The Three Goals Conceded

[William Henry Foulkes]

First goal. Not on the video but McEveley possibly gets fouled. We had plenty of cover, and there were two defenders on the player who passed the ball across the 6-yard box, but their player is unmarked on the edge of the six yard box, and in fact seems to have some sort of 2 or 3 metre forcefield around him. McEveley and Edgar doing the same job on the line. A mixture of poor refereeing(?), er sub-optimal organisation, maybe bad luck, and cool-headedness from Bury.

Is it even possible to assign roles in this situation eg McEveley on the line Edgar on the man, or does it all happen too quickly?



Second goal. Sammon just doesn't even bother defending - not a criticism really - it's not his position - he gambled (very poorly) on the ball getting through to him on the halfway line. Wallace though just watches on admiringly, jogging alongside their player no pressure at all, till he hits a screamer. As WHF Jr Sr pointed out this screamer thing happened three or four home games in a row last season.

Generally I think this came from Adventurous Adkins looking to win the game with his substitution just before this goal. Win 1, Lose 1 is a better points score than Draw 2.



Third goal. From our pov in the Family Stand this looked like a pretty clear push on McEveley. Not sure about Howard's positioning. I think he's probably in the right place as support for McEveley if McEveley can delay the attacker. As the attacker is not delayed he looks out of position - and it is a good finish.

Can't say for sure whether it was a foul from this angle, maybe, but only maybe, McEveley should've been stronger.

• First goal, plenty of bodies but may need better organisation.
• Second goal: shots from distance are a feature of the goals we concede. Pressure on the ball needs addressing.
• Third goal: Dunno. Hard to say when you're chasing the game.

 

[Jon Bon]

WHF, I nominate you to be our new Deeeee-fensive Coach.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

Towd Bergen has a rival! Decent analysis there.

Whatever our collective/individual failings here though, the finishes for both the 2nd & 3rd were absolute top quality. They seemed so at the time; seeing them again on a recording just makes you appreciate their quality even more.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Although it's difficult for the referee I think both are fouls.

First goal:



Clarke takes McEveley's leg, not the ball.

Third goal:




Clarke's hand on McEveley's shoulder may be only slight, but as McEveley's jumping to nod the ball away it doesn't take much force to impede him.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

Thank Goodness for some rational analysis. Thanks William Henry Foulkes and Bergen Blade

 

[UnitedBlade]

I thought in real time the first was a foul and that proves it. The ref was absolute garbage throughout. Interestingly Adkins said in interview he didn't think it was a foul.

I think the third may have been a foul but can see why it wasn't given. McEveley has to do better than that though.

 

[robbiez666]

J-Mac under a bouncing ball reminds me of the days 'Bombscare' was at the club. Cover your eyes and pray.

 

[bartman]

View attachment 13319

First goal. Not on the video but McEveley possibly gets fouled. We had plenty of cover, and there were two defenders on the player who passed the ball across the 6-yard box, but their player is unmarked on the edge of the six yard box, and in fact seems to have some sort of 2 or 3 metre forcefield around him. McEveley and Edgar doing the same job on the line. A mixture of poor refereeing(?), er sub-optimal organisation, maybe bad luck, and cool-headedness from Bury.

Is it even possible to assign roles in this situation eg McEveley on the line Edgar on the man, or does it all happen too quickly?

View attachment 13320

Second goal. Sammon just doesn't even bother defending - not a criticism really - it's not his position - he gambled (very poorly) on the ball getting through to him on the halfway line. Wallace though just watches on admiringly, jogging alongside their player no pressure at all, till he hits a screamer. As WHF Jr Sr pointed out this screamer thing happened three or four home games in a row last season.

Generally I think this came from Adventurous Adkins looking to win the game with his substitution just before this goal. Win 1, Lose 1 is a better points score than Draw 2.

View attachment 13321

Third goal. From our pov in the Family Stand this looked like a pretty clear push on McEveley. Not sure about Howard's positioning. I think he's probably in the right place as support for McEveley if McEveley can delay the attacker. As the attacker is not delayed he looks out of position - and it is a good finish.

Can't say for sure whether it was a foul from this angle, maybe, but only maybe, McEveley should've been stronger.

• First goal, plenty of bodies but may need better organisation.
• Second goal: shots from distance are a feature of the goals we concede. Pressure on the ball needs addressing.
• Third goal: Dunno. Hard to say when you're chasing the game.

