Brighton away 2pm Sunday 7 December

1235»

Comments

  • Brother_SledgeBrother_Sledge
    All going well - last 10 crucial minutes and Nuno makes 3 changes - why?
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited December 7
    Yep I’m not convinced by Nuno at all, some of his calls
  • jay_in_cptjay_in_cpt
    If Areola had let the initial 'handball' attempt in it would have been ruled out, oh well.....
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    I thought two of the changes made complete sense but was concerned about the new lad taking over from Diouf for a debut in a highly charged final ten minutes. As it was no issue can be attributed to any of the subs. What happened was we couldn't get possession long enough to take the pace out of the game in that period if intensity in the final few minutes, and sadly Brighton scored with a goal which shouldn't have stood in my view.

  • LukerzLukerz
    The referee’s call of goal was checked and confirmed by VAR – with it deemed that Rutter’s arm was in a natural position and he did not deliberately handle the ball, and the contact with the arm was not immediately prior to him scoring.

    There you go, may seem harsh but is the rule
  • LukerzLukerz
    claretandbluesky said:

    I thought two of the changes made complete sense but was concerned about the new lad taking over from Diouf for a debut in a highly charged final ten minutes. As it was no issue can be attributed to any of the subs. What happened was we couldn't get possession long enough to take the pace out of the game in that period if intensity in the final few minutes, and sadly Brighton scored with a goal which shouldn't have stood in my view.

    We couldn’t get out as the two players who keep the ball, Fernandes & Paquetá, came off, plus Diouf - a rare out ball - also went off
  • jay_in_cptjay_in_cpt
    In the post match interview Bowen admitted he's gutted but also said that we sat too deep and allowed the pressure on and they need to look at that ( or something on those lines )......

    Take a point and move on.....& hopefully upwards, even though we have two very tricky games to follow....
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    Paqueta wasn't doing much at that point and Fernandes had run himself into the ground so I think Magessa and Soucek were good fresh leg changes. Either could have got us out but Brighton were doing what they needed and keeping possession and intensity going with it.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    @Lukerz, All that indicates is the referee and VAR need a trip to Specsavers.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    Lets hope Palace can beat Fulham now and at least we would have gained a point on them today.
  • jay_in_cptjay_in_cpt
    edited December 7
    We've only 1 loss in our last 6, that's an improvement on our start, just a shame 2 tough games ahead and also losing AWB/Diouf to AFCON soon isn't going to help us, but I guess that will give KWP and possibly Scarles a chance to show us what they can do.....
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited December 7
    Fortuneseeker said:

    @Lukerz, All that indicates is the referee and VAR need a trip to Specsavers.

    Well 1) it wasn’t a deliberate handball & 2) it then resulted in a new phase of play where Areola saved it, another player got it first, then Rutter scored, so goal (by the rules)
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    Handball aside the player would never have got away with a boot that high when a player going for a header in any other part of the pitch. They do seem to have a blind spot with over head kicks as the boot is simply not allowed that high when going for the ball in any other part of the pitch. Mavro was prevented heading the ball by the foot of a player in the head area and Mavro is over six foot.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    BubblesNeverDies said:

    The ball was deflected onto arm so accidental

    Areola should have dived out of the way, then it would have been disallowed.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Just noticed jay already mentioned this. 🤦🏼‍♂️
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    So Nuno gets pellets for not making or making substitutions. Poor guy can’t win.
    That’s a good point away to Brighton.. Could / should have been 3 but we take it and move on in the knowledge that we are improving.

    COYI
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    For me, the most obvious reason to disallow the goal was the overhead kick which should have been considered dangerous play - at the end if the day I think we can consider ourselves unlucky but in truth, to some extent, we brought it upon our ourselves - we surrendered territory and the initiative to Brighton and you could sense that a goal was coming.

    We also have to acknowledge that the current conversation would be different had Mavro won it for us right at the death
  • jay_in_cptjay_in_cpt
    Also, at least for most of the time these days our defenders actually look like defenders !!
  • Brother_SledgeBrother_Sledge
    Had Mavropanos put it inside the post you can bet VAR would have ruled it out for the push.
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    Last 25 minutes was stupid, sorry but every manager seems to do it with WHU, why are we 11 men behind the ball playing so deep that Brighton players can walk up to the edge of our penalty area uncontested. I get it when we are in the last 5 - 10 minutes but 25 minutes before its just total trash we were well in the game and had some resemblance of control then threw it.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    Paqueta should be making a complaint also about the dire state of officials as the camera clearly picked up Dunk aggressively reacting to the ref after a yellow, appearing to swear, but no further yellow was given. He got his first yellow last week for showing frustration but not even looking at the ref who was twenty foot away. They basically apply the rules they wish when they want to, rather than the rules of the game throughout the match.

