|
Post by bowranger on Nov 22, 2020 17:46:58 GMT
The problem with the 3 review system is that it requires a stop in play. What happens if this type of penalty claim occurs but the ball hasn't gone dead? Does the captain ask the referee for a review just as the other team pump the ball upfield and create a chance on the break? They then review and decide it isn't a penalty and subsequently, the other team are aggrieved because they have been unfairly denied a possible goal scoring opportunity. Good point but you would think there must be ways to make that workable. eg Tell the ref we want a review but the ref only calls it when the ball next goes dead. But then if the next time it goes dead is when the opposition scores a breakaway goal we are in a mess. Even better idea - scrape all technology reviews and get back to refs running the games, even though we know they will make the odd mistake. I get the impression some refs are ducking responsibility in the PL by relying on reviews rather than taking a decision. It would help if players were more honest and cut out "simulation" and all the shirt tugging and holding behind refs backs but pigs don't fly do they despite what Trump says. Latter is still where I'm at. For all I have a good whine about reffing decisions, I'd take debatable calls and occasional errors over video reviews any day of the week.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 22, 2020 13:24:00 GMT
Shows the grass is not always greener. He probably got a bit more cash when he left us but then went downhill with no real chance at Spuds. Usual sort of no losss gamble for a big club - take a promising lad for peanuts and if he works out great - if not loan him out and then dump him. I bet if he had stayed with us he would've got opportunities and would have developed more than he did at Spuds as a result. He would not have turned out to be a world beater but I think he would have turned into a decent regular Championship level player. What a waste and he must be looking back thinking "I should have stayed where I was" Yeah, he does feel like a situation of clubs like Spurs' approach of "rack em and stack em". If you're a young lad and a club like that comes calling I can understand you want to back yourself, but the odds are so out of your favour even if you get signed. It's still peanuts to a club like Spurs and they'd rather suck up players on the basis that no one else has them just in case they turn out to be good. Grass is rarely greener which is why making your mark at this level is so crucial. Minor plus side for us is at least we are now looking at those kinda players on the cheap. Decent young players who get sucked into the bloated setups of bigger clubs. Hopefully Thomas will prove fruitful in that respect.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 22, 2020 13:18:27 GMT
I can see the argument for that but it's players jostling for a position in the box - a position that is 1) not always determined by going direct for the first contact with the ball and 2) happens in a split second from a ball being pinged into a busy, vague area. Personally I don't see that as 'clearly' blocking his path, I see that just as easily Cameron trying to secure his own space to position for a knockdown or rebound. Way I see it, the defender clearly lost his man (Barbet), Cameron is moving in relation to his position (not every player in every set piece is looking to attack the ball tactically). Whether he has done that deliberately or not is debatable in my opinion. Other way of looking at it is what is Cameron supposed to do? He is wear he wants to be in the box, as his is want. Barbet breaks free, defender's path to Barbet isn't convenient - where is he supposed to go? I see your point but in terms of securing your own space, far worse than that happens within the rules at the majority of set pieces for me. I would agree with you bow if Cameron hadn't moved away from the goal to get in his path. As I say, I still think we should have been given a penalty but I can understand why the referee gave a free kick. The holding of Masterson at the far post when the ball camne clear should have been a penalty as well. I think he may have had a tap in without the hold. That's fair. I think I'm just being charitable in that some players will attack the first ball and others will move back at corners (to wait for clearances/loose balls) - they just mostly start centrally cos you want to occupy defenders. He may well have done it cynically but find it a harsh call to make. Masterson's one yeah. Think Masterson had a bit of the defender's shirt too which probably planted a seed of doubt, but defender was wrong side of him, held him and if he hadn't like you say, that's a tap-in.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 22, 2020 10:59:00 GMT
I'm going to be controversial. I watched the "penalty" on a loop & I can understand why a free kick was given to Watford! Barbet did nothing wrong & would have been totally mystified as to the decision. However, the Rangers player nearest to him (Cameron?) clearly walks deliberately into the path of the Watford player. I think this was before he pulled Barbet. Whether that id obstruction, or clever play by the attacking side is open to question. As a Rangers man I still demand a penalty for it, but if I was a Watford fan I would be livid if one was given. I can see the argument for that but it's players jostling for a position in the box - a position that is 1) not always determined by going direct for the first contact with the ball and 2) happens in a split second from a ball being pinged into a busy, vague area. Personally I don't see that as 'clearly' blocking his path, I see that just as easily Cameron trying to secure his own space to position for a knockdown or rebound. Way I see it, the defender clearly lost his man (Barbet), Cameron is moving in relation to his position (not every player in every set piece is looking to attack the ball tactically). Whether he has done that deliberately or not is debatable. Other way of looking at it is what is Cameron supposed to do? He is where he wants to be in the box, as his is want. Barbet breaks free, defender's path to Barbet isn't convenient - where is he supposed to go? I see your point but in terms of securing your own space, far worse than that happens within the rules at the majority of set pieces for me.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 17:33:31 GMT
