Wazztie16

2 hours ago, Wazztie16 said:

This was the first game that came to mind for me. I still think about it often. Imagine having to go back to Yeovil after being 2-0 up all the way up here.

Was this the game that we scored a goal after putting together about 27 passes, thought we were Barcelona for a few minutes? Or am I mixing games up?

 

Can't seem to edit so I'll quote myself - found the goal. Was away at Yeovil.

https://youtu.be/34F7W2eMIYQ?si=m3yYmar-s5GiPo-w

6 hours ago, TomBustler1884 said:

Derby 3 - Yeovil 2 2014

2-0 down at half time and the concourses were so relaxed about it. We just all seemed to know we would come back to win. I'd never been more convinced of a promotion in my life. Bloody Zamora.

This was the first game that came to mind for me. I still think about it often. Imagine having to go back to Yeovil after being 2-0 up all the way up here.

Was this the game that we scored a goal after putting together about 27 passes, thought we were Barcelona for a few minutes? Or am I mixing games up?

12 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

Shouldn't have been offside because the ball came to him via a defender deliberately trying to play the ball!

Classed as a save. Wouldn't say it was deliberate play by the defender tbh. Correct decision imo. 

2 minutes ago, rustylee said:

I was thinking the same thing the only reason I could come up with was maybe some of the medical professionals that were needed to be on site for the game to continue left with the casualty.

My thoughts were they they might not be able to get another ambulance on site quickly enough to resume the game, so abandoning would be the best option rather than keep people waiting. It could've just been a busy Saturday, we know how over stretched the NHS is at times and patients in need would take priority over getting an ambulance to the stadium.

2 hours ago, jimtastic56 said:

If we draw -Peterborough have to win by 3 goals. Sounds difficult but the Bristol Rovers last game , this time last year was ridiculous.

By 4 goals, 3 goals could do it but I don't know how GD works if both teams have the same. I'm presuming it would be goals scored. At some point I'll probably Google it...

12 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Peterborough to win and Rams to lose is priced at 13/2. And we could still go through on goal difference.

Peterborough win and we HAVE to draw. If we lose, we're gone. We're only 2 points ahead.

I went for 'lose in the final'.

We'll scrape through the SF, but be beaten by a much better organised team on the day of the final.

6 hours ago, Grumpy Git said:

You’re having a laugh right?

FFS, they wait for the ref to tell them which way to award a throw-in that happened a yard away.

There's usually a reason for that...

On 05/01/2023 at 15:52, SKRam said:

My interpretation is that thrown in, forward of the head, is illegal. Clearly isn’t being enforced as it’s happening all the time. I was taught to ‘release the ball from behind the head’ as a youngster. 

Your interpretation is incorrect then, the law doesn't state the ball cannot be released in front of the head, in fact there's nothing about the point of release in there at all.

On 04/01/2023 at 11:07, SKRam said:

‘From behind and over the head’ ….. this is where officials are failing time and time again. Watch any game and so many throw ins are definitely not releasing ball from ‘behind’ the head.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, there's no need to release the ball from behind the head.

26 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I guess can still be correct (and in this instance it was), but decisions shouldn't be made off guesswork.

 

On that basis, ball goes out after pinging around in the 18 yard box and a player from each team has challenged for it...

Nearest assistant referee is watching for offside, furthest assistant referee is nowhere near in a credible position to give a decision, 4th official is dealing with an irate manager over a previous throw in that they thought was a foul throw but by the laws of the game wasn't...

Referee is in a good position but a player blocks his view at just the wrong second...

Sometimes, you'd have no choice.

(In that situation you'd generally look at the player reactions, giving yourself a few seconds of 'thinking time'. And if that doesn't help you, guess and run away quickly ?).

3 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

It was the fourth official totally. Ref gave nothing walked away to talk to her on radio then he came back, called Will back and gave it. She was not tall so no idea how she saw anything from where she was stood through the five of them around Will on floor. Thought PW was going to get carded next arguing with her

It's all about angles. Different officials are told to watch different things/areas. We don't know who saw it and advised the referee to dismiss Osula, but someone did, that's the end result.

Height doesn't matter, look at Keith Stroud. Not tall either but still made it to a high level.

26 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

How can Osula be sent off if neither the ref or lino saw it?

Maybe the 4th official saw it... End of the day, between the 4 officials they correctly identified the offence and offender. Isn't that the sort of thing that we should be praising in football? 

On 29/12/2022 at 12:48, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Don't see a problem with this at all. The foul throw rule is just pedantic most of the time. What's the actual problem if a player doesn't extend the ball all the way over his head before throwing it?

Throw ins, majority are legal, just some look untidy/messy/wrong (incorrect interpretation of law by fans).

