8 minutes ago, Granville said:

This is a laugh, apparently none of our goals should have stood at all.

https://avftt.co.uk/index.php?threads/their-goals.67367/

 

Comedy gold. I wonder if the poster does that for every defeat.

He's obviously got far too much time on his sad hands. 

3 minutes ago, Granville said:

This is a laugh, apparently none of our goals should have stood at all.

https://avftt.co.uk/index.php?threads/their-goals.67367/

 

Hilarious. The random collection of screenshots which have almost no relevance. The faux analysis which is ultimately just deluded drivel and the posts like "we should send this to the league".

 

They'd whipped themselves up before the game that the ref was from Preston and had made an error against them 2 years ago. Then it's just a matter of confirmation bias. 

 

In truth the ref was poor, but they got off lightly seen as number 5 should have walked. No accountability for Imray diving before the red. Nothing for them feigning injuries. Nothing for Evatt downright lying in his post match interview (he reckons the tackle for the red was from the side). 

 

They're a very desperate bunch. 

12 minutes ago, Brian Johnson said:

Tom Pope and sense in the same sentence 

Maybe,  but you can't possibly disagree with his analysis what did he say that was wrong ?

3 hours ago, ValeForever. said:

On another note, George Hall is by far & away our most valuable asset at the club. Played in the right formation & in the right positions, he could be the difference between us going down & staying up. We're lucky to have him, he's a class above.

It's not hard to see why a few Premier League clubs were interested in him a couple of years ago and I predict he will be our next player who goes for really big money. If you play him in the right formation and in the right position then he is without a doubt a class above and I honestly don't know how we got him on the last day of the Summer transfer window. 

36 minutes ago, Granville said:

This is a laugh, apparently none of our goals should have stood at all.

https://avftt.co.uk/index.php?threads/their-goals.67367/

 

I suspect the ref just about got goal 3 correct. The ball initially did strike Hedley but it was high up on the arm and just about in the green area.

For goal 2 he was probably also correct.

What the Referee Decides

• A "shoulder charge" isn't automatically legal; it's about fair play, distance, and force.
• Referees judge if contact is fair (a challenge for the ball) or unfair (impeding/pushing). 

In essence, players can use their body to shield the ball and can be fairly challenged shoulder-to-shoulder if they are actively competing for a ball that's within reach; otherwise, it's usually a foul. 

 

IFAB rules allow shoulder-to-shoulder contact when players challenge fairly for the ball, meaning the ball is within playing distance (could be touched by stretching/jumping), contact is shoulder-to-shoulder, and it's not careless, reckless, or using excessive force, allowing a player to shield the ball by fairly charging an opponent. It's a foul if the ball isn't nearby, the opponent is held off with arms, or excessive force (reckless/dangerous) is used, resulting in a direct or indirect free kick. 

 

What Cole does well is he keeps his arms by his side. If his arm was raised it would have been a foul. The referee was consistent throughout the game and did allow upper body contact when the arm was down. Horsfall was looking for it and most referees give it. Most attacking players do raise their arm. I think fair play to Cole and the referee for knowing the rules. 

 

1 minute ago, JRC said:

I suspect the ref just about got goal 3 correct. The ball initially did strike Hedley but it was high up on the arm and just about in the green area.

For goal 2 he was probably also correct.

What the Referee Decides

• A "shoulder charge" isn't automatically legal; it's about fair play, distance, and force.
• Referees judge if contact is fair (a challenge for the ball) or unfair (impeding/pushing). 

In essence, players can use their body to shield the ball and can be fairly challenged shoulder-to-shoulder if they are actively competing for a ball that's within reach; otherwise, it's usually a foul. 

 

IFAB rules allow shoulder-to-shoulder contact when players challenge fairly for the ball, meaning the ball is within playing distance (could be touched by stretching/jumping), contact is shoulder-to-shoulder, and it's not careless, reckless, or using excessive force, allowing a player to shield the ball by fairly charging an opponent. It's a foul if the ball isn't nearby, the opponent is held off with arms, or excessive force (reckless/dangerous) is used, resulting in a direct or indirect free kick. 

