V Notts F*rest (h) match day thread

[Srg]

4 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

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

Should probably give up now then, football isn't for you.

[Mucker1884]

Only hand ball needs to be intentional (in the ref's opinion).

All other fouls are fouls, intentional or accidental.

 

 

...That's my understanding of it, not fact... I ain't no ref!

[Day]

4 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

I've been watching football 40 years

And you still believe that defenders can kick the nipples of the attacking team in the box and not give away a penalty?

Have you thought about knitting perhaps, or maybe gardening?

[Interestedparty]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

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)

Being an absoloute pain in the arse I read that as  you've got to be attempting to impede an opponent with contact and that the contact has to be significant enough to impede the player

And IMO some including this ref, my son and I, sky commentators on first sight and some derby fans on here didn't view it as a penalty when they first saw it. 

Nor did the derby players around the incident.

 

Frank Lampard did from the side of the pitch. 

 

 

[Interestedparty]

3 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Only hand ball needs to be intentional (in the ref's opinion).

All other fouls are fouls, intentional or accidental.

 

 

...That's my understanding of it, not fact... I ain't no ref!

You may well be right. 

[cheron85]

8 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

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

It was definitely a penalty - 1) high boot in a dangerous position and 2) impeding Lawrence from getting the ball

However - I do understand that at match speed the ref might have missed it - Which often happens in these incidents

More interestingly than if it was a penalty (it was) - Would this have been the kind of incident they could review using VAR?

[Interestedparty]

2 hours ago, Harrowram said:

He was constantly offside!

SaintRam     7,228

 

Posted 13 hours ago

Quite a few offsides from Forest so far - which is great, but all of them have only been off by a hair and its resulted in a golden opportunity. We only need the linesman to not see one, or our defenders to be slightly off the pace, to concede.

[BathRam72]

With regards to the penalty incident, the rule states.-

If a player kicks too high trying to kick or control a ball, AND it could be dangerous to surrounding players, then it's a foul for dangerous play and an indirect free kick is awarded. ... High foot is term used when two players are in for a 50-50 ball and one of them raises his leg above waist

As his leg was at nipple height, then a foul was committed, as it was inside the penalty box, then it should have been a penalty.

 

 

[MACKWORTHRAM]

It was a poor game all round. We played nowhere near to the levels we are capable of. Still a decent point and 7 points from the last 3 is a return we'd all have taken at the start.

The referee was absolutely woeful, for both teams. Stonewall penalty in the first half and Bogle should have been sent off. Also in the second half in particular he never let the game flow. Every little decision went their way. That game requires a strong referee. Can't understand, with no other games being played, why we didn't get a top premier League referee officiating.

Thought first half we edged it (bar the last 10 minutes) and second half they had the better chances. But all in all a fair result. 

Thought Lawrence flattered to deceive again. Really not sure how he's kept his place for this long now. Same goes to Bryson. I've been saying since the start of the season that he needs to go. He's not the player he used to be. But it's almost a criminal offence to criticize Bryson. He's not good enough. 

Our best football this season has been when Mount, Wilson and Huddlestone played in midfield. We had zip, creativity and we played 3 promotion rivals off the park.

Also really not sure what Waghorn has done wrong. He has to start the next game.

Big 2 weeks now. Some huge games coming up. I think a win on Saturday is imperative.

[BathRam72]

5 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

It was a poor game all round. We played nowhere near to the levels we are capable of. Still a decent point and 7 points from the last 3 is a return we'd all have taken at the start.

The referee was absolutely woeful, for both teams. Stonewall penalty in the first half and Bogle should have been sent off. Also in the second half in particular he never let the game flow. Every little decision went their way. That game requires a strong referee. Can't understand, with no other games being played, why we didn't get a top premier League referee officiating.

Thought first half we edged it (bar the last 10 minutes) and second half they had the better chances. But all in all a fair result. 

Thought Lawrence flattered to deceive again. Really not sure how he's kept his place for this long now. Same goes to Bryson. I've been saying since the start of the season that he needs to go. He's not the player he used to be. But it's almost a criminal offence to criticize Bryson. He's not good enough. 

Our best football this season has been when Mount, Wilson and Huddlestone played in midfield. We had zip, creativity and we played 3 promotion rivals off the park.

