorise any defence in this league. Turgott I would drop cos I think he’s not a team player lately. Midfield Pax, Powell,etc. are kinda linking now and taking the pressure of the defence.Think Walton as usual scares the shit out me cos Es so on the edge. Great goal. Es a leader though, wot we need Swaine coming in , solid. Unlucky for the deflection. Smith just a bit of class. Again as was said earlier we dropped points to the league leaders who we made look ordinary. Play Offs here we come. COYS Drop Turgott 😂😂 How many goals have the rest of the team scored this season? Yeah. It might do him good. Well probably lose him in January anyway. He didn’t have a great game Saturday and I think we should’ve won. Maybe see how it’ll look up front if he’s gone. Might as well be ready for it
|
|
|
Post by exiled on Nov 19, 2018 8:00:17 GMT
Drop Turgott 😂😂 How many goals have the rest of the team scored this season? Yeah. It might do him good. Well probably lose him in January anyway. He didn’t have a great game Saturday and I think we should’ve won. Maybe see how it’ll look up front if he’s gone. Might as well be ready for it Very much dependent if there's a buy out clause in his contract which Pigott had
|
|
|
Post by Bernie on Nov 19, 2018 8:19:33 GMT
Highly unlikely. Then owners said they wouldn't do that
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on Nov 19, 2018 8:47:48 GMT
That tackle. Yes, Phillips clearly went in two footed, but equally clear he did so because, a) the ball was a yard ahead of their player and b) their player had already stopped because he knew he had already lost the ball. Very poor decision by the referee. Any talk of it being red card territory nonsense. Romains tackle at the end of the first half a different matter...
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Nov 19, 2018 9:42:59 GMT
That tackle. Yes, Phillips clearly went in two footed, but equally clear he did so because, a) the ball was a yard ahead of their player and b) their player had already stopped because he knew he had already lost the ball. Very poor decision by the referee. Any talk of it being red card territory nonsense. Romains tackle at the end of the first half a different matter... Your choice of word does rather defeat your argument as a two footed challenge should equate to a foul and a free kick to the opposition under the laws of the game.
Both feet were off the ground and, irrespective of the opponent's attempt to get out of the way, ends up against the opponent's legs (taking him out being a bit of an exaggeration). Easily - and not necessarily incorrectly - interpreted by the referee as being 'out of control' and possibly reckless.
Don't think VAR would have overruled the ref's decision as, to my mind, it wasn't 'an obvious error'. Some referees might have used a different card.
But a lot of football is about opinions and this is another one of those where it's down to how the referee sees it at the time.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 19, 2018 9:45:11 GMT
Highly unlikely. Then owners said they wouldn't do that I believe there is, and it's 35K
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on Nov 19, 2018 10:46:10 GMT
That tackle. Yes, Phillips clearly went in two footed, but equally clear he did so because, a) the ball was a yard ahead of their player and b) their player had already stopped because he knew he had already lost the ball. Very poor decision by the referee. Any talk of it being red card territory nonsense. Romains tackle at the end of the first half a different matter... Your choice of word does rather defeat your argument as a two footed challenge should equate to a foul and a free kick to the opposition under the laws of the game.
Both feet were off the ground and, irrespective of the opponent's attempt to get out of the way, ends up against the opponent's legs (taking him out being a bit of an exaggeration). Easily - and not necessarily incorrectly - interpreted by the referee as being 'out of control' and possibly reckless.
Don't think VAR would have overruled the ref's decision as, to my mind, it wasn't 'an obvious error'. Some referees might have used a different card.
But a lot of football is about opinions and this is another one of those where it's down to how the referee sees it at the time.
Oh dear, people do like to nit pick on this forum and I find myself in danger of falling into the usual shitgibbonry that always ensues. My final word on the matter is to reiterate that Phillips went in as he did because their player was nowhere near, so one foot, two or whatever is immaterial, because there was no danger to anyone. And at less than ten yards away, it was very clear. Check Phillips' reaction, it was not able that of a player trying to contact the ref. He knew he had done nothing wrong. Whatever. It obviously counts as a yellow card, so we move on. I know what I saw and nobody will convince me otherwise!
