Match Thread: vs Bolton Wanderers (H)

[nottingram]

3 minutes ago, David Graham Brown said:

Did the Bolton centre half have some sort of force field surrounding him, how many times did he stand with his foot on the ball, and no one put a tackle on him? I feared he could just walk the ball into the net if he’d wanted to.

Looked a very deliberate decision to mark all of his passing options and see if he could figure it out from there.

The last thing we wanted to be doing was give him an easy pass to Sheehan. 

[Tamworthram]

22 minutes ago, Srg said:

The rule for handball is simply if it hits the arm in the act of scoring a goal, whether that's to bring the ball down or directly put the ball in the net. Doesn't even matter if it was deliberate or egregious these days, rightly or wrongly. VAR is very hot on it.

I think it could be reasonably argued (not that VAR is applied reasonably all the time 😀) that any contact on Waggy's arm was so slight that it didn't bring the ball down and didn't directly put the ball in the net. The ball was heading into an empty net anyway so, whilst we'll never know, I'm not sure VAR would have ruled it out. It would have one of those incidents where listening to the conversation between the VAR team and the ref (as you get in rugby)would have been interesting.

[1of4]

Just read some of the crap being posted that Bolton were the better team and deserved at the least a draw, what utter rubbish.

Over the years have we've heard managers and football pundits say that good teams know how to win ugly when things aren't going right for them.

How many games have we had sixty plus percent of the game only to come away losing. Saturday we achieved what Bolton, with all their perceived better football couldn't do, we scored a goal that won the game.

If that was winning ugly, then I'll that from the remaining seven games, if it means we accumulate the points required to see us promoted.

 

[Elwood P Dowd]

11 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Looked a very deliberate decision to mark all of his passing options and see if he could figure it out from there.

The last thing we wanted to be doing was give him an easy pass to Sheehan. 

You are probably right,  he didn’t seem to know what to do with the ball!!!

[ap04]

17 hours ago, DRBee said:

when Wildsmith makes  a superb save its part of OUR good performance. You state in another post that Wildsmith  made "two worldies"  as though that is just luck rather than good performance.

The keeper making a big save is not "good performance", it is good individually by the keeper but poor defending overall by the team compared to no threat at all (and conversely for the attacking).

But that's irrelevant, the point was that both systems are equally bad at judging who was better on the day by missing most aspects of a performance (boolean).

[Tamworthram]

20 minutes ago, ap04 said:

The keeper making a big save is not "good performance", it is good individually by the keeper but poor defending overall by the team compared to no threat at all (and conversely for the attacking).

But that's irrelevant, the point was that both systems are equally bad at judging who was better on the day by missing most aspects of a performance (boolean).

It seems PW has discovered a magic formula. Poor defending overall, but the opposition still failed to score, and no threat at all, but we still scored the only goal of the game. If only you could bottle it. 😀

Maybe you’re saying that the game the ended the way it did is because Bolton had a bigger stinker of a game than we did. You can play the better football and have the better chances (which of course I want Derby to in every game) but if you fail to score (despite the poor defending of the opposition) then it counts for nothing.

Edited March 18 by Tamworthram

[Animal is a Ram]

Some people just love to sap the joy out of sport, I guess.

Gutted to miss this one on being at a wedding, was sat monitoring the twitters during dinner, but the few of us Derby fans that were there celebrating on that final whistle notification.

 

[uttoxram75]

58 minutes ago, ap04 said:

The keeper making a big save is not "good performance", it is good individually by the keeper but poor defending overall by the team compared to no threat at all (and conversely for the attacking).

But that's irrelevant, the point was that both systems are equally bad at judging who was better on the day by missing most aspects of a performance (boolean).

Describe your celebration to us when Wilson scored.

[MadAmster]

2 hours ago, Crewton said:

I'm now more than ever convinced that the goal wouldn't have been disallowed even under VAR, because whatever faint touch the ball got on Waggy's arm (it certainly wasn't vice-versa) didn't affect the outcome.