Also really not sure what Waghorn has done wrong. He has to start the next game.

Big 2 weeks now. Some huge games coming up. I think a win on Saturday is imperative.

I agree with the Bryson comment. He needs a rest at the very least. He was all over the place in both senses (running around but pretty much every thing he did was woeful).

I don't care if it is criminal to say that. Keeping a player on and in the side based on hard work and what he has done in the past is not reason for doing so. (We will be screaming for Martin back next) ?

[Interestedparty]

16 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

With regards to the penalty incident, the rule states.-

If a player kicks too high trying to kick or control a ball, AND it could be dangerous to surrounding players, then it's a foul for dangerous play and an indirect free kick is awarded. ... High foot is term used when two players are in for a 50-50 ball and one of them raises his leg above waist

As his leg was at nipple height, then a foul was committed, as it was inside the penalty box, then it should have been a penalty.

 

 

Two players weren't in for a 50/50 ball IMO

Your player arrived in the position to be kicked after our guy missed kicking the ball

IMO our player wasn't in for a ball with your player

[Interestedparty]

Re Bryson he didn't impress but Lampard has no past connections to show any loyalty to him does he?

And if not as a midfielder himself he must think he gives you something others can't give at the moment?

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

41 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

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

Are you a Forest fan by any chance?

[Tombo]

9 hours ago, RamNut said:

Here....I tell you who was good.

that bloke with his poem.....fookin blasted it at the red dogs. Brilliant.

I love the poem - it could have been a really cringeworthy thing, to the point that if I was in the room when they pitched it I'd have fought tooth and nail to stop it ? 

But it's done really well and it gets me right in the heart every time being a Derby lad.

[mwram1973]

1 hour 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. 

Utter tosh. I'm sorry, watch it again when it happens the commentator mentions it but we are still attacking so he has to go on with the game, players and fans all have their hands up when it happens. They look at it straight after the play stops and say its a penalty. Doesn't matter how you try and dress it up it's a peno. would it have won us the game?, who knows how florest would have reacted, but it was as obvious penalty as you could get.

https://www.skysports.com/football/derby-vs-n-forest/392799

 

 

[rynny]

7 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

Two players weren't in for a 50/50 ball IMO

Your player arrived in the position to be kicked after our guy missed kicking the ball

IMO

 

[BathRam72]

5 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

Two players weren't in for a 50/50 ball IMO

Your player arrived in the position to be kicked after our guy missed kicking the ball

IMO our player wasn't in for a ball with your player

Your player arrived in the position to be kicked after our guy missed kicking the ball - If you are suggesting he arrived TO BE KICKED then you are sadly missing the point. No player arrives TO BE KICKED. 

If in your opinion your player wasn't in for a ball with our player, then that would suggest he was in for the player alone.

 

Why don't you just give up, you clearly see things with your own tinted glasses.

Darikwa was a donkey all night and he is definitely your weak link.

[Interestedparty]

5 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Are you a Forest fan by any chance?

Yep. Tbf when we aren't happy it's not the ref we go looking to blame first. It's normally the owner, manager or players. 

(Well that's how its been the last few years)

 

 

[BondJovi]

No idea how you can make a case for it not being a penalty. Lawrence gets to the ball first and then is impeded. Intentionally or not. However, what difference that would have made to the overall outcome we will never know. A fair result, not one to remember.

[Interestedparty]

8 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

Your player arrived in the position to be kicked after our guy missed kicking the ball - If you are suggesting he arrived TO BE KICKED then you are sadly missing the point. No player arrives TO BE KICKED. 

If in your opinion your player wasn't in for a ball with our player, then that would suggest he was in for the player alone.

 

Why don't you just give up, you clearly see things with your own tinted glasses.

Darikwa was a donkey all night and he is definitely your weak link.

He was in for the ball alone

We had several weak links playing. I actually think Darikwa is better than the other full back who played last night. But I accept that isn't saying a lot. Even Forest fans know how limited Hefele is. He's not a starter for us without injuries in the team etc. 

We had a very patched up defence last night. Which is why I expected us to struggle. 

Our keeper is absolutely awful with ball at his feet as well as you will have seen last kick of the game last night but your team didn't put him under any pressure to show it last night so he looked pretty solid tbf