I only saw the last half hour, but we played a bit of football in that time. Especially for the goal! I thought we looked a decent side in that time with the defence secure. Todd & Niko were good & the centre halves were mainly in control. Semy didn't have much to do while I was watching & we were the better side. It might not have been that way for the whole match though. I wait for Bow & others to let me know! Second half was the better but we didn't look poor value for the point at any point really. Their goal was very, very soft, absolutely avoidable. And we looked a bit stodgier first half with Wallace and particularly cos Ball was played more advanced than usual. My guess for that was cos of Watford being very physical at the back and without Dykes starting, Warburton maybe felt we needed a bit of steel up there to hold the ball/stop them playing out? Not sure. He ended up with a good chance which Foster did very well to save but it was a bit odd. Like Ricky said, Watford seemed very happy to sit back for long chunks of the game but always carried the threat that they'd only need a break or two to score considering all the quality they have up top. It reminded me a bit of a less ambitious, lower quality version of West Brom last season - full of athleticism, not a lot of guile, but with the quality to make chances count. We looked a lot better for Willock being on. Actually thought Cameron put in a better performance than he has done for weeks, too. Less of the loose passing, lot of aggression in the middle. Felt you could see a lot of decisions with an eye on the mad fixture schedule coming up - not risking Dykes, Niko, Willock, Ball or Adomah for a full 90. Obvious bias but felt the ref got a lot wrong. I think Chalobah was allowed to get away with a lot. Cathcart shouldn't have been on the pitch (his challenge on Kane could charitably be called an 'orange card') and I think the footage of the Barbet non-penalty speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 17:12:26 GMT
Barbet denied a pen for reasons I have no idea about. Defender had a full clutch of his shirt, pulled him back at a corner. Watford free kick.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 16:56:08 GMT
1-1 FT. Take that all day, well done lads.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 16:53:08 GMT
Dykes puts it in the net...but disallowed for using his arm.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 16:48:23 GMT
Cathcart does Kane high, late, no chance of winning the ball. Shouldn't be on the pitch, scum.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 16:45:11 GMT
Barbet denied a pen for reasons I have no idea about. Defender had a full clutch of his shirt, pulled him back at a corner. Watford free kick.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 16:37:30 GMT
YESSSSS slick move, Dykes with a no-look through ball to Chair who slots home! 1-1.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 16:30:00 GMT
Adomah on for BOS for the last 20 mins or so.
Been the better side this half but not been able to make it count.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 16:17:27 GMT
Dykes and Willock on for Bonne and Ball.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 16:05:55 GMT
Niko going to be given 45 mins here.
Watford bringing on Deeney for Grey. Imagine having a bench like that lol.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 15:56:19 GMT
Wallace again picked !! Chair out wide again, not seeing anything but a loss today IMO Don't rate Wallace but not much we can do there. Niko's been away with Finland the whole break.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 15:39:33 GMT
Foster keeps a deflected shot from Ball out from 6 yards, proper reaction save.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 15:11:02 GMT
I think its pretty poor that we lose Nikko and Dykes to the bench because of internationals I assume but to lose players who are not playing in internationals I feel is worse, it should only of been light training. Very frustrating innit but it happens all the time. Light training or otherwise, there's a hundred ways someone can end up getting injured.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 21, 2020 15:06:42 GMT
Masterson air kicks at the near post from Watford's first corner, 0-1. We have a chance immediately creating a corner and then a ball cleared off the Watford line.
|
|
|
Eze
Nov 19, 2020 9:35:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by bowranger on Nov 19, 2020 9:35:38 GMT
Yeah, agents have a hell of a lot to answer for.
With BOS, unless I misunderstand how the system works, I presume we still have the potentual tribunal fee to consider? There's the prediction/rumour that BOS may have a pre-contract arrangement with a club sussed out on the basis that they come in during the January window where, with even less time on his deal, he'd be cheaper than the figures touted in the last window. But even then, we aren't obligated to sell - at BOS' age, we would get compensation via a tribunal if he stays til the end of his contract I believe.
I guess you'd have to weigh up any offer in Jan vs what we could predict to get come next summer. At which point, his relative value depends on his attitude if a January move doesn't happen. For example, no suggestion that he'd do that, but if he sees his arse, would an unmotivated BOS + tribunal fee be worth more than whatever we could get in Jan?
