Jump to content
Fosse69

Match Thread: Port Vale v Stevenage

Recommended Posts

Telegraphed swan dive. If that amount of contact draws out a penalty then the game is fcuked. Looking for a pen and the incompetent as ever L2 referee bought it. 

Edited by Doha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s never a peno for either of those incidents above. Crookes has lost his man there, but he’s made the most of the minimal contact. Shocking decision really. They’ve gone down very easily at every opportunity. Embarassing. I hope that penalty incident is reviewed after, because it is a dive. 

I don’t particularly think we’ve played that well. We do look more comfortable with this formation. We’ve looked good in spells when players like Amoo or Worrall have shown their energy, but other than Worrall we’ve got no real drive from deeper in the pitch.

I think we can’t be too complacent against these as Guthrie looks a handful, and at times we are conceding possession too cheaply. What I can’t understand with their formation is they’re playing with wing backs who are are in the main quite defensive and so they’re allowing us a lot of ground in front of them. But we can’t really make the most of it. Bennet has offered little as the lone striker and Montys hardly threatened for us either. 

Edited by PV1973

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PV1973 said:

That’s never a peno for either of those incidents above. Crookes has lost his man there, but he’s made the most of the minimal contact. Shocking decision really. They’ve gone down very easily at every opportunity. Embarassing. I hope that penalty incident is reviewed after, because it is a dive. 

I don’t particularly think we’ve played that well. We do look more comfortable with this formation. We’ve looked good in spells when players like Amoo or Worrall have shown their energy, but other than Worrall we’ve got no real drive from deeper in the pitch.

I think we can’t be too complacent against these as Guthrie looks a handful, and at times we are conceding possession too cheaply. What I can’t understand with their formation is they’re playing with wing backs who are are in the main quite defensive and so they’re allowing us a lot of ground in front of them. But we can’t really make the most of it. Bennet has offered little as the lone striker and Montys hardly threatened for us either. 

They are dropping very deep as soon as we get the ball. I think they're worried about the pace in our front 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PV1973 said:

That’s never a peno for either of those incidents above. Crookes has lost his man there, but he’s made the most of the minimal contact. Shocking decision really. They’ve gone down very easily at every opportunity. Embarassing. I hope that penalty incident is reviewed after, because it is a dive. 

I don’t particularly think we’ve played that well. We do look more comfortable with this formation. We’ve looked good in spells when players like Amoo or Worrall have shown their energy, but other than Worrall we’ve got no real drive from deeper in the pitch.

I think we can’t be too complacent against these as Guthrie looks a handful, and at times we are conceding possession too cheaply. What I can’t understand with their formation is they’re playing with wing backs who are are in the main quite defensive and so they’re allowing us a lot of ground in front of them. But we can’t really make the most of it. Bennet has offered little as the lone striker and Montys hardly threatened for us either. 

Looked a penalty to me … our problem is we haven't enough players who can pass to each other. ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PV1973 said:

That’s never a peno for either of those incidents above. 

?

If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded.

IFAB says that having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a "natural" position and a player is "taking a risk" by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding. 

 

Definite handball. Bottled.

giphy.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vale look a little disjointed, there's no one linking the forwards together.Both pens could have gone either way, just Vale's luck.

Crookes and Montano don't combine well together, Montano nearly always has his back to goal when he receives the ball.

I'm with RW and think this ref could well even things up pen wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Doha said:

?

If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded.

IFAB says that having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a "natural" position and a player is "taking a risk" by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding. 

 

Definite handball. Bottled.

giphy.gif

 

Far to close to give that. Never hand ball. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, valiant_593 said:

Far to close to give that. Never hand ball. 

 

1 minute ago, valiant_593 said:

Far to close to give that. Never hand ball. 

No penalty too close .. couldn't get out of the way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Doha said:

He's chosen to stick his hands out and up. You see those given all the time.

Ref might have seen it as trying to protect his face from the ball.  Seen them given tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Doha said:

He's chosen to stick his hands out and up. You see those given all the time.

Stuck his hands up? Come off it it’s right next to him. Just imagine the reaction if that was given against us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Doha said:

?

If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded.

IFAB says that having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a "natural" position and a player is "taking a risk" by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding. 

 

Definite handball. Bottled.

giphy.gif

 

No peno for me. His arms aren’t out by his side, they look more in front of him and the players only a yard away if that. I’m sure there was a recent directive from the FA about that too, a ball hitting an arm like that so close.

Edited by PV1973

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PV1973 said:

No peno for me. His arms aren’t out by his side.

Fifa brought in new rules for 19/20.

The IFAB have now confirmed that a handball will be awarded if a player makes his body an "unnatural silhouette", i.e. making his body bigger with his arm. It is also automatically an offence if the arm is above shoulder height. Handball will be given if the ball strikes any hand which is over shoulder height. 

The biggest change related to intent. Handballs no longer needs to be intentional for it to be given.It’s all about the positioning of the arm or hand.If the arm or hand makes the body ‘unnaturally bigger’, it is handball. The rules say that an arm or hand above the shoulder can ‘rarely be a natural position’.Having the arm or hand in that position is considered a risk on the part of the player. Of course, if the arm or hand is away from the body, it will be considered to be making the body ‘unnaturally bigger’ and a handball will be given.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it time for Archer and possibly Pope.  Archer and Amoo to run them ragged and get balls into the Pope now?

Bennett seems to be none effective now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think his arms aren’t out and in an unnatural position. 
 

this comment may come back to haunt me, I hope it does but Bennett just does not look like winning a header in the box. We are devoid of any passion IMO today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Doha said:

Fifa brought in new rules for 19/20.

The IFAB have now confirmed that a handball will be awarded if a player makes his body an "unnatural silhouette", i.e. making his body bigger with his arm. It is also automatically an offence if the arm is above shoulder height. Handball will be given if the ball strikes any hand which is over shoulder height. 

The biggest change related to intent. Handballs no longer needs to be intentional for it to be given.It’s all about the positioning of the arm or hand.If the arm or hand makes the body ‘unnaturally bigger’, it is handball. The rules say that an arm or hand above the shoulder can ‘rarely be a natural position’.Having the arm or hand in that position is considered a risk on the part of the player. Of course, if the arm or hand is away from the body, it will be considered to be making the body ‘unnaturally bigger’ and a handball will be given.

 

Their player was turning and his arms seem to go up and protect his face.  So some would say protecting himself and others could say he tried to stop the ball.  Hard one for the Ref.  Have seen them given tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Advert




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy