BFTG-Bristol city.

132 posts
User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by Ian Royal » 30 Nov 2016 18:36

I'm not 100% convinced you can call Harriott's 'handball' deliberate given the level of incompetence required to achieve it.... but I'm amazed it wasn't given, you'd expect it to be week in week out. Especially compared to the soft as oxf*rd one we got.

Bristol really could have had a hat full from the extended highlights. And we took most of our decent chances. But you've got to actually take your chances. We did, we got ahead and from there Bristol were always going to be pushing for it more. The fact is, they didn't take their chances and they had more than enough to make two dodgy penalty calls not cost them.

User avatar
Huckleberry Hound
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: 16 Oct 2011 18:04
Location: The Magic Roundabout

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by Huckleberry Hound » 30 Nov 2016 23:51

ladida_gunner_graham
NewCorkSeth
If a score of 5 is an average performance then it follows that a score of 4 is below average but not awful. Did he make enough mistakes in the game to warrant a 4? (I wasn't there so have no valid opinion on performance)
If winning a penalty at a minimum adds +1 to your score then he must have made enough mistakes to take 2 points off his final score right? What were in your approach, those mistakes in your view?

Surely a player does not start at 5 and then go up or down (this seems to be what you are suggesting). You have to earn a 5 by doing enough to be average, and I don't believe Samuel did. Yes, he won the penalty, but it's really hard to see what else he did. He won a tackle and laid the ball off, but only after he'd mis-controlled the ball to a Brizzle. After that, I'm really struggling to think of anything much, so maybe a four is generous. Maybe a 3.....

I grew up with the 'Match Weekly' ratings, where 6 was average and no one scored less than 3 (awful). Hard to shift from that once it's ingrained from childhood. Samuel gets at 6 at least on that reckoning. Kermit works his socks off, but we're a better team with Samuel up front as he brings the threat of pace, which defences always find harder to deal with.

User avatar
NewCorkSeth
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5989
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 00:17
Location: Wherever Nameless may be.

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by NewCorkSeth » 01 Dec 2016 07:27

Nameless
NewCorkSeth
Nameless
Not sure that's entirely accurate.
what about the 'careless, reckless, excessive' test ?
Agree that the consideration of intent has been removed from the law but not every bit of contact is now a foul, which is kind of what you are suggesting. If the Bristol defender is just running normally in a straight line and Samuel cuts across him and tangles with his foot then Samuel has been 'tripped' but I would not consider it a foul using the criteria in the laws.

An interesting interpretation. Do the laws of obstruction not come in to play in that scenario? (genuine question)


No, for two reasons.
1. There is no such offence, the nearest in the current laws is 'impeding an opponent'
2. You have to be between the player and the ball to impede them and that wasn't the case here
The only two possible offences here are holding or tripping. If the defender used his arm to pull Samuel back it was holding, if he used his leg it was tripping. If Samuel just caught his foot on the defender there was no offence IMHO.
HOWEVER this happened 4 days ago and I can't see the ref changing his mind now !

Cheers. Why do laymen like me all think theres an obstruction law? For instance if a defender just keeps moving in front of a player (like a screen in basketball) what is the offence?

kwik-silva
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1864
Joined: 11 Feb 2008 07:26

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by kwik-silva » 01 Dec 2016 08:40

NewCorkSeth
Nameless
NewCorkSeth An interesting interpretation. Do the laws of obstruction not come in to play in that scenario? (genuine question)


No, for two reasons.
1. There is no such offence, the nearest in the current laws is 'impeding an opponent'
2. You have to be between the player and the ball to impede them and that wasn't the case here
The only two possible offences here are holding or tripping. If the defender used his arm to pull Samuel back it was holding, if he used his leg it was tripping. If Samuel just caught his foot on the defender there was no offence IMHO.
HOWEVER this happened 4 days ago and I can't see the ref changing his mind now !

Cheers. Why do laymen like me all think theres an obstruction law? For instance if a defender just keeps moving in front of a player (like a screen in basketball) what is the offence?


Obstructing and impeding are surely the same?

User avatar
Sutekh
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8569
Joined: 12 Feb 2014 14:05
Location: Destroying things.... just like Michael Gilkes used to

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by Sutekh » 02 Dec 2016 12:14

Apparently the head of referees has apologised to Lee Johnson over the penalty decisions and the obviously onside goal Tammy Abraham scored.

Bristol Post Lee Johnson has revealed how referees chief Dave Allison called him this week to apologise for the handling of last Saturday's Championship fixture against Reading at the Madejski Stadium.

Bristol City crashed to a 2-1 defeat in controversial circumstances and head coach Johnson felt his side had been hard done by after three crucial decisions went against them.

Referee Tim Robinson enraged the visiting team when unjustly awarding a penalty to Reading in the 13th minute, even though video re-runs of the incident in which Dominic Samuel went to ground under challenge from Hordur Magnusson proved that the City defender had not committed a foul.