Ball starts behind the head, thrown over the head, facing the field of play, feet on or outside the line.

Nothing about the point of release, nothing about HOW FAR behind the head.

If it looks like a foul throw, it usually isn't.

It's more 'what football expects'.

The main foul throws are for a foot off the floor or a 'drop/spike', where the ball is dropped in front of the thrower, not thrown. 

Even a very short throw is usually legal, contrary to what fans believe.

Long shot but does anyone know if there's somewhere that will show the match near Universal, Orlando? Tried Google, waiting for 1 pub to get back to me. Tried the NBC bar inside the park but they're not "carrying" it (sky) (their words).

I'd be quite happy watching it while the other half shops in the park (dangerous, I know).

4 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

Nowadays, having common sense is a sackable offence in most places!

I'm sure it is at our place, if you try and use too much of it. 

7 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

That's why there is VAR in the Premier League, Even the Referee who was watching it on screen where there are several angles refused to send the official to take a look Tierneys get out of jail free card was VAR, But VAR failed or should I say the official failed.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/01/mike-riley-apologises-to-everton-for-mistake-in-not-spotting-rodri-handball

The officials that run the line are as bad if not worse, They'll SEE an incident but bottle it as the Referee didn't blow his whistle 1st.

It's not necessarily the assistant referee(s) bottling it, it's likely that they don't feel they're in a credible position to give the offence, so told not to flag. Or it could be that the Referee is happy to take the flack from players if they've said no foul down the comms, for example, a lot of things that fans don't see or think about come into play. 

It's just annoying that we don't know what's said or what the assistant is thinking. 

4 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

 Because it gives the man in the middle a get out of jail free card

If a referee misses a key match incident (KMI), it definitely doesn't work in their favour, so referees don't want to miss the calls, unfortunately sometimes due to their angle, they do. 

6 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

They should have had another red then for a foul on the edge of the area, defender over ran the ball then dived in 

Yes, I do wonder if the ball hadn't fell to us in such an advantageous position, the card colour could've been different... 

Unfortunately, red card all day long. 

May have got some of the ball (haven't seen the replay) but to lunge in like that with foot raised and take any of the player is a red every day. 

Even without getting the player and all of the ball there's potential for dangerous play and endangering the safety of an opponent without contact, they're just never given (especially at higher levels), and if you were to give them in Sunday league all hell would break loose! 

Onwards and upwards Derby! 

16 hours ago, Crewton said:

I don't think that's relevant, but I'd be interested to hear what a qualified ref thought of it because it's an unusual one. 

I've just given my input (as an amateur qualified ref). 

From the blocked shot, there's no offence just because a player is in an offside position. 

They've not become 'active' through the laws, and the actual cross, definitely no offences. 

20 hours ago, Crewton said:

I'm not sure they would have - he gained no advantage being offside when the first cross was blocked, and was certainly onside from the second, so where's the offence?

I criticised the officials last night for other poor & inadequate officiating, but I can't pull them up for that one.

I've just watched the highlights on YouTube, I can't see this 'cross aimed to the back stick where the player was a yard off, but the cross was blocked so the ball went back to the winger', but based on that, there's absolutely no offside offence (as the laws state, its not an offence itself to be in an offside position). 

For the actual cross, no offences at all from that point onwards, so goal is good to stand. 

27 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

I think the title of the thread is confusing.

He was in the opposition half in an offside position which is when the offence occurred. In effect it was a suspended offside decision which only became punishable when touched the ball next, which could have been anywhere. 

That the freekick gets taken from where he touched the ball and not where the actual offence took place, seems silly.

So the answer the OP you cannot be offside in your own half. CKR was in the opponents half when the offence was committed. If he had been standing 1 inch inside his own half then moved toward the ball and touched it there would have been no flag.

 

The referees decision was correct but the premise of this thread is wrong.

The LOTG state it isn't an offence to be in an offside position. No offence occurred until the player became active which is either interfering with an opponent, playing or attempting to play the ball etc. 

So the offence DID occur inside the players own half. 

Not sure if it's been posted, couldn't find anything on a quick search. 

Anyway, both ways - Asda Spondon to Pentagon Island, Monday to Saturday from tomorrow. Full closure, 24 hours. 

I'm sure they closed it a few years ago for something like a week, I was driving buses Derby to Nottingham, traffic was horrendous. 

Just a heads up for people. 

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/Derby-news/a52-brian-clough-way-closed-6173390

1 minute ago, Unlucky Alf said:

A little bit of water and you called it off

 

 

 

 

 

 

How did you know I was on that pitch?!? 

Were you the one I said hello to in the canoe?