    If the argument is the handball is handball when rules applied then why is Dunk not getting a second yellow? The only answer can be the ref chose not to apply them. It was more in the refs face- deliberate dissent- and aggressive than Paquetas.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    When Paqueta got his first yellow last week the ref pointed to three spots around the pitch where Paqueta complained about decisions, so the yellow was for a cumulation of offences.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Lukerz said:

    The referee’s call of goal was checked and confirmed by VAR – with it deemed that Rutter’s arm was in a natural position and he did not deliberately handle the ball, and the contact with the arm was not immediately prior to him scoring.

    There you go, may seem harsh but is the rule

    That's right. A few seasons ago against Fulham Antonio, I believe, 'handled' the ball in the build up to all of our three goals. They were all deemed accidental and but didn't occur in the scoring of the goals in later phases.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    Dunk was probably treated a bit more leniently than Paqueta because he is the captain and has the right to “talk” to the referee but obviously not necessarily swearing at him. We don’t know if the ref told him to cut it out or not.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    IronHerb said:

    When Paqueta got his first yellow last week the ref pointed to three spots around the pitch where Paqueta complained about decisions, so the yellow was for a cumulation of offences.

    That's really my point. We are told its the rules, there are no rules about totting up. It's either a reaction that breaks the rule so yellow card, there is no minor reaction totting up, the ref decided to make that up. In the bigger picture its why things like discipline is not changed much, as the rule comes in and its occasionally applied when the ref decides to, the same with fouls during corners. If they applied them as though they were not at their gift then players would alter their behaviour. When Paqueta can throw his arms up in the air and get a yellow but Dunk can scream in the refs face and not then no one knows where they are.

    If we watch next weeks games I feel sure a foul will be given for a high boot that is much lower than the overhead kick today. If he had contacted with Mavros head he should have been sent off but I suspect they would have made an exception because an overhead kick is revered, but misjudge and get your studs up into someone's shin and another ref will straight red you. Is it not the rule that just being out of control can be a straight red, in which case just attempting that overhead today is an offence as from when he leaves the floor he is in no way in control of his body. Similar to a two footed tackle that gets the ball but misses the man.

    As much as VAR is about the right decision it should also help consistency

  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Law 12 -

    Persistent infringement
    Referees should be alert at all times to players who persistently infringe the
    Laws. In particular, they must be aware that, even if a player commits a number
    of different offences, he must still be cautioned for persistently infringing the
    Laws.
    There is no specific number of infringements which constitutes “persistence”
    or the presence of a pattern – this is entirely a matter of judgement and must
    be determined in the context of effective game management
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    A draw at Brighton is a good result, at home they’ve drawn with Fulham and Spurs, beaten City, Leeds, Newcastle and Brentford with their only loss midweek against Villa

    Our record at the AMEX in the Premier League is W1 D3 L5 and we lost 3-2 on our last trip down there in April

    I'm happy with a draw
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    I am also happy with the point and also the overall performance, I certainly did not expect to come away with the feeling that it was two points dropped.

    Especially given that I think Brighton had an extra 24hours between games, I was surprised how poor they were, I know that generally speaking we are not that good yet on the day we were the better side, better organized and the 3 points were there for the taking.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    IronHerb said:

    Law 12 -

    Persistent infringement
    Referees should be alert at all times to players who persistently infringe the
    Laws. In particular, they must be aware that, even if a player commits a number
    of different offences, he must still be cautioned for persistently infringing the
    Laws.
    There is no specific number of infringements which constitutes “persistence”
    or the presence of a pattern – this is entirely a matter of judgement and must
    be determined in the context of effective game management


    No wonder refereeing appears so arbitrary now. Do you know if there is a rule regarding an automatic yellow card for dissent to the ref?
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Not sure if it's automatic but dissent is an offence that can be red or yellow carded.
Sign In or Register to comment.