By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I really enjoyed yesterday's game. It was a bit like the Sheffield United game with two good teams trying to play the game the right way.
For Dale Tanser, Dawson and Allen were excellent and O'Connell handled Nouble really well. In the last 15 minutes the commitment shown by Dawson was immense. He got a standing ovation from some in the Pearl Street for some excellent tackles.
Having watched the highlights I can see why the keeper wasn't sent off as a Coventry player was virtually back on the line. To be honest Hery wasn't guaranteed to score and did well to get fouled.
Bell looked lively when he came on. He made a good defensive header to relieve pressure from a set piece. He also showed composure to eat up a bit of time at the end of the game. Such a shame that Bunney's shot/pass didn't fall for him to tap in at the far post.
Does anyone else think that Bunney would benefit from a spell out on loan for a month? He seems to have regressed from where he was at the end of last season and is constantly caught offside. There is a good player in there but he needs more game time.
It's funny how a few weeks ago they were crying about their owners and being unable to play in Coventry. It was the duty of Football everywhere to support them. I mean, who'd have thought that Venture Capitalists would actually want to make money. Now it's celebration time as they're back home, they're getting huge crowds and they're Billy big b0ll0cks again.
I do like "Alright they hit the post but we defended that cross like a pub team". I know from personal experience that I could certainly win a Gold medal at the olympics because that Bolt fella is wan*. Alright he's about twice or maybe three times as fast as me, but that's because i'm slow.
They might have more to worry about than getting beat by little Rochdale.
Apparently Wasps RU are looking to play the Ricoh which could create a "primacy of tenure" issue that might see Coventry FC looking elsewhere again. Serves them right.
If 'denying a goal-scoring opportunity' means red card, then the keeper should have been shown a red card. Hery would've scored if the keeper hadn't fouled him, and there was no 'covering' defender.
If 'denying a goal-scoring opportunity' means red card, then the keeper should have been shown a red card. Hery would've scored if the keeper hadn't fouled him, and there was no 'covering' defender.
There was a defender going back onto the line and Hery would have had a difficult angle. As D_Dale says, hard to be sure. And I reckon we'd not be happy to see Logan sent off in such a situation.
Down to the ref's interpretation and as a decision, or his performance, wasn't so clearly bad that he warranted such abuse at half time and at the end.
The defender wasn't covering the side of the goal that a shot from Hery would have gone in. The referee made a number of other poor decisions and ignored the 'rough' treatment of some of our players on more than one occasion.
The defender wasn't covering the side of the goal that a shot from Hery would have gone in. The referee made a number of other poor decisions and ignored the 'rough' treatment of some of our players on more than one occasion.
Its gone now and as it happens it didnt cost us any points.
3 in the bag and all that.
with hindsight i prefer to win v 11 than have the excuse well we only played 10.
Onwards not back - we may get the decision our way next time.
Its a barmy rule to start with. A red card for a foul in the box for denying a 'goalscoring opportunity'? A penalty is awarded which is 'goalscoring opportunity'
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
Its a barmy rule to start with. A red card for a foul in the box for denying a 'goalscoring opportunity'? A penalty is awarded which is 'goalscoring opportunity'
Think the initial rule was brought in to prevent the "professional foul" i.e. someone intentionally taking someone out to prevent what would have been an almost certain goal by settling for a free kick or penalty along with a booking.
It has since evolved into the shite rule that it is now, which means that someone simply mistiming a tackle in or around the box is left with the short wait to see whether the card is yellow or red.
It should go back to the old interpretation IMHO where the foul is judged by intention rather than proximity - much more simple to apply
Yes, and a few others as well, including the one that mattered.
Doesn't make it right though.
Could have gone either way imho. Some refs would have produced a red card, some wouldn't - thats the way the cookie crumbles.
However I do think that he let quite a few of their "fouls" go whilst penalising us for minor "offences". Inconsistent decision making on his part and thats why he got such abuse.
Think the initial rule was brought in to prevent the "professional foul" i.e. someone intentionally taking someone out to prevent what would have been an almost certain goal by settling for a free kick or penalty along with a booking.
It has since evolved into the shite rule that it is now, which means that someone simply mistiming a tackle in or around the box is left with the short wait to see whether the card is yellow or red.
