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.
Goals on SSN in a few minutes on 12:46 - Sep 28 by TVOS1907
Done was spoken to after he kicked-out at one of their players after a non-descript tussle, although not in a Rooney style. Henderson was brought over to the discussion because he was the captain.
When play was stopped for their player's injury, he ended-up being stretchered off and, although we did have Henderson breaking away, it was correct in the context of the subsequent events which have revealed he has a broken leg.
Play was also stopped in the second half when one of our players took a knock to the head, so we can't have it both ways.
The back-pass incident - why shouldn't they take it quickly, unless the ref has told them otherwise, either on the pitch or in his pre-match instructions? In the event, taking it quickly meant they cocked it up.
The penalty is nigh on impossible to tell at full speed, as discussed elsewhere and it was the linesman who gave it.
The Tanser throw-in ... can't recall the specific incident, but I do recall us getting a corner in the first half that the Orient fans behind that goal were apoplectic about. Completely impossible for us to tell from our position if that corner was correct or not, but we can't have it both ways.
The only really poor/clearly wrong decision I can recall was a foul give against Bennett in the second half when he definitely won the ball.
[Post edited 28 Sep 2014 13:47]
I would agree with most of that, apart from the penalty decision/sending off.
It was annoying when play was stopped for the Orient player getting treatment, but once it was obvious that he was badly injured (did not know he had actually broken his leg), then the ref clearly made the right decision even though it was not a head injury.
Yesterday I thought the decision for the indirect free kick was harsh, but having seen it again I think it was fair enough.
As for the penalty decision, yesterday even though I was more or less in line with the edge of the penalty area I could not really say whether or not it was in the area or not but I was very suspicious of the way the Orient player threw himself to the ground. I was also not that surprised that the ref gave a red card to Eastham. It did remind me a bit of the incident that led to the Midson/Grant altercation at Wimbledon under John Coleman. Wimbledon fans were adamant that was a penalty but the challenge was outside the area and he dived into the area. In that case the ref gave the correct decision and gave Wimbledon a freekick just outside the area.
I recorded the FLS last night and watched the incident in slow motion and I think the still photo above is a good illustration of what happened. To me it looks like Eastham ran across the back of the Orient player and did not touch him deliberately at all. The Orient player felt his trailing leg touch Eastham's at a distance (as the still shows), realised that his touch had taken the ball wide towards Logan and decided to take a theatrical dive to see if the ref would buy it. Unfortunately for us he did. It is one of those 'modern' penalties/'fouls' which I find so irritating - the classic 'if you feel any kind of contact you are entitled to go down', ignoring the fact that not all contact is a foul because football is a contact spot. In this incident I think the Orient player touched Eastham rather than the other way round. Again to me, it is obviously a dive because even if Eastham had clipped his heels that is not the natural way to fall (see what happens when a player is tap-tackled in rugby for example).
I try to judge these incidents thinking how I would feel if it had been the other way round. If Henderson, say, had done that in the opposite penalty area I would have felt a bit embarrassed about getting a penalty in that way. I realise that this is the modern game but these incidents are frankly just pathetic.
Having said all that, in real time I can understand why the ref/linesman gave the decision they did. Although it is difficult sometimes, it is important to take a step back that they are doing quite a difficult job and just have to call it as they see it. Sometimes they make mistakes, just as the players do. We have just have to get on with it and hope things balance out in another game in our favour. After the event, the only real consequence now is that Eastham will lose his place in the side and maybe not get it back from Lancashire if he does well.
1
Goals on SSN in a few minutes on 21:34 - Sep 28 with 1256 views
Goals on SSN in a few minutes on 21:22 - Sep 28 by fermin
I would agree with most of that, apart from the penalty decision/sending off.
It was annoying when play was stopped for the Orient player getting treatment, but once it was obvious that he was badly injured (did not know he had actually broken his leg), then the ref clearly made the right decision even though it was not a head injury.
Yesterday I thought the decision for the indirect free kick was harsh, but having seen it again I think it was fair enough.
As for the penalty decision, yesterday even though I was more or less in line with the edge of the penalty area I could not really say whether or not it was in the area or not but I was very suspicious of the way the Orient player threw himself to the ground. I was also not that surprised that the ref gave a red card to Eastham. It did remind me a bit of the incident that led to the Midson/Grant altercation at Wimbledon under John Coleman. Wimbledon fans were adamant that was a penalty but the challenge was outside the area and he dived into the area. In that case the ref gave the correct decision and gave Wimbledon a freekick just outside the area.
I recorded the FLS last night and watched the incident in slow motion and I think the still photo above is a good illustration of what happened. To me it looks like Eastham ran across the back of the Orient player and did not touch him deliberately at all. The Orient player felt his trailing leg touch Eastham's at a distance (as the still shows), realised that his touch had taken the ball wide towards Logan and decided to take a theatrical dive to see if the ref would buy it. Unfortunately for us he did. It is one of those 'modern' penalties/'fouls' which I find so irritating - the classic 'if you feel any kind of contact you are entitled to go down', ignoring the fact that not all contact is a foul because football is a contact spot. In this incident I think the Orient player touched Eastham rather than the other way round. Again to me, it is obviously a dive because even if Eastham had clipped his heels that is not the natural way to fall (see what happens when a player is tap-tackled in rugby for example).
I try to judge these incidents thinking how I would feel if it had been the other way round. If Henderson, say, had done that in the opposite penalty area I would have felt a bit embarrassed about getting a penalty in that way. I realise that this is the modern game but these incidents are frankly just pathetic.
Having said all that, in real time I can understand why the ref/linesman gave the decision they did. Although it is difficult sometimes, it is important to take a step back that they are doing quite a difficult job and just have to call it as they see it. Sometimes they make mistakes, just as the players do. We have just have to get on with it and hope things balance out in another game in our favour. After the event, the only real consequence now is that Eastham will lose his place in the side and maybe not get it back from Lancashire if he does well.
That's a very forensic analysis of the penalty incident, fermin, but I'm not sure a human official or a human footballer could compute all that in a fraction of a second.
I don't think it's obviously a dive, nor do i think it's obviously a foul, which highlights the difficulty in making the decision.
If it had been the other way round, I would have fully expected the red card and the penalty in our favour and there would have been no debates or disagreements on here about it.
.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
0
Goals on SSN in a few minutes on 08:29 - Sep 29 with 1178 views
Goals on SSN in a few minutes on 21:34 - Sep 28 by TVOS1907
That's a very forensic analysis of the penalty incident, fermin, but I'm not sure a human official or a human footballer could compute all that in a fraction of a second.
I don't think it's obviously a dive, nor do i think it's obviously a foul, which highlights the difficulty in making the decision.
If it had been the other way round, I would have fully expected the red card and the penalty in our favour and there would have been no debates or disagreements on here about it.
.
Yes, I agree - I understand why the ref made the decision he did. Something you have to accept and get on with the game.
I'm really more irritated with the Orient player's antics in trying to deceive the ref, but again that seems to be tolerated these days. Personally I hope we never resort to that sort of thing on a regular basis, but I am not naive enough to think one of our players will never try something similar. No doubt it would be easy to pick out quite a lot of examples from the past where Dale players have gone down easily.
0
Goals on SSN in a few minutes on 18:40 - Sep 29 with 1023 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
