[Westbars Spireite]

clarevoyant., on 16 May 2023 - 05:10 AM, said:

I don't know you but I believe we have a mutual mate (AB) now living Woking way who may be in a position to offer clarity.

He has already passed comment elsewhere!

[Westbars Spireite]

Words below from a man in the know...

He should have been sent off.

It isn't in Law 16 (The Goal Kick), it's in Law 12 (Fouls & Misconduct). I've attached the actual wording above. It's a technical offence (playing the ball twice) and then a penal offence as the GK has denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity by touching the ball a 2nd time before another player has, and Dallas's position means it's a DOGSO offence.

This is a very technical and intricate law and not your usual DOGSO scenario whereby the attacker has been (for example) wiped out or fouled in a penal sense (bodily contact, tripped, scythed down, pulled down, pushed etc). Because the "foul" isn't a physical one, people don't get that it's also a sanctionable offence.

There is a clip from a women's game whereby exactly the same thing happened and the GK was correctly sent off. There's also a clip from a Dutch game in 2020 where the GK was correctly cautioned, the difference being that it wasn't an OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity but it DID stop a promising attack. These are the small nuances of law which people don't understand.

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 16 May 2023 - 08:13 AM

[Goku]

Westbars Spireite, on 16 May 2023 - 08:12 AM, said:

Words below from a man in the know...

He should have been sent off.

It isn't in Law 16 (The Goal Kick), it's in Law 12 (Fouls & Misconduct). I've attached the actual wording above. It's a technical offence (playing the ball twice) and then a penal offence as the GK has denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity by touching the ball a 2nd time before another player has, and Dallas's position means it's a DOGSO offence.

This is a very technical and intricate law and not your usual DOGSO scenario whereby the attacker has been (for example) wiped out or fouled in a penal sense (bodily contact, tripped, scythed down, pulled down, pushed etc). Because the "foul" isn't a physical one, people don't get that it's also a sanctionable offence.

There is a clip from a women's game whereby exactly the same thing happened and the GK was correctly sent off. There's also a clip from a Dutch game in 2020 where the GK was correctly cautioned, the difference being that it wasn't an OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity but it DID stop a promising attack. These are the small nuances of law which people don't understand.

Yay. Love being perpetually shafted. Woo.

#TheseThingsEvenThemselvesOut

[spireitetoo]

Goku, on 16 May 2023 - 08:27 AM, said:

Yay. Love being perpetually shafted. Woo.

#TheseThingsEvenThemselvesOut

We must be due a massive payback one day then..

[clarevoyant.]

Westbars Spireite, on 16 May 2023 - 08:12 AM, said:

Words below from a man in the know...

He should have been sent off.

It isn't in Law 16 (The Goal Kick), it's in Law 12 (Fouls & Misconduct). I've attached the actual wording above. It's a technical offence (playing the ball twice) and then a penal offence as the GK has denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity by touching the ball a 2nd time before another player has, and Dallas's position means it's a DOGSO offence.

This is a very technical and intricate law and not your usual DOGSO scenario whereby the attacker has been (for example) wiped out or fouled in a penal sense (bodily contact, tripped, scythed down, pulled down, pushed etc). Because the "foul" isn't a physical one, people don't get that it's also a sanctionable offence.

There is a clip from a women's game whereby exactly the same thing happened and the GK was correctly sent off. There's also a clip from a Dutch game in 2020 where the GK was correctly cautioned, the difference being that it wasn't an OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity but it DID stop a promising attack. These are the small nuances of law which people don't understand.

Merci Beucoup..

[Westbars Spireite]

88 minutes with 10 men. Good as they are, I suspect we win the game.

[JonB]

Westbars Spireite, on 16 May 2023 - 09:27 AM, said:

88 minutes with 10 men. Good as they are, I suspect we win the game.

Plus they are having to choose who they take off to bring the sub keeper which is going to disrupt their plans and formation. It probably means Bostock cant dictate as much as he did and they cant afford to have the two lads really hugging the touch line.

[Westbars Spireite]

JonB, on 16 May 2023 - 09:38 AM, said:

Plus they are having to choose who they take off to bring the sub keeper which is going to disrupt their plans and formation. It probably means Bostock cant dictate as much as he did and they cant afford to have the two lads really hugging the touch line.

Absolutely. We aren't gassed after 70 mins as we were etc etc. We'd have been in the league again. Oh well, I'm sure he's sorry and won't do it again.

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 16 May 2023 - 09:41 AM

[clarevoyant.]

Westbars Spireite, on 16 May 2023 - 09:41 AM, said:

Absolutely. We aren't gassed after 70 mins as we were etc etc. We'd have been in the league again. Oh well, I'm sure he's sorry and won't do it again.

Why was he appointed having only completed one season at this level? and having history with us. I and someone else said at the time a bizarre appointment.

Let's hope the TRUST and the Kirks take the financial ramifications gracefully.
I bet Cookie and his staff are thankful they answer to the above and not ones similar to the Watford board.

[spireitetoo]

Let it go, nowt we can do about it now, shìt happens to us, it's deffo not the 1st time and certainly won't be the last, but it's been debated to death now, and the result is still the same...

It's still NL football next season...

[jack bauer]

interestingly, just watched the 2nd leg of luton v sunderland, in the commentary they said, "no var tonight of course as this is the championship but it will be in operation at wembley for the final"... question though, would var have got involved in that decision last saturday?

[JonB]

jack bauer, on 16 May 2023 - 09:02 PM, said:

interestingly, just watched the 2nd leg of luton v sunderland, in the commentary they said, "no var tonight of course as this is the championship but it will be in operation at wembley for the final"... question though, would var have got involved in that decision last saturday?

It would likely have got involved….what the outcome would have been who knows.

[Westbars Spireite]

JonB, on 16 May 2023 - 09:05 PM, said:

It would likely have got involved….what the outcome would have been who knows.

Penalty to them probably.

[clarevoyant.]

spireitetoo, on 16 May 2023 - 10:35 AM, said:

Let it go, nowt we can do about it now, shìt happens to us, it's deffo not the 1st time and certainly won't be the last, but it's been debated to death now, and the result is still the same...

It's still NL football next season...

"Nowt we can do about it" absolutely correct. "Let it go" Sorry no can do, have we let '97 go?

In my formative years watching town with me dad he always 'ribbed' me saying he'd seen town play in the 5th round of the cup and more so playing in the 2nd (championship) division. As it transpired we both got to see us in the semi and bemoaned our luck!! having been robbed of the impossible dream.

The hope of championship football was more realistic but fading as years go by. But then Cookie arrives and the potential long shot of doing a Luton gave hope only to be ruined by one moment of shear incompetency by a bloke who shouldn't have being do the job in the first place.

So I'll be a boring tw@ and when the opportunity presents itself I'll be duty bound to have a whinge. Probably next season when things get tight and folk start panicking claiming top spot is essential using the much vented cliches "play offs being a lottery, one bad decision and its all over" now where did we hear that a few months ago. We must all have been clair voyant. But yes there's nowt we can do but hope our luck changes but for f..ks make it quick if just for a certain generation. Which, to conclude I note alot of usual posters who post, post match, haven't and all of the same generation, coincidence or urineedofishness?

[spireitetoo]

clarevoyant., on 17 May 2023 - 09:37 AM, said:

"Nowt we can do about it" absolutely correct. "Let it go" Sorry no can do, have we let '97 go?

In my formative years watching town with me dad he always 'ribbed' me saying he'd seen town play in the 5th round of the cup and more so playing in the 2nd (championship) division. As it transpired we both got to see us in the semi and bemoaned our luck!! having been robbed of the impossible dream.

The hope of championship football was more realistic but fading as years go by. But then Cookie arrives and the potential long shot of doing a Luton gave hope only to be ruined by one moment of shear incompetency by a bloke who shouldn't have being do the job in the first place.

So I'll be a boring tw@ and when the opportunity presents itself I'll be duty bound to have a whinge. Probably next season when things get tight and folk start panicking claiming top spot is essential using the much vented cliches "play offs being a lottery, one bad decision and its all over" now where did we hear that a few months ago. We must all have been clair voyant. But yes there's nowt we can do but hope our luck changes but for f..ks make it quick if just for a certain generation. Which, to conclude I note alot of usual posters who post, post match, haven't and all of the same generation, coincidence or urineedofishness?

That was a bit more reasoned than starting a pointless thread, (that's now being called out as racist) 🤣🤣

[clarevoyant.]

spireitetoo, on 17 May 2023 - 12:12 PM, said:

That was a bit more reasoned than starting a pointless thread, (that's now being called out as racist) 🤣🤣

Thank you, being reasoned is good.