Gate vs Chatham - updates anyone??

[michael]

I read on the chatham site that one poster suggests our first goal was handball, and the second offside.

 

In fairness, they seem to concede that overall, we did just deserve to win

[Cookie]

The first goal,as far as I can remember didn't involve any hand ball whatsoever.It was a move which involved about 5 or 6 players & was superbly executed.In fact I recall it was mostly,if not all played on the ground.Don't know where the suggestion of handball has come from.It was a great goal & one that a lot of teams would have been proud to have scored themselves,I'm sure.

The second goal offside?.This is not being biased in any way but I was down that end & I couldn't see any anything to suggest an offside.As far s I know no opposing player appealed at the time either.

Two good goals plus the 30 yard screamer from Skinner of course. I suppose they are saying that was offside too eh?

No,Michael,clutching at straws there on their behalfs I think & trying to water down the result maybe.

All in all it was just a question of us getting the second goal really & yes we had allowed them into the game for short periods but I think its safe to say that the difference in class shone through in the end (a remark made by a few of their supporters) & that once that second goal went in it was plain sailing. It was more than a comfortable win in the end I thought.

[Wellsie]

I agree with you Cookie. There was an appeal for hand ball against Watson when he chested the ball down as he broke through but that's about it.

 

And it was comfortable, wasn't it. My sense was that if we needed to up our game we could do. Chatham only had one outlet for their forward play and that was Mark Brooks - who I thought was very good. Hope they can keep hold of him.