Bowers & Pitsea 1 Enfield Town 3

[The Invisible Man]

Quote:

Steph said:
5. After the Beckham affair many of us looked at the rules on dress. Players are incorrectly dressed if they are not wearing long sleeves. So why was number 10 allowed to play throughout the game with his sleeves rolled up? I find this rule interesting and the only reason for it, it seems to me, is that it assists the ref/lino to recognise the offending hand in a melee when there is handball.

Steph, from memory (I haven't checked it yet so could be wrong!) the Laws state the sleeves are required, but do not mention long sleeves. There is nothing against short sleeves or rolled up sleeves, as far as I recall. Sleeves are speifically mentioned to prevent those stupid Aussie-rules style vests that Cameroon (or was it Nigeria?) tried to get away with.

Visible undergarments must be the same colour as the outer garment (eg cycling shorts).

[Southport - TOWNER]

Quote:

andyetfc said:
By the sounds of it it was a lovely game according to Compo.

Booking for Rudi for kicking the ball back into the net after scoring the penalty! Surely common sense should have prevailed. I could understand it happening if we had had a penalty against us and Rudi was not happy with the decision.

As Rudi was booked for "kicking the ball way" why wasn;t the 'keeper booked for the same thing, he kicked it into the stand!

[The Invisible Man]

I bet the Newcastle goalie wishes he had today! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Cyclops]

Quote:

bower said:
From a Bowers supporter.

Good game, played in good spirit and we did make a few chances which could have changed the game. However, not wishing to take anything away from Enfield's deserved win, but where oh where do we get these refs from??

I understand the ref was being assessed, so he may have felt under more pressure than he would otherwise. I don't suppose he agot a very high mark.

Quote:

1. Why was the Enfield defender not sent off in the 1st half when obviously being the last man when fouling Reevo? To add salt to the wound the same thing happened at Enfield on News Years Day!! Although a different incompetent Ref.

Players shouldn't get sent off for being the last man. The sending off offence is for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity. I don't think it was anywhere near that.

Quote:

2. Why did the ref get conned into giving Enfiled a penalty which was a blatant dive if ever I saw one?

I have to disagree here. It wasn't a dive. I thought Smith would have had trouble staying upright from what looked to me to have been a tough but fair challenge by the defender. I don't think that one should have been a penalty, unlike when Dean Green was hacked over a few minutes earlier. I don't think Bowers should have had a penalty either.

Quote:

3. Why did he make them take it twice as i understand the infringement was made by the Bowers goalkeeper. Absolutely no sense there whatsoever. totally ludicrous!

Apparently the assistant flagged for it to be retaken because the keeper moved. He must have missed the fact at least two Town players were in the area when Rudi kicked the ball because he apparently said he had made a mistake, but the ref made Rudi take it again.

Quote:

Anyway, good game no gripes, just the poor old ref always gets it in the neck!

Well played both teams!

More importantly up the Canaries!!!

Yup. Stayed in the bar and watched it on the big screen. Many thanks for the hospitality. Some decent ale would be a great improvement though!

[The Invisible Man]

That can't have been the reason the penalty was retaken. If the goalie had moved off his line but the goal was still scored, the goal would have stood. The penalty is only retaken if there is an offence by a member of the team taking the penalty. And vice versa of course.

 

Unless Rudi checked his stride in an illegal manner,the kick must have been retaken because of the encroachment.

 

Or of course the ref didn't know what he was doing......

[bower]

Its all a matter of opinion isn't it? thats why we have a forum.

 

1. Reevo would have been well clear on goal. In my opinion that is a clear goal scoring opportunity.

 

2. Even the Enfield fans behind the goal agreed it was a dive (see earlier). Nuff said.

 

3. Sorry lost on this one. We seem to have different opinions.

 

Roll on next week.

 

Bower

[Southport - TOWNER]

wouldn't life be boring if we all had the same opinion, having said that the wife is ALWAYS right!

[Cyclops]

Quote:

bower said:
Its all a matter of opinion isn't it? thats why we have a forum.

1. Reevo would have been well clear on goal. In my opinion that is a clear goal scoring opportunity.

2. Even the Enfield fans behind the goal agreed it was a dive (see earlier). Nuff said.

I was behind the goal and didn't think it was either a dive or a foul. I still don't. Nuff said! However, as I said before, the ref was being assessed and I suspect that affected his game, which could be why he didn't give us a penalty when Dean Green was clearly fouled in the penalty area minutes earlier.

Quote:

3. Sorry lost on this one. We seem to have different opinions.

I'm only going by what I saw from behind the goal, and what was being said in the bar after the game. The assistant certainly appeared apologetic about asking for the kick to be retaken or Matt Negus wouldn't have asked the ref to speak to him. From looking at photos of the first penalty it definitely looks as if Town players encroached but if the assistant flagged for that he would just have told Matt to go away, which he didn't. I think he flagged for the wrong reason and accidentally got the right result.

[bower]

Well I think you are probably right on 3.

 

As for 1 and 2 thats life, these incidents happen all the time on match of the day, perhaps we need Hanson and Lorenson to sort it all out.

 

Anyway the Masters is getting exciting so closing down for the night.

 

Bower

[Hawkeye Pierce]

Lee Smith did NOT dive. The ref had no hessitation and from my assessment was right!

[Mr Happy]

What hasn't been said is that our first goal should not have happened. Lee Smith was two yards offside when the ball was played in the attack that lead to the corner from which we scored. The lino was way off the pace.

 

Still, a deserved win and looking forward to the excellent hospitality at Aveley tomorrow evening!!!

 

By the way, did Darren George offer his players illicite substances before the game!!!???

[andyetfc]

The proof that the lino was correct is in the ETFC v Sawbo programme . Smith was not offside when he scored his first goal at Bowers.

 

Mr Happy - I do hope you apologise to Lee Smith?

[Nikki 50/50]

yeah i'm sure he's bothered!

[MbrunoB]

Did you notice the defender leaning on the post in the picture?

[Nikki 50/50]

what one?

[MbrunoB]

The one with Smith scoring of course.

[Nikki 50/50]

didnt c it, on website?

[MbrunoB]

Quote:

andyetfc said:
The proof that the lino was correct is in the ETFC v Sawbo programme . Smith was not offside when he scored his first goal at Bowers.

Mr Happy - I do hope you apologise to Lee Smith?

CLUE ?

[Mr Happy]

I didn't say when he scored. It was the attack that led to the corner where he was offside. The lino did not keep up with play.

[andyetfc]

You are not trying to tell me that the defender ran back to cover the post, are you?