BFTG-Bristol city.

[Ian Royal]

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.

[Huckleberry Hound]

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.

[NewCorkSeth]

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]

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?

[Sutekh]

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

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

[Silver Fox]

ROFL

[paultheroyal]

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]

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

[lewesroyal]

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

[Pepe the Horseman]

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

[TFF]

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]

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.