Todays match v Tamworth

[Guest]

Tamworth fan here.Thought you were very unlucky not to get a point today.You seem to have a good team there and worked us hard.

 

I was by that linesman both times, I think he got it right, but I'll bet you're all fuming about his decisions? It was quite a close call to be fair.

 

Anyway, well done to all of those G&N fans who braved the elements today: it wasnt warm at all.

 

Good luck with the rest of the season.

[Harry J Allstars]

Quote:

Tamworth fan here.Thought you were very unlucky not to get a point today.You seem to have a good team there and worked us hard.

I was by that linesman both times, I think he got it right, but I'll bet you're all fuming about his decisions? It was quite a close call to be fair.

Anyway, well done to all of those G&N fans who braved the elements today: it wasnt warm at all.

Good luck with the rest of the season.

Ahh thats nice. Over the past couple of months we have played teams away and lost then they come on here slagging us off. Why, they got the three points?

Its just so nice to hear some sense from a opposing fan. I wasn't there though for me it was Chelsea Bolton. No offence please I've explained all about it many times.

[Gordon T]

I was there, and all i can say us i havent felt like this since farnboro and the 8 minutes! The decisions where wrong, at least the second one definately was. Both where 2nd phase anyway so both where legit. enough of that for the moment( I doubt we will get any kind of replay!) We need strikers!

[Guest]

On the decisions:

 

Our penalty - Blatant. Your defender was naive enough to put his hands on Bob Taylor's back and push him, okay so Bob probably could have stayed on his feet but you don't have twenty years of professional football experience for nothing!

 

On your disallowed goal. He was offside, Not when the final ball was played but during the initial move, a very good decision based on FIFA's new rules.

 

Hey! football's like that, decent match that could have gone either way. Your travelling support is a credit to you, see you next year!

[FleetFanatic]

Quote:

.....okay so Bob probably could have stayed on his feet but you don't have twenty years of professional football experience for nothing!

So he's learnt how to dive then? If a player can stay on their feet but chooses not to, then it's diving.

Quote:

On your disallowed goal. He was offside, Not when the final ball was played but during the initial move, a very good decision based on FIFA's new rules.

So the fact that, when initially offside, a player isn't interfering with play doesn't matter anymore? I'm sure you'd feel the same if the tables were turned - not.

I understood the offside rules as follows;

In November 2003, Fifa reinforced the idea that being in an offside position is not an actual offence. The law now states that a player in an offside position is only penalised if he/she is involved in active play by:

Interfering with play, interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position.

That means that when a ball is first crossed a player can stand in an offside position as long as he isn't doing any of the three things above.

In this case, when the ball was crossed, Sidibe was in an offside position but ultimately he wasn't interfering with play because the ball didn't reach him. (The ball was played away by the opposition so that phase of play is now over, regardless of the fact that the played away ball went straight to Sidibe.)

If the ball had skimmed off a defender and Sidibe had touched it, then he would rightly have been flagged offside. However, the defence attempted to play the ball away rather than the ball deflecting off them, so he wasn't interfering with play.

Second, he didn't prevent a defender playing nor did he get in the goalkeeper's line of vision so he wasn't interfering with an opponent.

So was he gaining an advantage by being in / taking up an offside position?

The answer is no. Had the ball hit the bar or the post and rebounded to him, then it would have been correct to penalise him.

To sum up, the officials got it wrong - twice. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/angry.gif" alt="" />

[jc]

Quote:

Thought you were very unlucky not to get a point today.

This seems a fair summing up, given that three debatable decisions that could have gone either way all went against us. My first impression was that Taylor conned the referee somewhat with his fall for the penalty, and that the offsides (both Moussa's one, as FF has demonstrated, and particularly the second one, where the 'keeper, to his credit, made a superb save from Saunders, tipping the ball onto the bar before the ball went in off Redmile for what would have been an own goal) were somewhat dubious. Of course, after seeing the incidents on conferencefootball.tv in the week (assuming they are all part of their coverage), I will be happy to admit I'm wrong if the pictures show it.

In fact, after Jay's excellent strike (a contender for our best goal of the season so far, along with Roy's vs. Exeter - a shame that such a great goal from Jay meant so little in the end), we almost did get a point when a cross flicked off a Tamworth head and went just wide of the post with the 'keeper nowhere.

