Chichester City - FA Cup

[rebelbrewer]

14 hours ago, Reading Rebel said:

Our first goal was not given by the ref or lino but unbelievably by the 4th official who must have been further away than both of them.

Looks like the balls hit the wheel section that's at the front of the goal.

4th official potentially had a better angle though.

[Reading Rebel]

12 minutes ago, rebelbrewer said:

4th official potentially had a better angle though.

Luckily for us he did RB.

 

[Kaiser Gibbs Batman (KGB)]

I thought that the referee was good and, acknowledging that I am used to Horsham's offerings, the home team's programme, at £2, was, for an Isthmian Premier Division club, very poor. Off to search for photographs of the old Godolphin Stadium (sic).

[sdelaney2308]

55 minutes ago, Kaiser Gibbs Batman (KGB) said:

I thought that the referee was good and, acknowledging that I am used to Horsham's offerings, the home team's programme, at £2, was, for an Isthmian Premier Division club, very poor. Off to search for photographs of the old Godolphin Stadium (sic).

Agree thought the ref was very good especially with the melee of eight mad players surrounding her with the Gilbert tackle on there player was very calm giving the right decision with yellow card.

The pitch did hold the ball up we did not play with enough composure.

Chichester played very well and would of been an injustice if they lost.

COYREBELS 

[Holyport Rebel]

I find it very surprising that we (and others obviously),  have had artificial pitches for some time which use moveable goals on wheels and had no noticeable problem with them, yet twice in a matter of weeks we have scored two goals in two different games which  in  different circumstances might not have been awarded to us.

Firstly Dan Baylis had a header against Hornchurch which hit a metal part of the goal just inside the post behind the goal line which caused the ball to rebound quickly out, causing  play to carry on for a brief second or two before we knew it had been awarded as a goal.

Then again yesterday, even more alarmingly, play carried on for several more  seconds after John Gilbert's shot must have hit  the metal wheel assembly which again was just behind the goalpost, rolled along the goal line and was cleared.  

I thought a goal was not going to be awarded, especially so as from where I was standing it definitely looked as though it hadn't gone in !

Play did indeed carry on for what felt like quite a while before the ref seemed to stop the game and confusingly to me signal a goal.

I'm sure when I watch the video replay of this incident it will not seem anywhere near as long as it felt at the time, but I was very surprised (but pleased),that the game was stopped and a goal given.    

It does now  seem to me to be a design fault to build a moveable  goalpost with solid parts immediately just behind the posts.

I'm surprised  that we  haven't seen incidents like these happening previously.

 

P.S.  I thought the way the Chichester players surrounded the ref pressurising her to produce  a red card  after John Gilbert's firm tackle was totally uncalled for.

I thought this was supposed not to happen anymore? 

Edited Sunday at 14:49 by Holyport Rebel

[Reading Rebel]

18 hours ago, Holyport Rebel said:

I find it very surprising that we (and others obviously),  have had artificial pitches for some time which use moveable goals on wheels and had no noticeable problem with them, yet twice in a matter of weeks we have scored two goals in two different games which  in  different circumstances might not have been awarded to us.

Firstly Dan Baylis had a header against Hornchurch which hit a metal part of the goal just inside the post behind the goal line which caused the ball to rebound quickly out, causing  play to carry on for a brief second or two before we knew it had been awarded as a goal.

Then again yesterday, even more alarmingly, play carried on for several more  seconds after John Gilbert's shot must have hit  the metal wheel assembly which again was just behind the goalpost, rolled along the goal line and was cleared.  

I thought a goal was not going to be awarded, especially so as from where I was standing it definitely looked as though it hadn't gone in !

Play did indeed carry on for what felt like quite a while before the ref seemed to stop the game and confusingly to me signal a goal.

I'm sure when I watch the video replay of this incident it will not seem anywhere near as long as it felt at the time, but I was very surprised (but pleased),that the game was stopped and a goal given.    

It does now  seem to me to be a design fault to build a moveable  goalpost with solid parts immediately just behind the posts.

