V Notts F*rest (h) match day thread

[Gritstone Ram]

2 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

Re the penalty. I'm in the East Stand up that end and first thought was that it wasn't and Lawrence went down like Lawrence is prone to do. None of the players went up. The crowd didn't go up. Can't have been that stonewall as people make out?

Haven't seen it back on the telly but those who saw it on TV and said it was absolutely a pen do have the benefit of 100 replays.

I just wonder if some people are clinging onto it as a way of an excuse for not winning. 

Either way you couldn’t say that had the decision been given we would have gone on to win the game.

[Interestedparty]

29 minutes ago, nottingram said:

He literally kicked him in the chest mate...

But accidentally when attempting to kick the ball

If he was trying to tackle the player I've no argument 

[Mucker1884]

4 minutes ago, Harrowram said:

The referee is present on the pitch to apply the laws of the game. Kicking a member of the opposing team in the chest is a foul. A foul in the penalty box is a penalty.If we can't rely on the referee to apply the laws of the game we may as well not have one!

I totally agree... but... Did he get all the decisions right last night?  Do they ever?

Relying on the ref to get everything right, whilst perfectly natural and understandable, is only going to lead to disappointment.

Like I say... they can't be trusted!

[Rambalin]

23 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

 

Even the more balanced one of us said it would have been a soft penalty! Lol. Some refs give it some don't. 

A Derby fan said outside the box the foul is given every time. On Sky they watched replays and said the more you see it the more it should be a penalty. They didn't instantly say that's a stonewall penalty 

its debatable and it's not stonewall. He wasn't even trying to tackle your player he was trying to clear the ball and when he missed the ball his boot hits your player. It's certainly not an intentional foul if it's a foul. 

If if I thought it was a stonewall penalty I would say so. On the opposite side sending the guy off for the elbow would have been harsh. I think the yellow was ok. And the two footer didn't connnect so I can't see how he gets penalised for that. Your manager just needs to have a word there as if he makes challenges like that again he will be getting sent off and will cost you. 

I am a Ref so your argument on the penalty holds no water I am afraid...the fact he is not trying to tackle the player just clear the ball has no validity.Nearly every penalty could be argued the same way....the fact contact halted the players progress in the area plus the height of it makes it a clear penalty.

My friend I ref with sat near the Bogle incident he had a better view of that and the Tomori tackle...his take was it was a strong yellow card and a borderline red for Bogle.

Tomori's tackle if it had been square or side on would have been a straight red the fact it wasn't you could argue was reckless and maybe a free kick or a yellow...the ref in his opinion decided it was neither.

Keith Stroud had a poor night and he got no help from his assistants either.

[Smyth_18]

All ifs and maybe's. It was a draw. It was a pretty poor game. Fair result.

Came on here expecting a discussion on the game, not a ridiculously biased Forest fan taking up the last few pages.

Yawn.

[Srg]

1 minute ago, Interestedparty said:

But accidentally when attempting to kick the ball

If he was trying to tackle the player I've no argument 

I'm not saying I think it was a penalty or not, but that is literally the worst reasoning for claiming it wasn't.

"Ref! I was going for the ball... ignore the fact I've taken his head off his shoulders with a karate kick while the ball was 10 feet away" - Some player somewhere, probably.

[Gritstone Ram]

At least the ref slept soundly last night with the knowledge that his house wouldn’t get blown up.

[Interestedparty]

11 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

Re the penalty. I'm in the East Stand up that end and first thought was that it wasn't and Lawrence went down like Lawrence is prone to do. None of the players went up. The crowd didn't go up. Can't have been that stonewall as people make out?

Haven't seen it back on the telly but those who saw it on TV and said it was absolutely a pen do have the benefit of 100 replays.

I just wonder if some people are clinging onto it as a way of an excuse for not winning. 

Exactly what made me want to post in the first place tbh. It wasn't stonewall for the reasons I say he didn't even attempt to kick the player. He attempted to kick the ball and the follow through lightly connected with the player. 

I dont exactly know the rules but doesnt there need to be some intent to foul a player! 

 

[TuffLuff]

Just a random set of thoughts:

Not sure if games like last nights are ones for Marriott. Similar to Stoke I guess but working hard can only get him so far. Need someone who is gonna control the ball upfront, be composed and lay it off to the runners. In the past I’d say ‘oh we missed Chris Martin’ but we have Waghorn who’s capable of that. Love Marriott btw, but I don’t think he suited what we needed last night. 

Said last night about missing Johnson, but I thought Colback controlled the game and Mount needed someone to protect him and be a bit more combative. Once Bryson was booked then it muted him.

Baffled at a ref who is playing advantage right until the ball goes out of play and then declares it a throw in. What advantage has been played?

Not 100% sure on the pen, like I’m not 100% sure on the Bogle elbow.

Thought Bogle was our motm overall

We are a very disjointed side, injuries and our run of games haven’t helped. Impressed we are picking up results but I think a couple need resting now and others given the chance. Who knows it might all come together once Huddlestone is dropped for a more mobile Evans but a change like that might be the difference.

[Kernow]

Well, on reflection that game probably isn’t a derby that’s going to stand out in my mind in years to come.

For the first time since I don’t know when, both sides were relatively evenly matched going into the game, and in a sense there was too much to lose for either team. It’s not like recent games where Forest have been poo and we’ve been good, so it was more open, and before that we were poo and they were good so it was a similar case. Last night was very much a game where neither side were prepared to be the first to make a mistake.

I wouldn’t say it was particularly “boring” as a 0-0, but that score line was definitely the best reflection of the match. Nobody really created a “should’ve scored that” moment and both keepers would have been pleased with the amount of action they were called into. Grabban and Lolley probably had the easiest chances of the match but they weren’t exactly clear cut.

