What the papers say: Hull

User avatar
Far Canal
Member
Posts: 696
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 00:31
Location: Kennetside

What the papers say: Hull

by Far Canal » 21 Jan 2012 17:33

daily mail

Reading 0 Hull 1: Brady puts dampener on takeover party

By Sportsmail Reporter

Last updated at 5:10 PM on 21st January 2012

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... party.html

Robbie Brady scored the only goal of the game as Hull won 1-0 at fellow npower Championship play-off hopefuls Reading, the first time since November that Brian McDermott's side have been beaten at home.

With both sides level on points before the match, the winger struck with just over 20 minutes remaining to ensure the Tigers leapfrogged the Royals in the league table.

Reading were without Jimmy Kebe, who was ruled out because of his niggling knee injury, and his place in midfield was taken by Michail Antonio.

Hull also made one change with Brady coming in for Matty Fryatt, who joined new striker Josh King, signed for the club on loan from Manchester United this week, on the substitutes' bench.

Antonio provided the first chance of the match in the third minute when he muscled his way to the Hull byline and crossed for Wales striker Simon Church, who headed wide of Hull goalkeeper Vito Mannone's right-hand post.

Hull endured a sluggish start to the match but Brady came agonisingly close to giving them the lead in the 13th minute when he unleashed a thunderous free-kick from almost 30 yards that Reading goalkeeper Adam Federici did well to tip over the crossbar.

The Royals threatened to break the deadlock in the 20th minute when Kaspars Gorkss met Ian Harte's inswinging free-kick six yards from goal.

However, the defender could only head wide of the far post.

Reading continued to press and really should have gone in front three minutes later through defender Alex Pearce, but his close-range effort following Hal Robson-Kanu's corner was superbly blocked on the line by former Royals defender Liam Rosenior.

The rest of the first half was a scrappy affair and aside from some late Reading pressure thanks to successive Robson-Kanu corners and some uncertain handling from Mannone, the closest the game came to a goal was through Hull defender James Chester, whose weak header from Brady's free-kick drifted wide of Federici's right-hand post.

The visitors started the second half with purpose but it was Reading who could have taken the lead in the 52nd minute had Shaun Cummings shown more composure in front of goal.

Having been played in by midfielder Jem Karacan 12 yards out, the full-back rushed his effort and lashed the ball high over the bar.

Tigers boss Nick Barmby was the first manager to make a change, introducing Fryatt in place of the ineffective Cameron Stewart after 62 minutes to partner Aaron Mclean in attack.

And the move paid immediate dividends four minutes later as Hull took the lead through the impressive Brady, who ran on to midfielder Paul McKenna's defence-splitting pass and fired expertly from 18 yards past Federici.

McDermott responded by introducing Adam Le Fondre in place of Church but despite the former Rotherham striker's best efforts, Reading failed to create any chances, bringing to a halt their run of four successive home league wins.

MATCH FACTS

Reading:
Federici, Cummings, Pearce, Gorkss, Harte, Antonio, Tabb, Karacan, Robson-Kanu, Hunt, Church (Le Fondre 78). Unused subs: Andersen, Gunnarsson, Mills, D'Ath.

Booked: Hunt.

Hull:
Monnone. Rosenior (King 86), Chester, Hobbs, Dawson, McKenna, Evans, Stewart (Fryatt 62), Koren, Brady (Dudgeon 81), Mclean. Unused subs: Carson, Cooper.

Goals: Brady 66.

Booked: Dawson

Referee: Graham Scott

User avatar
Kitson12
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2172
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 18:47
Location: Challenge42 World Record Holder!!

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by Kitson12 » 21 Jan 2012 17:35

No mention of the controversial nature of the winning goal, were they actually at the game?

User avatar
Far Canal
Member
Posts: 696
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 00:31
Location: Kennetside

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by Far Canal » 21 Jan 2012 18:32

sportinglife.com

Same write-up as daily mail

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/li ... l&BID=3658

STAT ATTACK
Reading................Hull

4....Shots On Target.....2
5....Shots Off Target....3
7....Fouls (Conceded)..13
12........Corners.........5
1......Yellow Cards.......1
0.......Red Cards.........0

User avatar
Svlad Cjelli
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4605
Joined: 14 May 2008 09:25
Location: It's the Premier LEAGUE, you cretins. The Premiership hasn't existed for years.

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by Svlad Cjelli » 21 Jan 2012 18:33

Kitson12 No mention of the controversial nature of the winning goal, were they actually at the game?


Was it controversial?

Player offside doesn't play the ball. Reading players stop playing and stand and watch while a player clearly not offside runs through and scores.

The only thing in any doubt is why the Reading players why don't play to the whistle.

User avatar
Kitson12
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2172
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 18:47
Location: Challenge42 World Record Holder!!

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by Kitson12 » 21 Jan 2012 20:18

Svlad Cjelli
Kitson12 No mention of the controversial nature of the winning goal, were they actually at the game?


Was it controversial?

Player offside doesn't play the ball. Reading players stop playing and stand and watch while a player clearly not offside runs through and scores.