That can'r be right....everything is McEverley's fault

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

I agree the one for the first goal is a foul, although not an easy decision (the ref not having the benefit of a replay).

The one for the third, I can't see a foul no matter how many times I look at it. Clarke does nothing wrong. McEveley misses the ball.

For the 2nd goal, I'm not as convinced Wallace is primarily to blame. He's shepherding the Bury player into a place where he should be of minimal threat. If Wallace gets any closer, he has to make a challenge, and if does that he runs the risk of being beaten and suddenly Bury are in a great position. This attack ending with a long shot from 25+ yards and at a very difficult angle, for me isn't poor defending. Once in a blue moon, one of those is going to go in, but if those are the only goals we concede, we won't have a problem.

My concern is the number of long shorts which beat Howard. The defence can't reasonably be expected to prevent any player from trying a shot from 25+ yards, on the basis that Howard is prone to being beaten from there.

 

[Roygbiv]

I think the first is a clear foul but it would have been harsh if the 3rd had been disallowed. McEverley should be stronger there for me. I don't agree that Howard was in any way to blame for any goal either. The 2nd one was just one of those shots that the player will hit once in his career. It was simply a stunning goal

 

[Bergen Blade]

The one for the third, I can't see a foul no matter how many times I look at it. Clarke does nothing wrong. McEveley misses the ball.

.

Without Clarke's hand on his shoulder I'm pretty sure that McEveley would have nodded it away.

An experiment/exercise:

Try telling someone to slightly hold down your shoulder as you try to make a jump. It is strange how little force it takes to completely ruin your leap.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I agree the one for the first goal is a foul, although not an easy decision (the ref not having the benefit of a replay).

The one for the third, I can't see a foul no matter how many times I look at it. Clarke does nothing wrong. McEveley misses the ball.

I can't see a foul from that angle, but it was pretty clear from the other side.

I once got done like this and ended up with my only sending off when I demonstrated to the ref what had happened. As Bergen says it took very minimal contact to move me out of position, but it was a clear push and a foul, not a matter of being outmuscled.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

Without Clarke's hand on his shoulder I'm pretty sure that McEveley would have nodded it away.

An experiment/exercise:

Try telling someone to slightly hold down your shoulder as you try to make a jump. It is strange how little force it takes to completely ruin your leap.

I'll tell you the way I see it, moment by moment (not because it's so very important, but because it's an interesting discussion):

Both players are chasing the ball, approaching from different angles, so as they reach the ball, their paths are going to meet, and they're going to make contact. There's nothing wrong with that - it's not a no-contact sport.

Just before they make contact, Clarke's eyes are on the ball (as they are throughout), where as McEveley's eyes are on Clarke.

As their paths meet, Clarke's right arm appears to remain in a natural position given that he is running. McEveley's left arm is slightly pushed out away from his body, as he tries (fairly) to out-muscle Clarke and ensure Clarke doesn't get onto the line of the ball. In this position, as they come together, Clarke's forearm is against the upper part of McEverley's arm. It is never actually on his shoulder. For me, the two players are in contact with one another quite fairly as they both try to get the same position, where they judge they need to be to get the ball.

At this point, I think McEveley has slightly mis-judged the flight of the ball. This may be partly because he was looking at Clarke, where as Clarke was always watching the ball. As McEveley maintained his pace, Clarke slowed. This meant Clarke was ideally positioned, where as McEveley was slightly beneath the ball.

The only way McEveley can get to the ball now is to jump. Bearing in mind the two players are already in contact, this isn't likely to go well, but he has no choice.

I don't doubt that his jump is slightly hindered by the fact that he is in contact with Clarke, but in my view the contact is no more Clarke's fault than McEveley's. That contact is to be expected when both players are running towards the ball, and in that situation you wouldn't normally - as a defender - rely upon a jump to get the ball, as jumping to head a ball when you're in contact with someone is very difficult. If you have to jump, you take into account the on-going contact with the opposition player in directing your jump.

On that basis, I don't see the slight contact as McEveley jumped as a foul by either player.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I'll tell you the way I see it, moment by moment (not because it's so very important, but because it's an interesting discussion):

Both players are chasing the ball, approaching from different angles, so as they reach the ball, their paths are going to meet, and they're going to make contact. There's nothing wrong with that - it's not a no-contact sport.