I thought the referee was extremely poor last night on both accounts. He gave way too much for either side and the game really couldn’t flow as it was way too stop-start. I can’t really criticise him for being biased, I think he was just too worried about keeping control of a high-stakes game that he just didn’t let everything go, and actually guessed most of the 50/50 challenges.

We need to win on Saturday to avoid possibly losing sight of the top two. If we do, then 4 points from this week is a decent week in my opinion. 1/2 points isn’t good enough.

[Interestedparty]

14 minutes ago, Rambalin said:

I am a Ref so your argument on the penalty holds no water I am afraid...the fact he is not trying to tackle the player just clear the ball has no validity.Nearly every penalty could be argued the same way....the fact contact halted the players progress in the area plus the height of it makes it a clear penalty.

My friend I ref with sat near the Bogle incident he had a better view of that and the Tomori tackle...his take was it was a strong yellow card and a borderline red for Bogle.

Tomori's tackle if it had been square or side on would have been a straight red the fact it wasn't you could argue was reckless and maybe a free kick or a yellow...the ref in his opinion decided it was neither.

Keith Stroud had a poor night and he got no help from his assistants either.

If a player accidentally handballs in the box is that a penalty? isnt that ball to hand? Is it just hand ball a foul needs to be deliberate.

Im watching on TV and neither me or my son think it's a penalty when we first see it. Sky commentators don't. Later they watch again and think it is. We watch it again and can see how it could be given as a foul with benefit of replay. 

So im thinking the ref sees the same as us and sees no intentional effort to foul the opponent plus the contact he does make isn't severe. Would have been a shock to me if ref had given that and I would be feeling gutted at such a silly penalty to give away . 

i just think it's debatable and that's why I said from the start some refs give that and some don't. Certainly not stonewall. Certainly not saying it couldn't have been given either. 

[VulcanRam]

Just now, Interestedparty said:

Exactly what made me want to post in the first place tbh. It wasn't stonewall for the reasons I say he didn't even attempt to kick the player. He attempted to kick the ball and the follow through lightly connected with the player. 

I dont exactly know the rules but doesnt there need to be some intent to foul a player! 

 

I'm a qualified ref so I know the rules and no, there doesn't need to be intent specifically. Players who trip others often don't intend to, they're just either not as quick, get their feet mixed up or just get the timing wrong. Bogle could say he didn't intend to clatter his man as he was going for the ball, but it was still a clear foul and yellow card for being reckless. 

Equally, not all contact is a foul. 

I'm not saying it was or wasn't a penalty, I'm just not sure that it was as clear cut as a lot are making out.

[VulcanRam]

18 minutes ago, Gritters said:

Either way you couldn’t say that had the decision been given we would have gone on to win the game.

Totally agree, but some on here and on the radio would have it that if the pen was given we would automatically have scored and automatically have won. 

[nottingram]

8 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

If a player accidentally handballs in the box is that a penalty? isnt that ball to hand? Is it just hand ball a foul needs to be deliberate.

Im watching on TV and neither me or my son think it's a penalty when we first see it. Sky commentators don't. Later they watch again and think it is. We watch it again and can see how it could be given as a foul with benefit of replay. 

So im thinking the ref sees the same as us and sees no intentional effort to foul the opponent plus the contact he does make isn't severe. Would have been a shock to me if ref had given that and I would be feeling gutted at such a silly penalty to give away . 

i just think it's debatable and that's why I said from the start some refs give that and some don't. Certainly not stonewall. Certainly not saying it couldn't have been given either. 

Every foul has to be intentional? Is that what we’re now saying?

[BramcoteRam84]

52 minutes ago, Harrowram said:

How could a draw be a fair result when we should have been awarded a penalty after 19 minutes. What did Lawrence have to do? Take his shirt off and show the ref the stud marks on his chest? We  were on top at that point too!

All if buts and maybes. Could’ve been a different game and we were definitely on top. But regardless of refs shambolic performance neither team did enough to win it for me. I can see exactly why forest have drawn a lot of games. The games coming up should be more open which definitely suits us

[Interestedparty]

8 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

I'm a qualified ref so I know the rules and no, there doesn't need to be intent specifically. Players who trip others often don't intend to, they're just either not as quick, get their feet mixed up or just get the timing wrong. Bogle could say he didn't intend to clatter his man as he was going for the ball, but it was still a clear foul and yellow card for being reckless. 

Equally, not all contact is a foul. 

I'm not saying it was or wasn't a penalty, I'm just not sure that it was as clear cut as a lot are making out.

I've also seen accidental trips given and not given. And also whether an incident happens in or out the box whether correct or not does influence whether a foul is given. 

[Smyth_18]

20 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

Exactly what made me want to post in the first place tbh. It wasn't stonewall for the reasons I say he didn't even attempt to kick the player. He attempted to kick the ball and the follow through lightly connected with the player. 

I dont exactly know the rules but doesnt there need to be some intent to foul a player! 

 

No.

Do you think you've got some sort of power to come on here and convince an entire fanbase it wasn't a stone wall penalty?

Even if you did, what is the point? It wasn't given. It was 0-0. Can we have our forum back now please?

[Interestedparty]

4 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Every foul has to be intentional? Is that what we’re now saying?

I've been watching football 40 years and being honest I don't actualky know the answer to that question?

[Ghost of Clough]

22 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

But accidentally when attempting to kick the ball

If he was trying to tackle the player I've no argument 

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• impedes an opponent with contact

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

PENALTY! (No yellow card)

[Ghost of Clough]

2 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

I've been watching football 40 years and being honest I don't actualky know the answer to that question?

Being careless = not intentional.

Carelessness is not excuseable

Penalty