3 Blind Mice"

[Hodgyman]

There seems to be lttle mention of the significance of the referee and the linesman missing the absolutely outragious penalty which could have given us another goal and also an automatic sending off of their defender. If he had received only a booking, there were many opportunities later on to give the same man a second.

If the linesman who occupied the GAC stand/Kop end was awake, he could not have missed it either. His overall contribution to the game was negligible as he continued to miss countless throw-ins by Wendy far too far up the pitch and with their front trotter over the touch line. He really had no excuse as there were numerous fans nearby trying their best to wake him up.

I also believe that Simmo was deliberately fouled by offensive players (and I chose my words carefully) who didn't even look at the ball when barging Simmo.

All in all, if the game was played and officiated to the rules of football we would have scored at least 3 times (Quinny, Evans and 1 penalty), with the massives only having one goal allowed. If you then think of the consequences of their "team" being reduced to 10 men, we should have been able to rack up a Stevenage style score.

As it was, I still believe that we won 2:2 anyway.

 

[stannyblade]

very well put Hodgy. Some grunter on twitter says it evens out over a season as Yeovil scored a goal which shouldnt have been given. What a load of bollocks how does a goal which ultimately didnt mean owt ever compare to an equaliser in a derby game. God I hate them.

 

[Ollessendro]

I wrote some thoughts in response to/along side Deadbat's match report (http://www.s24su.com/forum/showthread.php?24857-United-2-Wednesday-2-report) and slammed the officials (see towards the end of the post). I think they ruied the game and let Wednesday get away with murder. There was the blatant penalty early on when their defender clattered Williamson (arm across the chest job) in the area with the ball flying over the top of them. That was just one of many occassions when he kicked lumps out of United players. The linesman was in a very good position and bottled it.

The ref (and assistants) allowed Wednesday to bully us. He let countless offences go where Wednesday players kicked, pushed and tussled with United players. The amount of times Wednesday players were all over United players and it was not pulled up was criminal. Even when the ref blew up, he did not dish out any cards despite some bad tackles/challenges and persistant fouls.

Just watched the highlihgts and for me the 2nd Wednesday goal is 50/50. Seen them pulled up, seen them not. With the protection goalies are given these days then I think it would be pulled up for a foul more often than not. There is a case that the big black (cynical, dirty) Wednesday left back is jumping into Simmonsen. From the footage I cannot see where he is looking, but he keeps his arms down and jumps in the area of the ball. It looks like Simmo comes out powder puff style and I think regardless of the challenges from the left back and Madine, if SS had enough conviction he would have dealt with it. There are also question marks as to why 2 big Wednesday players were allowed to challenge our keeper and no United players were involved in the challenge.

 

[Jon Bon]

Having spent the best part of Sunday believing it to have been a foul, after seeing it on TV I am now of the mind that the pig headed the ball before clattering Simmo, therefore it was the correct decision. Harsh but our ability to own up to the truth is what differentiates us from the 'massive'.

 

[judge]

Having spent the best part of Sunday believing it to have been a foul, after seeing it on TV I am now of the mind that the pig headed the ball before clattering Simmo, therefore it was the correct decision. Harsh but our ability to own up to the truth is what differentiates us from the 'massive'.

have yet to see a replay of the goal but my initial reaction was one of the keeper just cost us a goal

 

[norfolkblade]

have yet to see a replay of the goal but my initial reaction was one of the keeper just cost us a goal

The more I look at it, the more I think Madine headed the ball before Simonsen was "fouled" anyway, the long and short of it is, that he should never have put himself in that position.

 

[stannyblade]

Maybe but 9 times out of 10 a foul would be given any way and the keeper gets the benefit of the doubt. I think what riles me the most about it was that the ref and linesmen gave us absolutley nothing all game. From the penalty early on through all the fouls and foul throws. Even the second goal started with a foul throw not being given.

 

[super_pig]

> The ref (and assistants) allowed Wednesday to bully us
and yet Olle.. i find the whole concept of 'us' being bullied simply mind boggling
what is the rule on foul throws these days.. every throw their toerag no. 10 took he had his foot over or on the line.. surely that is illegal and fundamental to the application of the laws of the game.. the ref seemed intimidated by some of their players.. the big centre back and agressive centre forward being prime in that regard

 

[Toronto Blade]

After setting the tone of not calling the early pen,he threw the whistle away Quinn nearly had his head kicked off and numerous other fouls were let go.
Was his mindset oh well it is a derby let them kick the hell out of one another,if so why the booking on Ched when he went up to head a ball with a wendy.

 

[Jehovah]

It was a blatant foul by three wednesday players. Disgraceful decision.