It should go back to the old interpretation IMHO where the foul is judged by intention rather than proximity - much more simple to apply
If its the last defender outside the box and he denies the player an obvious goalscoring chance then a red card should be the outcome - if its inside the box and the penalty is awarded then the 'denying an obvious goalscoring chance' rule is immaterial because the penalty is now the 'obvious goalscoring chance'. Then all the ref needs to decide is if its serious foul play that could injure the player - which I don't think the challenge on Hery was. Yellow card and penalty was the correct decision in my opinion.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
If its the last defender outside the box and he denies the player an obvious goalscoring chance then a red card should be the outcome - if its inside the box and the penalty is awarded then the 'denying an obvious goalscoring chance' rule is immaterial because the penalty is now the 'obvious goalscoring chance'. Then all the ref needs to decide is if its serious foul play that could injure the player - which I don't think the challenge on Hery was. Yellow card and penalty was the correct decision in my opinion.
Think the initial rule was brought in to prevent the "professional foul" i.e. someone intentionally taking someone out to prevent what would have been an almost certain goal by settling for a free kick or penalty along with a booking.
It has since evolved into the shite rule that it is now, which means that someone simply mistiming a tackle in or around the box is left with the short wait to see whether the card is yellow or red.
It should go back to the old interpretation IMHO where the foul is judged by intention rather than proximity - much more simple to apply
But the current interpretation has been around for many years. On the eve of the Leyton Orient fixture, older fans will recall August 1997 when in the first minute a certain K. Styles sent off K. Hill for handball and awarded LO a penalty. Over 17 years later, I hope KH will be more than ever determined to see his team win on Saturday.
If its the last defender outside the box and he denies the player an obvious goalscoring chance then a red card should be the outcome - if its inside the box and the penalty is awarded then the 'denying an obvious goalscoring chance' rule is immaterial because the penalty is now the 'obvious goalscoring chance'. Then all the ref needs to decide is if its serious foul play that could injure the player - which I don't think the challenge on Hery was. Yellow card and penalty was the correct decision in my opinion.
Don't know where this interpretation of what constitutes a red card offence came from, but I've just looked it up and one of the seven red card offences is: "Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick". (I presume the offending player includes goalkeeper).
Could have gone either way imho. Some refs would have produced a red card, some wouldn't - thats the way the cookie crumbles.
However I do think that he let quite a few of their "fouls" go whilst penalising us for minor "offences". Inconsistent decision making on his part and thats why he got such abuse.
Which were these fouls he let go? And what about Dawson's fouls? He judged them well too when another ref would have booked his for an accumulation of them - Jim O'Brien probably thought he deserved it! The ref made calls and he might have got the odd one wrong, but he reffed a good game pretty well.
Sorry, but it was far from a display where an official who is doing his best should have been subjected to the reception he got from supporters who could have stuck to applauding their own side. It's pantomime stuff.
There was a vaguely similar incident at the start of the Watford-Bournemouth game in which the Watford defender was not even booked:
That decision seems a bit more surprising to me than the one in our game.
But technically, if we use the wording from hillandale's post, the Bournemouth player, like Hery, wasn't 'moving towards the opponents goal' at the instant of the foul.
Hery had pulled the ball wide to go round the 'keeper; the Bournemouth player was running almost parallel to the goal line and was further from goal than Hery.
There may well have been a case for the Watford player to be shown a yellow card, but a foul in the penalty area isn't a mandatory caution.
Regardless of all this, it's interesting we're still having the debate even after viewing the incident on video footage several times.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
Which were these fouls he let go? And what about Dawson's fouls? He judged them well too when another ref would have booked his for an accumulation of them - Jim O'Brien probably thought he deserved it! The ref made calls and he might have got the odd one wrong, but he reffed a good game pretty well.
Sorry, but it was far from a display where an official who is doing his best should have been subjected to the reception he got from supporters who could have stuck to applauding their own side. It's pantomime stuff.
can't remember specifics but watch the DVD you'll see plenty. I wouldn't say he was a bad un but if I was a referee assessor, I would put him in the "could do better" category - we've certainly had better refs recently.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