I'm surprised  that we  haven't seen incidents like these happening previously.

 

P.S.  I thought the way the Chichester players surrounded the ref pressurising her to produce  a red card  after John Gilbert's firm tackle was totally uncalled for.

I thought this was supposed not to happen anymore? 

A few years ago, because refs were constantly being surrounded by players, a rule came in whereby only the captain could approach the ref and anyone else would get carded. Players knew the rule and for me it worked perfectly. Unfortunately that rule seems to have disappeared into the ether a bit like the rule where the keeper only had seconds to get rid of the ball.

Again I thought a rule was introduced whereby if a player waved an imaginary card to get a player booked that player would themselves get carded.

Unless they enjoy being hounded and harassed all afternoon refs have got to wise up and let players know, perhaps before the game starts, what they expect from the players and what their tolerance levels are, that way they can't have any complaints if they get booked or sent off. 

 

 

Edited Monday at 08:44 by Reading Rebel

[sdelaney2308]

34 minutes ago, Reading Rebel said:

A few years ago, because refs were constantly being surrounded by players, a rule came in whereby only the captain could approach the ref and anyone else would get carded. Players knew the rule and for me it worked perfectly. Unfortunately that rule seems to have disappeared into the either a bit like the rule where the keeper only had seconds to get rid of the ball.

Again I thought a rule was introduced whereby if a player waved an imaginary card to get a player booked that player would themselves get carded.

Unless they enjoy being hounded and harassed all afternoon refs have got to wise up and let players know, perhaps before the game starts, what they expect from the players and what their tolerance levels are, that way they can't have any complaints if they get booked or sent off. 

 

 

Every season new rules come in and go out of the window soon after.

[rebelade]

Holyport Rebel, the issue on Saturday with the goal was that it wasn’t checked properly, firstly by the ground staff and then the Lino. The wheel should have been straight but was at an angle after being wheeled into place. Because it hit the angle and that angle was pointing outwards that’s where the ball headed. Having have to deal with the goals and positioning at AP it should never be a problem if positioned correctly but there will be occasions. 
The design allows one person to be able to move the goal whereas ours requires 2 people. Guess Assistant Refs need to be more aware of this on artificial pitches.

[Holyport Rebel]

On 15/09/2024 at 21:36, rebelade said:

Holyport Rebel, the issue on Saturday with the goal was that it wasn’t checked properly, firstly by the ground staff and then the Lino. The wheel should have been straight but was at an angle after being wheeled into place. Because it hit the angle and that angle was pointing outwards that’s where the ball headed. Having have to deal with the goals and positioning at AP it should never be a problem if positioned correctly but there will be occasions. 
The design allows one person to be able to move the goal whereas ours requires 2 people. Guess Assistant Refs need to be more aware of this on artificial pitches.

 

Thanks Ade for that very helpful description of what exactly happened  with regard to our equaliser.
You go years without any problems whatsoever with these moveable goals and then we have two incidents in as many weeks with them !
Hopefully it will be a long time before anything similar happens again.
One more thing about that goal.
If my memory serves me right, wasn't that goal caused basically because Chichester were 'faffing' about in their own penalty area with the ball rather than just hoofing it clear ?
I love it when the opposition does this tactic, and was pleased to see Chichester doing this in the first half.
I don't get it.
Is it supposed to entice the opposition forward so that you can exploit the spaces behind ?
Whatever the reason for using this tactic, in my eyes it is asking for trouble.
No way is using it worth the risk it brings.
When you see quite often Premier League defences coming unstuck playing this way, why on earth to teams at our level (and below ) think it is a tactic worth using ?
If manager's think they are trying to follow the philosophy of Pep Guardiola rather than say a Graham Taylor or Sam Allardyce  and that this makes them more skilled or talented as a manager, I think they are deluding themselves.
If the ball is eight yards from your goal line with attackers harassing your defenders CLEAR IT UPFIELD !
I said on here only a few weeks ago that the closing down that John Gilbert does on opposing goalies would result in a goal for him, and that is  I think  near enough what  happened on Saturday, so I'm claiming an assist for that goal !  😄
Purist's of the game might think I'm being old fashioned and Neanderthal in my outlook.
So be it.
I just hope Chichester (and others we play against ), carry on playing this way.
It's an accident waiting to happen. 
   