 

[grafikhaus]

Having seen the 'equaliser' on TV about 3 times, my thoughts are:

By coming out like a fairy, Simmonsen - as ever - was not forceful enough to give himself a chance of getting to the ball. If goalies come out with presence, that is where they're likely to get given the foul.

A couple of octogenarian geriatrics would have put a better effort into clearing the resultant touch from off our line.

And, not on the telly but seen live at the match, the lino. put his flag straight up and remained motionless. That is, until he 'caught the mood' and lowered his flag and ran back toward the halfway line. In my book, this is the clear indication for a foul/offside. If he was signalling the ball was over the line, he would have waved his flag.

Apart from a casual, half-hearted enquiry from (I think, Cressie) we just accepted the decision. Compare and contrast this with an earlier incident where about 8 pigs surrounded and jostled the ref. Pretty much summed up the difference in preparedness of the teams.

 

[alcoblade]

Apart from a casual, half-hearted enquiry from (I think, Cressie) we just accepted the decision. Compare and contrast this with an earlier incident where about 8 pigs surrounded and jostled the ref. Pretty much summed up the difference in preparedness of the teams.

I have to say, at our worst, there are some reminders of the Robson era in our look.

Unlike Robson, Wilson has much less resource to plug any gaps. But the keeper situation is now beyond a joke, and he has to tackle it.

UTB

 

[Kenilworth]

> The ref (and assistants) allowed Wednesday to bully us
and yet Olle.. i find the whole concept of 'us' being bullied simply mind boggling
what is the rule on foul throws these days.. every throw their toerag no. 10 took he had his foot over or on the line.. surely that is illegal and fundamental to the application of the laws of the game.. the ref seemed intimidated by some of their players.. the big centre back and agressive centre forward being prime in that regard

Law 15 states

At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower:

faces the field of play
has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the touch line
uses both hands
delivers the ball from behind and over his head
The thrower must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player.

All opponents must stand no less than 2 meters from the point at which the throw-in is taken.

The ball is in play immediately it enters the field of play.

There were several occasions where Marshall had part of one foot over the line and in the playing area when taking a throw in - this is technically a foul throw and something the lino should be looking for.

It should be adhered to especially when a long throw is being taken by the player because they are clearly "seeking to gain an advantage"
It's like giving the benefit of the doubt to an attacking player in an offside situation because only part of his body was in front of the last defender.

 

[stannyblade]

Law 15 states

At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower:

faces the field of play
has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the touch line
uses both hands
delivers the ball from behind and over his head
The thrower must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player.

All opponents must stand no less than 2 meters from the point at which the throw-in is taken.

The ball is in play immediately it enters the field of play.

There were several occasions where Marshall had part of one foot over the line and in the playing area when taking a throw in - this is technically a foul throw and something the lino should be looking for.

It should be adhered to especially when a long throw is being taken by the player because they are clearly "seeking to gain an advantage"
It's like giving the benefit of the doubt to an attacking player in an offside situation because only part of his body was in front of the last defender.

So how come defenders stand infront of the throw taker? or is this yet another rule the officials ignore like the foot over the line and also the keeper holding the ball for over the 6 seconds

 

[Kenilworth]

So how come defenders stand infront of the throw taker? or is this yet another rule the officials ignore like the foot over the line and also the keeper holding the ball for over the 6 seconds

Yep.

Wonder how long a keeper can take the piss before a foul is given nowadays?
I've seen them take 15-20 seconds or more before now and not get penalised.

 

[judge]

wasnt the six second rule abolished and left to the refs interpretation ?

 

[Wapping Blade]

wasnt the six second rule abolished and left to the refs interpretation ?

We had this on a thread the other week and the law has the "controls the ball for more than 6 seconds" clause in it for an indirect free kick.

 

[norfolkblade]

wasnt the six second rule abolished and left to the refs interpretation ?

That's what I thought, about 5 years or so ago

 

[Wapping Blade]

has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the touch line

There were several occasions where Marshall had part of one foot over the line and in the playing area when taking a throw in - this is technically a foul throw and something the lino should be looking for.

As I read that, you are OK if both feet have some part touching the line or are behind it, it's only a foul throw if one foot is fully over the line - I didn't realise that.

 

[Balham]

That's what I thought, about 5 years or so ago

Wasn't that something to do with number of bounces keepers were allowed, or am I mixing playground/junior rules into the full on regulations?

 

[judge]

Wasn't that something to do with number of bounces keepers were allowed, or am I mixing playground/junior rules into the full on regulations?

no there was a six second rule and im sure it was abolished after loads of ex pros complained at the lack of common sense

should be gagged the fuckwits

 

[Kenilworth]

As I read that, you are OK if both feet have some part touching the line or are behind it, it's only a foul throw if one foot is fully over the line - I didn't realise that.

........has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the touch line

No, it means that if any part of your foot is over the line and on the playing surface it is a foul throw.