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Nov 19, 2018 11:59:33 GMT
Your choice of word does rather defeat your argument as a two footed challenge should equate to a foul and a free kick to the opposition under the laws of the game.
Both feet were off the ground and, irrespective of the opponent's attempt to get out of the way, ends up against the opponent's legs (taking him out being a bit of an exaggeration). Easily - and not necessarily incorrectly - interpreted by the referee as being 'out of control' and possibly reckless.
Don't think VAR would have overruled the ref's decision as, to my mind, it wasn't 'an obvious error'. Some referees might have used a different card.
But a lot of football is about opinions and this is another one of those where it's down to how the referee sees it at the time.
Oh dear, people do like to nit pick on this forum and I find myself in danger of falling into the usual shitgibbonry that always ensues. My final word on the matter is to reiterate that Phillips went in as he did because their player was nowhere near, so one foot, two or whatever is immaterial, because there was no danger to anyone. And at less than ten yards away, it was very clear. Check Phillips' reaction, it was not able that of a player trying to contact the ref. He knew he had done nothing wrong. Whatever. It obviously counts as a yellow card, so we move on. I know what I saw and nobody will convince me otherwise! Had a very similar argument with NWS a few years ago regarding an incident against Margate on Boxing Day. I think it was Jerome Sobers who went in feet first, both feet off the ground and NWS insisted it was a wreckless challenge even though he was at least two metres, maybe more, away from the nearest player. In that instance the referee didn't even consider awarding a free kick let alone a card, but our esteemed friend and colleague continued to insist that he should have been sent off.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 19, 2018 13:11:49 GMT
Oh dear, people do like to nit pick on this forum and I find myself in danger of falling into the usual shitgibbonry that always ensues. My final word on the matter is to reiterate that Phillips went in as he did because their player was nowhere near, so one foot, two or whatever is immaterial, because there was no danger to anyone. And at less than ten yards away, it was very clear. Check Phillips' reaction, it was not able that of a player trying to contact the ref. He knew he had done nothing wrong. Whatever. It obviously counts as a yellow card, so we move on. I know what I saw and nobody will convince me otherwise! Had a very similar argument with NWS a few years ago regarding an incident against Margate on Boxing Day. I think it was Jerome Sobers who went in feet first, both feet off the ground and NWS insisted it was a wreckless challenge even though he was at least two metres, maybe more, away from the nearest player. In that instance the referee didn't even consider awarding a free kick let alone a card, but our esteemed friend and colleague continued to insist that he should have been sent off. I can't believe nws stubbornly stuck to his opinion, even when he was clearly wrong. Are you sure you're remembering this accurately?
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Nov 19, 2018 13:18:36 GMT
Can nws now show some contrition for being proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt ?
A grovelling apology from him would be an appropriate first step.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 19, 2018 13:26:36 GMT
One of the reasons that people see different things at games is not just the distance, but mainly because they are viewing the incident from different angles.
The tackle in question, for instance, happened towards the EE end of the pitch, near the river side touchline. So if you were standing high up on the river side of the EE, you'd have got a pretty good view, albeit end-on. From our seats, high up in the MS, it was practically opposite us, but on the other side of the pitch, so we got an excellent side-on view, but it was too far away to be sure of exactly what happened. Had you been standing by the fence at that point, you would have got an excellent view, but might still have not properly seen the build-up to the incident because you were too close.
And from the TE, not only was the incident at the far end of the pitch, but, from the river side of the TE, you'd have seen it end-on and with considerable parallax error (i.e. at distance you get a view where the distance between the participants appears a lot less than it really is - this is most noticeable with 'goals' that appear to be going in, but turn out to be well short).
So, each of us sees 'clearly' what happened, but we each see something different.
If I remember correctly, the ref was near the river side and more or less behind the incident, so wouldn't have had a good view, and would certainly not have been able to judge the distance between the players accurately. (Although, as others have said, if Phillips went in two-footed, he was pretty lucky not to get a straight red anyway.)
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 19, 2018 13:28:29 GMT
Can nws now show some contrition for being proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt ? A grovelling apology from him would be an appropriate first step. How long have you been on this board??
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Nov 19, 2018 14:24:41 GMT
That's a bit like declaring that there is no hope for our forum pal.
|
|