The only thing in any doubt is why the Reading players why don't play to the whistle.

Completely agree with that sentiment that our players should have played to the whistle, however, usually when a player who is offside makes a clear movement to go towards the ball he's offside, and is given, regardless of whether he touches it.


User avatar
RoyalBlue
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 10529
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:39
Location: Developed a pathological hatred of snakes on 14/10/19

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by RoyalBlue » 21 Jan 2012 20:31

Svlad Cjelli
Kitson12 No mention of the controversial nature of the winning goal, were they actually at the game?


Was it controversial?

Player offside doesn't play the ball. Reading players stop playing and stand and watch while a player clearly not offside runs through and scores.

The only thing in any doubt is why the Reading players why don't play to the whistle.


For f*cks sake, where do the laws say he has to actually play the ball?!!

He chased it down for some considerable distance and got within playing distance of it. In doing so, he left Feds having to choose which of two players to cover. At the last minute he left the ball to the player who hadn't been offside, clearly altering angles and leaving Feds disadvantaged by the fact that one of the two had been offside at the time the ball was played through. Clearly offside under the laws of the game and the officials got it completely wrong. Both should be sent back to the classroom.

Watch any game and see how often players are flagged offside for chasing after the ball and before they touch it. Have all these other officials got the law wrong? Of course not.

User avatar
Handsome Man
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3326
Joined: 04 Apr 2006 08:21
Location: Practically Rock Paper Scissors Champion of the World

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by Handsome Man » 21 Jan 2012 20:51

RoyalBlue
Svlad Cjelli
Kitson12 No mention of the controversial nature of the winning goal, were they actually at the game?


Was it controversial?

Player offside doesn't play the ball. Reading players stop playing and stand and watch while a player clearly not offside runs through and scores.

The only thing in any doubt is why the Reading players why don't play to the whistle.


For f*cks sake, where do the laws say he has to actually play the ball?!!

He chased it down for some considerable distance and got within playing distance of it. In doing so, he left Feds having to choose which of two players to cover. At the last minute he left the ball to the player who hadn't been offside, clearly altering angles and leaving Feds disadvantaged by the fact that one of the two had been offside at the time the ball was played through. Clearly offside under the laws of the game and the officials got it completely wrong. Both should be sent back to the classroom.

Watch any game and see how often players are flagged offside for chasing after the ball and before they touch it. Have all these other officials got the law wrong? Of course not.


I thought you had to play the ball to be interfering with play. That was the rule that Keith Hackett explained in the Guardian a few years ago.

User avatar
RoyalBlue
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 10529
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:39
Location: Developed a pathological hatred of snakes on 14/10/19

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by RoyalBlue » 21 Jan 2012 20:54

Handsome Man
RoyalBlue
Svlad Cjelli
For f*cks sake, where do the laws say he has to actually play the ball?!!

He chased it down for some considerable distance and got within playing distance of it. In doing so, he left Feds having to choose which of two players to cover. At the last minute he left the ball to the player who hadn't been offside, clearly altering angles and leaving Feds disadvantaged by the fact that one of the two had been offside at the time the ball was played through. Clearly offside under the laws of the game and the officials got it completely wrong. Both should be sent back to the classroom.

Watch any game and see how often players are flagged offside for chasing after the ball and before they touch it. Have all these other officials got the law wrong? Of course not.


I thought you had to play the ball to be interfering with play. That was the rule that Keith Hackett explained in the Guardian a few years ago.


Then Keith Hackett got it wrong too. And if he had been right, then hundreds of officials get it wrong every time they officiate!

According to FIFA 'Active involvement plus offside position is the offence'

Have a look at their definition of interfering with an opponent and then decide whether the ref and his assistant made the right call.

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5186
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by SCIAG » 21 Jan 2012 21:27

RoyalBlue Have a look at their definition of interfering with an opponent and then decide whether the ref and his assistant made the right call.

They give the example of two players running towards the ball, one in an offside position, one not, and specifically say that this is not offside and should not be penalised. You are only interfering with an opponent if you obstruct a player's line of sight, make a gesture or movement that distracts a player, or prevent an opponent from being able to play the ball. You are wrong if you think, by the letter of the law, McLean/McClean was interfering with an opponent.


Dawn
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 08:50

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by Dawn » 21 Jan 2012 22:31

Svlad Cjelli
Kitson12 No mention of the controversial nature of the winning goal, were they actually at the game?


Was it controversial?

Player offside doesn't play the ball. Reading players stop playing and stand and watch while a player clearly not offside runs through and scores.

The only thing in any doubt is why the Reading players why don't play to the whistle.


I thought the lino made a move to put up his flag and then change his mind, the Reading players stopped as he went to put up his flag. I'm not saying they would have had time to get back to Brady but that moments heitation as it looked like the lino was about to raise his flag certainly didn't help.

User avatar
The Surgeon of Crowthorne
Member
Posts: 704
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 17:29
Location: THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by The Surgeon of Crowthorne » 22 Jan 2012 09:41

SCIAG
RoyalBlue Have a look at their definition of interfering with an opponent and then decide whether the ref and his assistant made the right call.