The Laws around the ball touching the hand/arm of an attacker in a move are extremely clear, any contact, deliberate or accidental, whether it affected the outcome or not, is sufficient to disallow the goal so VAR would probably have (more like should have) disallowed the goal which, going on what one of the players said post match in the Toyota lounge, would have been the correct decision. The goal was given. It happens. Sometimes in your favour. Sometimes not. This one went our way (as did Yiadom's 2nd yellow against Reading. That wasn't even a foul, never mind a yellow). We've been on the wrong end of more than enough bad decisions this season, just maybe, the pendulum is swinging our way at the right time...

PS - I'm not complaining. It makes up for the 3 refereeing blunders that cost us the win at their place. This time the boot's on the other foot.

[MadAmster]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

I think it could be reasonably argued (not that VAR is applied reasonably all the time 😀) that any contact on Waggy's arm was so slight that it didn't bring the ball down and didn't directly put the ball in the net. The ball was heading into an empty net anyway so, whilst we'll never know, I'm not sure VAR would have ruled it out. It would have one of those incidents where listening to the conversation between the VAR team and the ref (as you get in rugby)would have been interesting.

Under the Laws, if there was any contact at all, no matter how slight, deliberate or accidental, the goal should be disallowed. I'm just glad the ref's error went in our favour. Makes up for the two nailed on penalties we were refused at their place plus the one they got for a foul outside the box... Having been unlucky with a lot of decisions through the season the pendulum seems to be swinging our way. This goal and  Yiadom's 2nd yellow 4 days earlier.

Swings and roundabouts.

[Archied]

27 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

Describe your celebration to us when Wilson scored.

I picture a foot and a television screen , I know not why 🤷🏻‍♂️😂

[AbuDerbyDave]

33 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

Describe your celebration to us when Wilson scored.

Shouting at the telly handball ref

[Tamworthram]

16 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

Under the Laws, if there was any contact at all, no matter how slight, deliberate or accidental, the goal should be disallowed. I'm just glad the ref's error went in our favour. Makes up for the two nailed on penalties we were refused at their place plus the one they got for a foul outside the box... Having been unlucky with a lot of decisions through the season the pendulum seems to be swinging our way. This goal and  Yiadom's 2nd yellow 4 days earlier.

Swings and roundabouts.

I don’t think that is strictly true. Law 12 says it is an offence if the player:

* Touches the ball deliberately with their hand or arm

* Touches the ball with their hand or arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger

or

* Scores in the opponents goal directly from their arm/hand, even if was accidental, or scores immediately after it touches his am/hand even if it was accidental.

Clearly this incident would fail the first two tests. The third test is a little less cut and dry but I think it’s conceivable that it might have been concluded that Waggy didn’t “score” (despite his claims) as the ball was heading into an open net before it is alleged to have made contact with his arm and the flight of the ball was only marginally changed (if at all).

[VulcanRam]

24 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I don’t think that is strictly true. Law 12 says it is an offence if the player:

* Touches the ball deliberately with their hand or arm

* Touches the ball with their hand or arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger

or

* Scores in the opponents goal directly from their arm/hand, even if was accidental, or scores immediately after it touches his am/hand even if it was accidental.

Clearly this incident would fail the first two tests. The third test is a little less cut and dry but I think it’s conceivable that it might have been concluded that Waggy didn’t “score” (despite his claims) as the ball was heading into an open net before it is alleged to have made contact with his arm and the flight of the ball was only marginally changed (if at all).

It's immaterial where the ball may or may not be heading or whether the flight of the ball was marginally changed. The law is very clear on this point. Had the officials deemed it had hit Waggy's arm (deliberate or not) and gone directly into the goal or it touches his arm and then another part of his body (ie he shoots or heads in) before entering the goal, it's no goal. It's one of the few straigthtforward parts of the handball law that isn't open to interpretation.

