That Lot Up The Road

[JohnC]

You know what we lost. So what!

I would think many in their heads expected us to lose this game based on the season so far.

Who has never made a mistake?

Positives the team battled well, we had more chances than in some previous games. The new two up front looked really good. Anderson beat four defenders (six if you count the two who came back at him) and the keeper for a superb goal.

I am not going to slate the defenders which is easy to do, how many times have they saved us this season and been MOTM.

Lets end the year on a high with 3 points on Monday against Sutton.

Spare a thought for those clubs in our league and others who have suffered flooding and had no game and a task to clear up after.

[RaidenYeltz]

EXTENDED Highlights - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhHsGRDxuKY

Fantastic highlights as per.

The goals we conceded were more horrific than I initially thought. Very poor defending. Especially for their winner and first equaliser.

[Frodo]

Lets disect the referee's decision here from the perspective of a referee.

Whatever way you look at it, it's a truly, truly awful decision. Whether it's deliberate handball or denying a goal scoring opportunity, it's a red!

Watch the slow motion replay in videos from YeltzTV (controversial decision or match highlights) and you will see the keeper jumped up to head the ball, it did hit an outreaching arm but only at the end of his jump. Therefore there was no deliberate hand ball.

So how about denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity?

The footage makes it clear cut- it was a red- and the lino would have had an even better view. I'm sick of the refs avoiding the right decision in favour of the safe decision.

Yes, the footage does make it clear cut. If you look at both camera angles (2:10-2:45 of the match highlights) you will see the Stourbr*dge number 3 was ahead of Gueyes, and for that reason it was NOT denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Definite red for me. Good footage by the way Dan !

I have to agree Dazza, it was good footage, which clearly shows that the referee made the correct decision in NOT sending the keeper off.

As a referee, I was told to consider the following factors in interpreting this rule:
- Positions of other players: The number 3 COULD have got back - therefore it was NOT OBVIOUS.
- The distance from goal: from outside the 18 yard line,

Don't normally slate officials but that was the poorest decision I've seen in a long time and it could have changed the outcome significantly.

Decisions by officials in close games can make the difference and the referee and linesman bottled the sending off completely. Blatant red card and playing them with 10 men for 85 minutes would have made a huge difference.

Also as a referee, I was told that the time of the incident should not affect the decision. For me, knowing the rules, The referee did not bottle the decision, he got it right. Furthermore, whether or not it would have changed the outcome or not, or whether it would have made a huge difference should not be a consideration when making a decision.

Finally, Anderson would have been offside, had the ball fell to him, further validating the referee's decision.

Correct decision Referee, who i thought did not have a bad game at all. It was obvious he had been appointed for the game because of his experience at a higher level.

[piearce9]

I can't agree with any of that. Sorry, Frodo.

Can we please just be clear about one thing. It's a red if it denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Not denying an obvious goal. So the debate isn't whether we'd have scored or not, it's actually whether we'd have had a chance of scoring. And that's bloody obvious.

The other completely bizarre comment that's on here and on FB is that it wasn't deliberate handball. The moment a keeper leaves his box, his magical handling powers leave him. So if he's come out with arms flailing, then it's pretty much the same as if a defender was doing it.

Some of the comments over the last 24 hours have been priceless. I'm not changing my mind. It was a red all day and the wrong decision was made.

[juanillo]

Lets disect the referee's decision here from the perspective of a referee....

Furthermore, whether or not it would have changed the outcome or not, or whether it would have made a huge difference should not be a consideration when making a decision....

Finally, Anderson would have been offside, had the ball fell to him, further validating the referee's decision.

I wouldn't want to take part in one of the matches you referee.

You've dissected and dismissed people's views on the basis of the laws of the game but have erroneously interpreted the comments.

Nobody has suggested that the eventual or possible outcome should be a determining factor in making a decision. Nor that the time of the offence should make a difference. Simply that the outcome could have been different against 10 men which is a fair supposition!

Also the officials should not be assessing the possible position of other players to justify a decision. The handball comes first and whether or not another player would have been offside if the ball had possibly fallen to him is irrelevant and can in no way be used to validate the referee's decision.

Piearce9 is right. As soon as a keeper leaves the 18 yard box with his arms aloft like that he's acting like any other outfield player.

[RobYeltz]

It's interesting to here the views of a referee and it shows quite clearly how the laws of the game made by some of those idiots at FIFA don't help referees at all.

For me, it was a clear goal scoring opportunity. Gueyes headed the ball and the keeper came out with an intention to block the ball, he came out and 'made himself big' knowing there was a chance that the ball may hit his arm, or his arm/hand may connect with the ball, by giving a free kick it shows the referee clearly thought it was a deliberate hand ball. If it wasn't deliberate he shouldn't have given a free kick as per the laws of the game. The clear goal scoring opportunity seems to be the debate, the fact that if Solly had left the ball and the ball had have carried on there would have been an equal chance of Gueyes or Anderson reaching the ball as there was one of the Stour defenders, therefore there was a goal scoring opportunity. Not guaranteed, he would score admittedly, but you could say the same for the defender too, it wasn't guaranteed he would get across/back to clear the ball either. certainly. As for Anderson being offside, i don't think the camera angle was clear, he looked as though he came from behind the ball when it was headed by Gueyes. In my opinion the referee should have consulted his linesman to be sure between them they made the right decision, he didn't do that either, but I guess he was one of those referees who don't want the lino to be involved other than flag for throw ins and offsides. The third goal Stour scored was also a very soft free kick - two poor decisions which influenced the game without doubt. That said, our defending wasn't good enough and we can't blame the referee for that.