 

What Cole does well is he keeps his arms by his side. If his arm was raised it would have been a foul. The referee was consistent throughout the game and did allow upper body contact when the arm was down. Horsfall was looking for it and most referees give it. Most attacking players do raise their arm. I think fair play to Cole and the referee for knowing the rules. 

 

There is a handy line on the Vale shirt.

1 hour ago, Swanny-pvfc said:

Could not believe that second half yesterday!  first was very poor walked down on 45 so I missed the red card having seen it back I don’t think it’s a red card but we’ll take it. 
 

not so sure he’d have tweaked the system at half time had they still had 11 on the field but brilliant went at them from the off, breath of fresh air if I’m honest what a difference playing with wingers does especially on our pitch criminal that we don’t! George hall run them absolutely ragged in that second half. We got plenty of balls into the box dangerous when you have stockley(a target man) not just crosses but we mixed it up when we got to byline. 
 

clark Byers stockley hall when he came on thought standout performers all had really good games. 

If you never make changes you never know if they will work, a new manager could have picked that team and be a wonder manager instantly. Not that we didn't know it would work all season. 

Blackpool fans can moan all they want about the referee being from Preston etc when it is no different to the referee that we had in the Salford game last season who was from Manchester and who supposedly has family members who are Salford fans. At the end of the day if I was a Blackpool fan I would be more concerned at how they capitulated in the second half with 10 men and how they also completely lost their shape, I mean I know we changed formation and they couldn't live with us in terms of pace and our quick attacking play but if I was Evatt I would be fuming at how easy they made it for us with 10 men.

Edited January 2Jan 2 by ValiantHan

1 hour ago, Granville said:

This is a laugh, apparently none of our goals should have stood at all.

https://avftt.co.uk/index.php?threads/their-goals.67367/

 

He's even funnier about their player's assault on Ryan Croasdale -

"Sending off - hard to say. Both players feet were up. My feeling is Husband misses the ball and the player."





Ryan running forward and his front foot not being in contact with the floor at the instant of their player's horizontal impact means "Both players feet were up" ... 😆

Edited January 2Jan 2 by Alan Vit

10 hours ago, Alan Vit said:

He's even funnier about their player's assault on Ryan Croasdale -

Sending off - hard to say. Both players feet were up. My feeling is Husband misses the ball and the player.



, 

Ryan running forward and his front foot not being in contact with the floor at the instant of their player's horizontal impact means "Both players feet were up" ... 😆

It's hard to stay from still photos, we know from cricket that video/image makes the ball further away from the hand than it actually is (foreshortens the image I think is the term). His foot looks over the ball, not in control of his body and his studs are up (the player was motioning to the ref his foot never left the ground, which clearly isn't the case). You'd need the frame in between (if one exists as it happened quickly) to know if his left foot went over the ball, then hit Croasdale's right leg. Its pretty clear he then wallops him with his right leg. The duty of care is with the player making the challenge,  which was clearly the Blackpool player. Also as you say Croasdale's feet are pointing down and he was just running normally.

Edited January 3Jan 3 by JRC

2 hours ago, darren1810 said:

Can't agree there mate at all. He's all bitter and twisted regarding Vale and I know Humph personally. 

Why he felt Pope is relevant is a mystery to me. 

I absolutely agree we still have loads of issues and one swallow and all that malarkey but Pope come on. 

Disregarding that Pope was asked for his opinion and disregarding that it is Pope, what he says is spot on.

2 hours ago, darren1810 said:

Comedy gold. I wonder if the poster does that for every defeat.

He's obviously got far too much time on his sad hands. 

Someone yesterday recommended having a look on there, so I did. My god, it makes OVF look like a Mensa meeting.

37 minutes ago, blackdog said:

Disregarding that Pope was asked for his opinion and disregarding that it is Pope, what he says is spot on.

I just watched it on X, and I agree.  There was nothing wrong with what he said at all.

3 hours ago, Granville said:

This is a laugh, apparently none of our goals should have stood at all.

https://avftt.co.uk/index.php?threads/their-goals.67367/

 

Really is a thing of beauty. Manager, players, fans moaning about nasty little old Vale!! Long may it continue. Been something that has been missing from our game for far too long. 

To be fair those freeze frames make it look far more of a red than the video!