Just before they make contact, Clarke's eyes are on the ball (as they are throughout), where as McEveley's eyes are on Clarke.

As their paths meet, Clarke's right arm appears to remain in a natural position given that he is running. McEveley's left arm is slightly pushed out away from his body, as he tries (fairly) to out-muscle Clarke and ensure Clarke doesn't get onto the line of the ball. In this position, as they come together, Clarke's forearm is against the upper part of McEverley's arm. It is never actually on his shoulder. For me, the two players are in contact with one another quite fairly as they both try to get the same position, where they judge they need to be to get the ball.

At this point, I think McEveley has slightly mis-judged the flight of the ball. This may be partly because he was looking at Clarke, where as Clarke was always watching the ball. As McEveley maintained his pace, Clarke slowed. This meant Clarke was ideally positioned, where as McEveley was slightly beneath the ball.

The only way McEveley can get to the ball now is to jump. Bearing in mind the two players are already in contact, this isn't likely to go well, but he has no choice.

I don't doubt that his jump is slightly hindered by the fact that he is in contact with Clarke, but in my view the contact is no more Clarke's fault than McEveley's. That contact is to be expected when both players are running towards the ball, and in that situation you wouldn't normally - as a defender - rely upon a jump to get the ball, as jumping to head a ball when you're in contact with someone is very difficult. If you have to jump, you take into account the on-going contact with the opposition player in directing your jump.

On that basis, I don't see the slight contact as McEveley jumped as a foul by either player.

As McEveley gets his body in front of Clarke he is in possession of the ball at the time he decides to jump to nod it away. As Clarke's hand ruins McEveley's balance and jump - preventing him from getting his head to the ball - he commits a foul in my opinion.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

As McEveley gets his body in front of Clarke he is in possession of the ball at the time he decides to jump to nod it away. As Clarke's hand ruins McEveley's balance and jump - preventing him from getting his head to the ball - he commits a foul in my opinion.

I think that as the ball is some distance above McEveley's head, neither player is in possession.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I think that as the ball is some distance above McEveley's head, neither player is in possession.

What would you have said if Clarke hadn't put his hand on his arm/shoulder, but grabbed his shirt and prevented/ruined a jump that way?

 

[Ricky]

No excuse for McEveley on the third I'm afraid, you have to anticipate contact like that and it wasn't a foul. And whether he was fouled or not for the first he shouldn't have given anyone the chance to dispossess him like that. Typically careless.

 

[Bergen Blade]

No excuse for McEveley on the third I'm afraid, you have to anticipate contact like that and it wasn't a foul.

But did you try the mentioned exercise?

 

[Ricky]

I know what you're saying with that, little touches do make a big difference sometimes, but it is a contact sport and things like that usually go unpunished and have to be expected, especially when in positions like the one McEveley found himself in there.

 

[Ashtonsmashton]

Wallace ball watching for the second

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

What would you have said if Clarke hadn't put his hand on his arm/shoulder, but grabbed his shirt and prevented/ruined a jump that way?

Shirt pulling is a foul. Two players arms being in contact with one another is not. A bit of jostling when going for the same ball is part of the game.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

But did you try the mentioned exercise?

I did. Hit my head on the bloody door frame.

 

[blade67]

Although it's difficult for the referee I think both are fouls.

First goal:



Clarke takes McEveley's leg, not the ball.

Third goal:




Clarke's hand on McEveley's shoulder may be only slight, but as McEveley's jumping to nod the ball away it doesn't take much force to impede him.

Gents

I'm sorry but he should have released the ball 2 seconds earlier for the first goal and although I agree it's a foul, I'm afraid referees make mistakes all the time and our players need to be better than that. Having said that there was loads of cover so plenty more will have had it off Adkins this morning.

The 3rd goal simply isn't a foul. If the ref gives that then Clarke would be furious. Simply rubbish,weak defending.

you are defending the indefensible defending - if you know what I mean ;-)

 

[S5Blade]

Whether the first was a foul or not, should McEv not get some blame for a) not getting rid of the ball earlier rather than thinking he was Ronaldo considering how much pressure we were under and b) after getting fouled, laying on the floor crying and hitting the floor rather than getting back up and getting on with his fucking job?