They give the example of two players running towards the ball, one in an offside position, one not, and specifically say that this is not offside and should not be penalised. You are only interfering with an opponent if you obstruct a player's line of sight, make a gesture or movement that distracts a player, or prevent an opponent from being able to play the ball. You are wrong if you think, by the letter of the law, McLean/McClean was interfering with an opponent.

Surely the bit in bold is what happened here and is what RB is arguing. I've see plenty of offsides given at games when players in offside positions have moved towards the ball but not touched it.

User avatar
ZacNaloen
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7239
Joined: 13 Oct 2008 13:34
Location: 'If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.' -Mark Schnitzius

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by ZacNaloen » 22 Jan 2012 09:43

That and Federici could make no early decision on who to close down, because one of the players was distracting him by his movement towards the ball.


The law says nothing about having to touch or play the ball.

Snowball
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 17982
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 18:35

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by Snowball » 22 Jan 2012 10:58

RoyalBlue


He chased it down for some considerable distance and got within playing distance of it. In doing so, he left Feds having to choose which of two players to cover. At the last minute he left the ball to the player who hadn't been offside, clearly altering angles and leaving Feds disadvantaged by the fact that one of the two had been offside at the time the ball was played through. Clearly offside under the laws of the game and the officials got it completely wrong. Both should be sent back to the classroom.

Watch any game and see how often players are flagged offside for chasing after the ball and before they touch it. Have all these other officials got the law wrong? Of course not.




Watched it a few times and totally agree with the above.

Was fully prepared to say the ref was right. He wasn't though.


SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5186
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by SCIAG » 22 Jan 2012 12:42

The Surgeon of Crowthorne
SCIAG
RoyalBlue Have a look at their definition of interfering with an opponent and then decide whether the ref and his assistant made the right call.

They give the example of two players running towards the ball, one in an offside position, one not, and specifically say that this is not offside and should not be penalised. You are only interfering with an opponent if you obstruct a player's line of sight, make a gesture or movement that distracts a player, or prevent an opponent from being able to play the ball. You are wrong if you think, by the letter of the law, McLean/McClean was interfering with an opponent.

Surely the bit in bold is what happened here and is what RB is arguing. I've see plenty of offsides given at games when players in offside positions have moved towards the ball but not touched it.

The law gives the specific example of a player simply running towards the ball but not playing it and the ball instead being played by a teammate and says that it is not offside. That bolded bit refers to, for example, a player jumping around and waving his arms.
ZacNaloen The law says nothing about having to touch or play the ball.

It does, for "interfering with play" and "gaining an advantage". You don't have to play the ball to interfere with an opponent, but McLean was not doing that.

I'm not annoyed by the officials getting it right this time, I'm annoyed by them getting it wrong a few weeks ago and several other times down the years.

User avatar
ZacNaloen
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7239
Joined: 13 Oct 2008 13:34
Location: 'If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.' -Mark Schnitzius

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by ZacNaloen » 22 Jan 2012 13:06

SCIAG It does, for "interfering with play" and "gaining an advantage". You don't have to play the ball to interfere with an opponent, but McLean was not doing that.

I'm not annoyed by the officials getting it right this time, I'm annoyed by them getting it wrong a few weeks ago and several other times down the years.



I'm not arguing that the officials got the rules wrong, I'm arguing that there is an obvious problem with the offside law. That being that players running towards the ball, from on an offside position are going to affect the decision making of any defensive unit. Whether they actually play the ball or not. unless they are completely uninvolved in play (I.e standing still or walking away from play) they are obviously an active factor and for that reason they have to be considered offside.

In short FIFA have oxf*rd up the rule.

User avatar
ZacNaloen
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7239
Joined: 13 Oct 2008 13:34
Location: 'If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.' -Mark Schnitzius

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by ZacNaloen » 22 Jan 2012 13:10

And I just saw dzeko given offside no where near the ball :roll:

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5186
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by SCIAG » 22 Jan 2012 13:47

Oh yeah, I agree that the law could maybe do with a bit more clarification and that ideally that goal would have been disallowed, but I'd rather have too liberal a law than one that is too tight.

SpaghettiHoop
Member
Posts: 406
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 12:53

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by SpaghettiHoop » 22 Jan 2012 15:09

The crowd should have been asked to vote "goal" or "no goal".

old woman
Member
Posts: 354
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 17:38

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by old woman » 22 Jan 2012 16:18

To quote Bill Shankley " If a player is on the pitch then he's interferring with play" (apologies for spelling mistakes- slight difficulties with a hangover.)

Rev Algenon Stickleback H
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3187
Joined: 22 Apr 2004 20:15

Re: What the papers say: Hull

by Rev Algenon Stickleback H » 22 Jan 2012 16:22

The "touching the ball" thing isn't in the rules of the game, but is one of the the directives issues about how the rules should be applied.

I do think what happened yesterday was more of a "loophole" in the directive rather than the intention behind it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ankeny, Chameleon and 150 guests

It is currently 02 Dec 2020 13:32