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:39 by Holyport Rebel

[Reading Rebel]

3 hours ago, Holyport Rebel said:

 

Thanks Ade for that very helpful description of what exactly happened  with regard to our equaliser.
You go years without any problems whatsoever with these moveable goals and then we have two incidents in as many weeks with them !
Hopefully it will be a long time before anything similar happens again.
One more thing about that goal.
If my memory serves me right, wasn't that goal caused basically because Chichester were 'faffing' about in their own penalty area with the ball rather than just hoofing it clear ?
I love it when the opposition does this tactic, and was pleased to see Chichester doing this in the first half.
I don't get.
Is it supposed to entice the opposition forward so that you can exploit the spaces behind ?
Whatever the reason for using this tactic, in my eyes it is asking for trouble.
No way is using it worth the risk it brings.
When you see quite often Premier League defences coming unstuck playing this way, why on earth to teams at our level (and below ) think it is a tactic worth using ?
If manager's think they are trying to follow the philosophy of Pep Guardiola rather than say a Graham Taylor or Sam Allardyce  and that this makes them more skilled or talented as a manager, I think they are deluding themselves.
If the ball is eight yards from your goal line with attackers harassing your defenders CLEAR IT UPFIELD !
I said on here only a few weeks ago that the closing down that John Gilbert does on opposing goalies would result in a goal for him, and that is  I think  near enough what  happened on Saturday, so I'm claiming an assist for that goal !  😄
Purist's of the game might think I'm being old fashioned and Neanderthal in my outlook.
So be it.
I just hope Chichester (and others we play against ), carry on playing this way.
It's an accident waiting to happen. 
   

 

Playing out from the back.

I can see the logic in doing it but if you haven't got the players that are good enough or comfortable enough on the ball under pressure then why do it?

The other annoying thing that's crept into football is an outfield player, from a goal kick, passing to the keeper who is immediately put under pressure and lumps the ball up field. What is the point.  

Edited Monday at 13:02 by Reading Rebel

[sdelaney2308]

4 hours ago, Reading Rebel said:

Playing out from the back.

I can see the logic in doing it but if you haven't got the players that are good enough or comfortable enough on the ball under pressure then why do it?

The other annoying thing that's crept into football is an outfield player, from a goal kick, passing to the keeper who is immediately put under pressure and lumps the ball up field. What is the point.  

In the game Slough wingers caught offside seven times in the first half when looking right across the pitch🫣

[Holyport Rebel]

As I'm typing this it seems very quiet on here after last night's result.
Being the Cup obviously the main objective is to get through to the next round, which we achieved, but this is what "Neanderthal" HR made of it all yesterday.
We made a dream start.
Two goals up after only 13 minutes.
One more goal would surely have killed them off and made the rest of the game very comfortable for us.
It never came though.
And as we all know, 2-0  is a "dodgy" score line, as if the opposition manage to claw a goal back to make it 2-1 it is a completely different ballgame.
I'm sure that thought was in all our minds.
I heard someone say at halftime that we had had 12 efforts at goal.
That's good.
Only 3 on target though.
That's not good.
I'd expect the ratio of our goal attempts in the second half to be somewhat similar if not worse..
Despite all these efforts on goal, I'm struggling to think of a single save that the Chichester goalie made last night.
He must have made some surely, but I can't think of one.
I always felt that we were in control last night ( right up until they scored), but I'm grateful that Chichester scored with only a few minutes to go.
If that attempt that hit our crossbar in the 75th minute had gone in and we'd have had 15-20 minutes to defend a one-goal lead then who knows what might have happened ?
If Chichester didn't "faff" around with the ball in their own penalty box we wouldn't have scored that equaliser then on Saturday and perhaps Chichester would have won that game 1-0 !
All if's, but's and maybe's I know.  
We could have had a much more comfortable night than it became at the end though, but we're through.
Lot's of other National League South team's aren't.