City striker Tammy Abraham then had a perfectly good goal chalked off for offside, while the officials failed to act when Reading substitute Callum Harriott clearly used his arm to control the ball inside his own penalty area during the closing stages.

Appointed national group manager of the Professional Game Match Officials, former Premier League referee Allison is responsible for training and appointing officials.

Johnson explained: "I sent Dave a text telling him I'd like to talk through some of the incidents in the Reading game and he was good enough to come back to me within a couple of days.

"He phoned me to apologise and we just talked it through. As for the penalty that was given, if you saw 100 incidents like that, 15 would be given and 85 would not. Dave agreed with me that we had been caught on the wrong side of the odds.

"To be fair, Dave is very good and he will speak to the managers if you send the clips in and follow the procedure..

"It's very rare that I do that, but we've been on the receiving end a lot recently and I've probably contacted him seven times in the last five weeks. That is more than I have done it in the whole of my managerial career and I do it because I think we need to try and raise standards."

Report this article

Read more at http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-ci ... rqD4h2k.99


User avatar
Silver Fox
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 17820
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 10:02
Location: From the Andes to the indies in my undies

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by Silver Fox » 02 Dec 2016 12:21

ROFL

User avatar
paultheroyal
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 9076
Joined: 04 Mar 2005 12:59
Location: Hob Nob Reality TV Champ 2010/2011

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by paultheroyal » 02 Dec 2016 12:22

I've probably contacted him seven times in the last five weeks.


Bet he is a right barrel of laughs...clearly not bitter!!

Starry Blue Hooped Wonder
Member
Posts: 81
Joined: 09 Apr 2005 20:36
Location: We're on our way

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by Starry Blue Hooped Wonder » 02 Dec 2016 12:47

paultheroyal
I've probably contacted him seven times in the last five weeks.


Bet he is a right barrel of laughs...clearly not bitter!!


I can visualise the loud sigh and the roll of the eyes as Dave Allison sees Lee Johnson's number come up on his phone yet again :)

User avatar
lewesroyal
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 30 Jan 2014 13:13
Location: Sussex by the Sea

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by lewesroyal » 02 Dec 2016 13:09

Starry Blue Hooped Wonder
paultheroyal
I've probably contacted him seven times in the last five weeks.


Bet he is a right barrel of laughs...clearly not bitter!!


I can visualise the loud sigh and the roll of the eyes as Dave Allison sees Lee Johnson's number come up on his phone yet again :)


Fair play to him for responding though. it would be nice if some of this was more public on occasion so that we , the viewing public are aware of how the feedback is treated. The refs after all only get 1 look at full speed and from a single angle


User avatar
Pepe the Horseman
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11655
Joined: 23 Jun 2011 10:24
Location: Putting right what once went wrong

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by Pepe the Horseman » 02 Dec 2016 13:11

Don't even remember the disallowed goal. Was it one of those where everyone stopped because the whistle had already gone?

User avatar
TFF
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5321
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 09:17
Location: Running to the hills

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by TFF » 02 Dec 2016 14:38

Pepe the Horseman Don't even remember the disallowed goal. Was it one of those where everyone stopped because the whistle had already gone?


Yeah, it wasn't disallowed 'cause the whistle had long been blown. Even Abraham had stopped playing - backheeled it into the net iirc

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5484
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: BFTG-Bristol city.

by Nameless » 02 Dec 2016 15:01

NewCorkSeth
Nameless
NewCorkSeth An interesting interpretation. Do the laws of obstruction not come in to play in that scenario? (genuine question)


No, for two reasons.
1. There is no such offence, the nearest in the current laws is 'impeding an opponent'
2. You have to be between the player and the ball to impede them and that wasn't the case here
The only two possible offences here are holding or tripping. If the defender used his arm to pull Samuel back it was holding, if he used his leg it was tripping. If Samuel just caught his foot on the defender there was no offence IMHO.
HOWEVER this happened 4 days ago and I can't see the ref changing his mind now !

Cheers. Why do laymen like me all think theres an obstruction law? For instance if a defender just keeps moving in front of a player (like a screen in basketball) what is the offence?


There used to be an obstruction offence but the laws are changed quite often and 'obstruction' was replaced by 'impeding an opponent', which is similar but probably a bit broader than what we'd have traditionally seen as 'obstruction'. The laws are quite straightforward and I highly recommend bookmarking them on the FIFA website.
The situation you describe could be impeding but depends on whether the ball is in playing distance, if the ball isn't in playing distance then causing an opponent to slow down, change direction or stop by moving into his path is impeding. So what goes on at every corner is a mass of impeding and holding offences.

132 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Basildon, BR0B0T, John Smith, Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 39 guests

It is currently 18 Oct 2019 09:52