The only conclusion is they must have presumed he didn't touch it. 

 

[Tamworthram]

11 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

It's immaterial where the ball may or may not be heading or whether the flight of the ball was marginally changed. The law is very clear on this point. Had the officials deemed it had hit Waggy's arm (deliberate or not) and gone directly into the goal or it touches his arm and then another part of his body (ie he shoots or heads in) before entering the goal, it's no goal. It's one of the few straigthtforward parts of the handball law that isn't open to interpretation.

The only conclusion is they must have presumed he didn't touch it. 

 

The rule doesn't say it's immaterial but it does say the player needs to have scored in the opponents goal either directly or immediately after the ball hit is arm/hand. So, IMO, it's not that straightforward. Maybe, just maybe, it could be concluded that Waggy didn't "score" the goal. Personally, I wonder if this element of the rule is to differentiate between incidents where the ball wouldn't have gone in if it hadn't hit the players arm (or maybe it might have been saved if I hadn't been sufficiently deflected) versus incidents when it would have gone in anyway. 🤷‍♂️

[MadAmster]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

I don’t think that is strictly true. Law 12 says it is an offence if the player:

* Touches the ball deliberately with their hand or arm

* Touches the ball with their hand or arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger

or

* Scores in the opponents goal directly from their arm/hand, even if was accidental, or scores immediately after it touches his am/hand even if it was accidental.

Clearly this incident would fail the first two tests. The third test is a little less cut and dry but I think it’s conceivable that it might have been concluded that Waggy didn’t “score” (despite his claims) as the ball was heading into an open net before it is alleged to have made contact with his arm and the flight of the ball was only marginally changed (if at all).

It looks like the ball is actually touching the arm as well as the hip. Going on that premise... the ball touches Waggy's arm, albeit accidentally, and then crosses the line and into the net. No goal.

Edited March 18 by MadAmster

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

Describe your celebration to us when Wilson scored.

...☺️

[Tamworthram]

1 minute ago, MadAmster said:

It looks like the ball is actually touching the arm. Going on that premise... the ball touches Waggy's arm, albeit accidentally, and then crosses the line and into the net. No goal.

Well you say definitely no goal I say, having read the actual rules, it could have been allowed as Waggy didn't score the goal. The rule isn't as clear cut as you describe it. We'll have to agree to disagree on how clear cut the decision would have been.

[MadAmster]

9 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Well you say definitely no goal I say, having read the actual rules, it could have been allowed as Waggy didn't score the goal. The rule isn't as clear cut as you describe it. We'll have to agree to disagree on how clear cut the decision would have been.

It was a goal as the ref appears to have either missed the contact or decided it wasn't hands. From where I was sat I thought Waggy made contact and I thought it was possibly a hand. The photo seems to show the ball in contact with both arm and hip. Agreeing to disagree is a perfectly sensible way forward on a forum built on opinions. We can probably agree on that 😉

PS - when I stopped playing in 2003, as well as coaching I also refereed having qualified in 1996, finally hanging up my whistle 2 years ago, aged 68

Edited March 18 by MadAmster

[Mucker1884]

I had the misfortune to miss this game.  Caught the short highlight snippets yesterday.

However, due to the prolonged discussions relating to "Waggy's handball", I decided to do some research... the wording of related laws, stills and video playback at numerous speeds, and from various angles.  I've checked match reports, and on line discussion board comments.  I've then returned to the laws of the game, before publicly offering my own thoughts on the matter...

4 hours and 23 minutes I've spent on this research, and bugger me, it turns out the result cannot be changed, and we still won 1-0.  We will always have won this game 1-0.  Bolton themselves will go down in history as the team that lost this game 1-0.
The referee has sent in his match report, which will also back up this outcome.  It showing on league tables and results lists the world over.

That's right... 4 hours and 23 bloody minutes!

Sometimes, I despair!  I feel a right twonk!   🙄