 

[AlienBlade]

I think the first is a clear foul but it would have been harsh if the 3rd had been disallowed. McEverley should be stronger there for me. I don't agree that Howard was in any way to blame for any goal either. The 2nd one was just one of those shots that the player will hit once in his career. It was simply a stunning goal

the first was a foul all day long... (happened right in front of me)... mind you had this been a foul on Baxter he would have still been throwing his toys out on the half way line... McEverley gets back to a postion to at least attempt to block (is on the line when the ball goes in) then remenstrates with the ref afterwards.
for the third I agree that it would have been harsh to give as a foul.... however the question is for me... should Clark have even been on the pitch at that point.... (or some of the other players)

 

[AlienBlade]

Whether the first was a foul or not, should McEv not get some blame for a) not getting rid of the ball earlier rather than thinking he was Ronaldo considering how much pressure we were under and b) after getting fouled, laying on the floor crying and hitting the floor rather than getting back up and getting on with his fucking job?

so just thumping it up field to see it come back would have been better.... (see goal number 2....)

and as for b, he didnt lay on the floor crying about it.... he was on the line when the goal was scored... (which according to most people seemed almost instantaeous from him losing the ball thus all his fault... (on the screen shot on the OP you can clearly see 8 yes EIGHT players for United and just 4 (FOUR) for Bury... meaning you could have had 2 players on each player... yet Basham (I think) and Edgar are seemingly just looking at the eventual scorer... with Wallace also near no other man.... so he actually "got on with his fucking job" as you say... he then remenstrated with the ref AFTER the goal!

 

[S5Blade]

so just thumping it up field to see it come back would have been better.... (see goal number 2....)

and as for b, he didnt lay on the floor crying about it.... he was on the line when the goal was scored... (which according to most people seemed almost instantaeous from him losing the ball thus all his fault... (on the screen shot on the OP you can clearly see 8 yes EIGHT players for United and just 4 (FOUR) for Bury... meaning you could have had 2 players on each player... yet Basham (I think) and Edgar are seemingly just looking at the eventual scorer... with Wallace also near no other man.... so he actually "got on with his fucking job" as you say... he then remenstrated with the ref AFTER the goal!

He did, its just not shown on the video but I saw it clearly from my seat. He had multiple chances to pass / play the ball after he picked it up, hoofing it up the field and losing it for it come straight back isnt the only option, he had plenty of men to pass too....

 

[Bergen Blade]

I did. Hit my head on the bloody door frame.

I barely left the floor. Clearly we are both incapable of objectively carrying out the exercise.

 

[AlienBlade]

He did, its just not shown on the video but I saw it clearly from my seat. He had multiple chances to pass / play the ball after he picked it up, hoofing it up the field and losing it for it come straight back isnt the only option, he had plenty of men to pass too....

the foul was directly in front of me, I think you need to watch the video Bergen posted... Mceverley lands flat arms outstretched then gets up... (within a second of him hitting the deck Bergens video he stops sliding forward just as it hits the 5second mark.... at the 6 second mark he is on his feet running back)

There only two players (barring the smash over the top for it to come back) there was a pass to a player running away from him or a player who was about 3 foot away (and no doubt had he passed that one he would have been blamed for not wanting to take responsibility) considering the position of the Bury players.. (playing it back to the player he passed would have been suicidal... passing it square would have seen it passed straight to player who fouled him a diagonal pass infield was also blocked by a Bury player.

he probably had ONE chance to make a good pass however the player who it could have gone to was at that point running away and closing the distance between himself and the Bury player coming in to mark him (see second 2-3 of Bergens clip)....

I think that just proves that if you have it in for a player your brain and memory plays tricks on you!

as there was no extended period of him rolling on the floor as you state occurred... nor was there "multiple players he could have passed to" (well not that would have been completed anyway)

 

[Bergen Blade]

Shirt pulling is a foul. Two players arms being in contact with one another is not. A bit of jostling when going for the same ball is part of the game.

This is from World Cup 1994, a huge chance for Mexico and as the ball loops Henning Berg has to nod the ball away on the goalline. He wins the header and it is cleared.




What if Leon Clarkez had been there, lurking behind Berg, cleverly deciding not to challenge for the ball, but instead gently holding down Berg's arm as he jumped, causing the jump to be an inch lower, Berg to miss the ball and fall over? Also not a free kick?