 

Edited yesterday at 10:32 by Holyport Rebel

[Ian g f]

2 hours ago, Holyport Rebel said:

As I'm typing this it seems very quiet on here after last night's result.
Being the Cup obviously the main objective is to get through to the next round, which we achieved, but this is what "Neanderthal" HR made of it all yesterday.
We made a dream start.
Two goals up after only 13 minutes.
One more goal would surely have killed them off and made the rest of the game very comfortable for us.
It never came though.
And as we all know, 2-0  is a "dodgy" score line, as if the opposition manage to claw a goal back to make it 2-1 it is a completely different ballgame.
I'm sure that thought was in all our minds.
I heard someone say at halftime that we had had 12 efforts at goal.
That's good.
Only 3 on target though.
That's not good.
I'd expect the ratio of our goal attempts in the second half to be somewhat similar if not worse..
Despite all these efforts on goal, I'm struggling to think of a single save that the Chichester goalie made last night.
He must have made some surely, but I can't think of one.
I always felt that we were in control last night ( right up until they scored), but I'm grateful that Chichester scored with only a few minutes to go.
If that attempt that hit our crossbar in the 75th minute had gone in and we'd have had 15-20 minutes to defend a one-goal lead then who knows what might have happened ?
If Chichester didn't "faff" around with the ball in their own penalty box we wouldn't have scored that equaliser then on Saturday and perhaps Chichester would have won that game 1-0 !
All if's, but's and maybe's I know.  
We could have had a much more comfortable night than it became at the end though, but we're through.
Lot's of other National League South team's aren't.

 

I did think their keeper made a couple of good saves in the first half

[Holyport Rebel]

If the stats said that we had three efforts on target in the first half then two of them would obviously be the two goals, and having thought longer about it was the other a shot from Josh that I think the goalie may well have saved ? 

The point I was trying to illustrate was that for all our efforts on goal, I don't think we worked the goalkeeper very much last night.

Edited yesterday at 13:06 by Holyport Rebel

[Reading Rebel]

Good performance against a decent Chichester side. 

Perfect start to the game capitalizing and punishing Chichester's crazy insistence on continually playing out from the back.

The game should have been wrapped up by half time but despite our two early goals numerous chances continued to be spurned.

We continued to be relatively comfortable at 2-0 but having allowed them back into the game following some poor play it was the dreaded squeaky bum time.

Some good performances but my MOTM was John Gilbert who must have covered every blade of grass.

Edited 20 hours ago by Reading Rebel

[RebelVilla]

Grass?

[Reading Rebel]

18 minutes ago, RebelVilla said:

Grass?

Ok every blade of synthetic fibre 😂

Edited 20 hours ago by Reading Rebel

[Reading Rebel]

Crowd of 519 which I suppose is not bad considering all pay, Champions League on tv and Chichester having virtually nil support.  

[Holyport Rebel]

5 hours ago, Reading Rebel said:

Some good performances but my MOTM was John Gilbert who must have covered every blade of grass.

 

Totally agree with you RR about John Gilbert's work rate.

Scott talks about this in his after match interview.

I don't know how he does it, but John Gilbert can close down opponents, tackle and run around the pitch with the same intensity in the 90th minute as he can in the 1st.

if you could bottle and sell his energy, you'd make a fortune.

  

 

[GlenSTFC]

2 hours ago, Holyport Rebel said:

 

Totally agree with you RR about John Gilbert's work rate.

Scott talks about this in his after match interview.

I don't know how he does it, but John Gilbert can close down opponents, tackle and run around the pitch with the same intensity in the 90th minute as he can in the 1st.

if you could bottle and sell his energy, you'd make a fortune.

  

 

Yes very impressed with ‘Gilbs’, not only his work rate but he’s very skilful too. Definitely a top signing and possibly one we may have another struggle keeping hold of!