However, we didn't really deserve to win, despite our second half pressure. Tamworth defended deep to protect their lead, and with no tall players in the box after Roy was taken off (apparently tactically, according to Andy's RK interview), it was all in vain. In fact, besides the goal and the offside incidents, we had very few shots on target. In the end, it could have been a lot worse, with Skinner clearing off the line after Wilko was lobbed, and a poor header clear from Wilko ending up with another lob that went only just wide, as we tried to get back in the game and left gaps at the back.

Surey being on the bench was a surprise, although as mentioned elsewhere, we don't really know the full story.

On a positive note, I thought it was a fairly promising debut from Popovic overall (despite heading over when badly marked in the very first minute).

Woking, our next opponents of course, are very inconsistent, so it really could go either way. I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, the way things are going at the moment.

[jc]

Quote:

We need strikers!

Of course, being part-time the squad can't realistically be too big, but today demonstrated that with only three strikers in a squad, a couple of injuries can leave you with all sorts of problems, as we have already discovered regarding our centre-backs.

However, Andy has already stated his aim to bring another striker in, so it's not as if he's not looking. I'm sure he'll conjure something up.

[Guest]

So he's learnt how to dive then? If a player can stay on their feet but chooses not to, then it's diving.

 

no it isn't - if a player is pushed or kicked in the penalty area it is a penalty plain and simple.

he doesn't even need to go down, but anyone with a bit of experience will do just that to make it clear for the ref that he has been fouled.

 

It would have been a dive if your man hadn't touched him but it was very clear he had both hands pressed on his back

 

that said it was a close game that could have gone either way and good luck for the rest of the season

[Robbo]

Was very harsh on us yesterday, deserved a point atleast. First 25 mins or so were absolutely fantastic I thought, but just no cutting edge, probably because Tamworth were pretty solid at the back. But Tamworth then fought there way back into the game towards the end of that half, and ended up winning a penalty, which I couldn't see so I can't comment.

 

Second half was quite even and we didn't really give that much with Roy off. I thought it would have been a forced sub because of the hamstring injury he was meant to be carrying, but if it was tactical I'm confused! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Moussa didn't work up front, he needs the ball at his feet to play and that just didn't happen for him in that position. I'm of the opinion that both of our disallowed goals should have stood, look at FFs post above if you want the reasons.

 

Jays goal was a class strike and shows what a waste it is having him as a centre back. Shame we got nothing from the game though but Tamworth probably deserved a point for some good defending.

 

p.s. Was a little frustrated at Lovell today. There's no doubt in my mind that he's got bags of talent, and has got the potential to go far for us. He's got great pace and good skill. But his performance today was often quite poor, trying to take on too many defenders when a delivery was the thing we needed. And he lost out most times to that right back of theirs. His delivery was poor too when he finally did manage to get it across. I'm sure he'll come good though as long as we don't throw him away, just gotta wait for him to develop a bit.

[Fleetbabe]

Thought that we were unlucky, having heard about the game and read a match report in the Kent Messenger.

 

Ummm.... on that offside rule, for the tamworth fan, take the example of Ruud Van Nistelrooy just after the rule came in last season. Everyone thought he was offside when he scored, but the rule clearly states that if the player is OFFSIDE in phase 1, but not actually interfering with the play or signalling for the ball, then he's ONSIDE. If he's then behind the last defender in phase 2, when the ball is played to him, he's legitimate, and again not OFFSIDE.

 

from what I've heard, both Moussa Sidibe and Jay Saunders were onside in both phases, and so both goals should have stood. the only person who thought otherwise was the man in the middle, who also gave a penalty for what sound's like a worse dive than the Spaniards were trying to pull off at the Bernabaeu on Wednesday, and they were poor dives to say the least.

 

Back to the subject, and just wondering, did Andy make a straight swop, Moussa for Roy up front, or did Moussa slot into his usual spot on the wing, and they pushed Jukebox up front with Pinno?

 

How did we rate the players then?

[Guest]

have just watched the hlights on conf.tv, seems we were robbed on Sat. Linesman was a joke.

 

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[jc]

Well, they don't really show the Moussa 'goal' very clearly - the clip only begins with him putting the ball in the net. But the commentator did suggest it was a harsh decision.

 

As for the push, it seems as suspected that contact was made and some referees would give it as a penalty, but that Taylor made a meal of it. So this one could have gone either way.

 

One thing we can be pretty sure about, though, is that Jay's 'goal' was harshly ruled out. Jay looks level with the defence when the flick-on header is made.

 

So it seems, as suspected, that we were robbed in at least a couple of instances - but it doesn't disguise the fact that we were rather poor on the day. Still, a draw probably would have been fair.

[FleetFanatic]

It's nice that the video evidence backs me up for once!