Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support Fans Focus by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Farnborough away 28th August

Curtis

By Curtis
in Slough Town Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

HorshamRebel Explorer

HorshamRebel

Posted
Posted

The law has changed slightly this season.

 

Along with the triple jeopardy change inside the box, any foul that stops a GSO by pulling, tripping, etc. is an automatic red card... Regardless of any other player positions.

 

So the fact that there is a covering player does not change the red card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hammer_rebel Newbie

Hammer_rebel

Posted
Posted

Their twitter is on one, don't believe a teams own twitter should get involved in it at all, some of their tweets are very much coming off bitter and should be left to personal twitters. I can understand feeling hard done by, they seem to not even listen to new rules or accept that none of the "evidence" proves it was or wasn't a goal. Should be focusing on their next game

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don Juan DeMarcus Newbie

Don Juan DeMarcus

Posted
Posted

Not disagreeing with the criticism against my post but I would say they had the lions share of possession 2nd half and their number 12 cause shell down the right when he came on. Also as said a number of goal line clearances and last gasp defending (and a pen that should have been given) meant we should have gone in 3 or 4 up. Obviously in minority but still think the ref could easily have been a yellow (and as for the equaliser I'm not debating whether it was a well rehearsed piece of play- I'm sure it is) I'm just saying when it goes to the Lino to decide and we are talking g about a matter of a few cm here- we were lucky it was given.i thought farnborough were in charge for large chunks of the 2nd half. And as said we won. It wasn't pretty but 3 pints is all that matters so well done all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
3spirit Mentor

3spirit

Posted
Posted

Just thought I'd mention about the state of the pitch, according to Bakes, Spencer Day said they kept the grass long purposely and hadn't watered it.

Bit of kidology,if you ask me, as it didn't affect our play at all first half and we were generally better than them in all areas.

We were all over them, which leads me to wonder why we resorted to kicking it long at every opportunity in the second half. Our problems seemed to be of our own making when we resorted to this tactic.

I can understand doing it on occasion especially in the hot conditions but for a team who were so dominant in the first 45, and with the experience they have, I expected better from them than to keep giving possession away so cheaply.

 

My other observation from our tactics yesterday was why do we constantly use Guy Hollis to throw in long.

I'm not saying we should not use his excellent long range throwing but we could have caught Farnborough out,  if we had just thrown short on the odd occasion ,as every 'Boro' defender and Slough attackers poured into the penalty area awaiting the long throw in,when we could have thrown short to a player positioned outside the penalty area either to have a shot,cross or dribble the ball into the box.

We telegraph our intentions too often and should mix our play up a bit.

 

With a bit of invention,we could tear sides apart with the calibre of player we have. I know it's early days for our best play but I believe we would benefit from not being predictable at set pieces. 

 

For me,we let Farnborough off the hook and that's the reason why the result was too close for comfort.

Just a couple of minor points but worth noting for future games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reading Rebel Grand Master

Reading Rebel

Posted
Posted

Just thought I'd mention about the state of the pitch, according to Bakes, Spencer Day said they kept the grass long purposely and hadn't watered it.

Bit of kidology,if you ask me, as it didn't affect our play at all first half and we were generally better than them in all areas.

We were all over them, which leads me to wonder why we resorted to kicking it long at every opportunity in the second half. Our problems seemed to be of our own making when we resorted to this tactic.

I can understand doing it on occasion especially in the hot conditions but for a team who were so dominant in the first 45, and with the experience they have, I expected better from them than to keep giving possession away so cheaply.

 

My other observation from our tactics yesterday was why do we constantly use Guy Hollis to throw in long.

I'm not saying we should not use his excellent long range throwing but we could have caught Farnborough out,  if we had just thrown short on the odd occasion ,as every 'Boro' defender and Slough attackers poured into the penalty area awaiting the long throw in,when we could have thrown short to a player positioned outside the penalty area either to have a shot,cross or dribble the ball into the box.

We telegraph our intentions too often and should mix our play up a bit.

 

With a bit of invention,we could tear sides apart with the calibre of player we have. I know it's early days for our best play but I believe we would benefit from not being predictable at set pieces. 

 

For me,we let Farnborough off the hook and that's the reason why the result was too close for comfort.

Just a couple of minor points but worth noting for future games. 

 

 

I can see your point 3spirit on Guy's long throw.

 

I think I've mentioned this point before but although it is a useful weapon to have in our armoury, unless it is a very accurate throw I'm not sure we have the right type of players to turn them into goals. By the right type of players I mean a 6'6'' lump of a center forward or center backs.

 

The point about the grass being left long possibly took a bigger effect as the game wore on with the heat etc and players reverting to the longer ball through tiredness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reading Rebel Grand Master

Reading Rebel

Posted
Posted

The law has changed slightly this season.

 

Along with the triple jeopardy change inside the box, any foul that stops a GSO by pulling, tripping, etc. is an automatic red card... Regardless of any other player positions.

 

So the fact that there is a covering player does not change the red card.

 

 

If that rule change is correct HR somebody better tell Farnborough because it seems they are going to appeal the red card based upon a covering player.

 

If correct it's a bit worrying that clubs and managers (Mark Bartley for one) don't seem to be aware of this rule change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HorshamRebel Explorer

HorshamRebel

Posted
Posted

Just had clarification on the Denying a Goal Scoring Opportunity from Ernie.

The rule adds that position and number of defenders are taken into account.

 

It doesn't say how they are taken into account though.

 

I was miss-told the rule, mainly as that part is lower down and was probably missed

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reading Rebel Grand Master

Reading Rebel

Posted
Posted

Just had clarification on the Denying a Goal Scoring Opportunity from Ernie.

The rule adds that position and number of defenders are taken into account.

 

It doesn't say how they are taken into account though.

 

I was miss-told the rule, mainly as that part is lower down and was probably missed

 

 

Nice one HR. In football terms it's called a bum steer   :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reading Rebel Grand Master

Reading Rebel

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just had clarification on the Denying a Goal Scoring Opportunity from Ernie.

The rule adds that position and number of defenders are taken into account.

 

It doesn't say how they are taken into account though.

 

I was miss-told the rule, mainly as that part is lower down and was probably missed

 

 

So, it was one defender and in the Refs opinion if a foul was not committed the position of that defender wouldn't have stopped Gavin James from having a shot and a goal scoring opportunity.

 

If the above is correct then I think there's no disputing it was a deserved red card.

 

BTW who the f*** is Ernie   :lol:   

Edited by Reading Rebel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
epicrebel Apprentice

epicrebel

Posted
Posted

So, it was one defender and in the Refs opinion if a foul was not committed the position of that defender wouldn't have stopped Gavin James from having a shot and a goal scoring opportunity.

 

If the above is correct then I think there's no disputing it was a deserved red card.

 

BTW who the f*** is Ernie   :lol:   

The fastest milk man in the west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...