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 11, 2020 11:50:30 GMT
Clarke, Parry and Taylor at the PFA should have been out on their arse years ago. Dodgy, overpaid and out of touch.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 9, 2020 9:29:28 GMT
Probably? More just me being sour. Think the thing that annoys me more than the time is the facts refs have the rules and tools to deal with time wasting but they seem so reluctant to use them. Injuries, fine, appreciate that if someone goes down the ref isn't best judged to say whether they're faking it or not - I know I've seen players go down when holding a lead, I've shouted about them faking it only for them to be stretchered off..! But the really, really obvious ones. Players turning minor injuries into an extended drinks session and tactical sesh with their manager. Pissing around with throw ins. Preventing people from taking free kicks. Keepers suddenly at 80 minutes, deciding they can't fetch a ball, wandering around, cleaning their studs, having a drink. If something that normally takes a few seconds at 0-0 almost takes a minute at 2-1, it is blatant. Just dish a card out. Ref warned Blackburn players a good five times and gave no sanction for it and it happens most weeks. Sorry bfor the reference to Rugby League but I'd love to see the time-keeping taken away from the referee altogether. In RL, this is the case and the clock is stopped when necessary although the ref does indicate when the clock should be stopped and restarted. If there is an injury, the clock will be stopped immediately and only restarted when play resumes. In the case of a knock on, there is a timer that comes into play (30 seconds) and a team is penalised if they aren't in a position to resume play by that time (I've only seen it happen once so it's a pretty good incentive), that sort of thing could be used to stop keepers spending an age when taking a goal kick for example. Anyway, you hopefully get what I mean. Ah yeah I remember it coming up as a good way of dealing with it and it does make sense. I think for me, anything like that only gets considered if refs and the FA considered it to be a significant problem worth dealing with, which is a hurdle. But if they did, I think the first step would be a new directive on it. For example, a few years back I seem to remember they did that over holding in the box - that's always been against the rules but there was a concerted effort about it because it had become normalised and that was communicated to clubs pre-season to warn them it was being focused on. Same with this - the rules and sanctions already exist for refs to deal with shithousing but they just aren't utilised much. Timewasting is just seen as culturally acceptable in football now. I'd at least like to see them consider it a big issue, warn clubs collectively and start dishing the cards before we have to consider a change to the clock.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 8, 2020 11:00:45 GMT
Ref better add a lot of time on. The time wasting has been an absolute joke. Was 6 minutes enough? Glad to see that that's two orange donuts out of the big jobs. Probably? More just me being sour. Think the thing that annoys me more than the time is the facts refs have the rules and tools to deal with time wasting but they seem so reluctant to use them. Injuries, fine, appreciate that if someone goes down the ref isn't best judged to say whether they're faking it or not - I know I've seen players go down when holding a lead, I've shouted about them faking it only for them to be stretchered off..! But the really, really obvious ones. Players turning minor injuries into an extended drinks session and tactical sesh with their manager. Pissing around with throw ins. Preventing people from taking free kicks. Keepers suddenly at 80 minutes, deciding they can't fetch a ball, wandering around, cleaning their studs, having a drink. If something that normally takes a few seconds at 0-0 almost takes a minute at 2-1, it is blatant. Just dish a card out. Ref warned Blackburn players a good five times and gave no sanction for it and it happens most weeks.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 7, 2020 17:13:14 GMT
Rangers basic game is fine, except for the work in the 6 yard box. Dieng and the defence are more than capable. Room for improvement in the proverbial red zone. Willock seems to be gaining confidence and it is hard to keep Kakay out of the lineup. Dieng is a legitimate high level GK. Really mature, with great positional work and reflexes too. Not a bad game to watch, despite the ref. Yeah, best I've seen of Willock so far. Think we missed BOS today, too. Another one of those games where against teams like that we lack a bit of cynicism/meanness in our middle. To their credit, thought Armstrong was superb. Man is in the form of his life at the mo.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 7, 2020 16:59:21 GMT
Odd game. They were better than us in the first half. We got back in it with a penalty, no idea what for. We had our best spell and then they broke away and scored. Dickie could not afford to bring Armstrong down. Yeah, they dominated us first half and don't score. Then during our most dominant part, they score two. Last goal was just everyone forward rolling the dice. Didn't deserve to win but score not much of a reflection of what happened. Doesn't make a difference but yet again, an absolutely piss poor ref who makes sure teams like this get rewarded for shithousing and time wasting. Him penalising Bonne for a completely fair challenge late on the icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 7, 2020 16:49:08 GMT
Ref better add a lot of time on. The time wasting has been an absolute joke.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 7, 2020 16:34:50 GMT
Ah balls. Counter attack does us. 50/50 up in their half, Willock (who's looked great) gets bullied off the ball. 3 quick passes and Armstrong gets ahead of Dickie and slots home. 2-1.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 7, 2020 16:20:42 GMT
Yiiiirrrrsssss Dykes hammers it 1-1.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 7, 2020 16:19:56 GMT
Awarded a penalty. Not 100% sure what for lol. Either for handball or a push.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 7, 2020 16:12:31 GMT
Blackburn for reasons I'm not sure about allowed to take the corner twice. Deep ball to the back post, Dykes beaten by his man for the header back across goal, Brereton with an awkward but well taken volley from about 10 yards. 1-0 down.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 7, 2020 16:07:42 GMT
Cameron and Ball not gelling IMO, need a change at HT. Agree to Kane change as well. Yeah, I've never felt we are mobile enough with them both on the pitch.
|
|