|
|
Post by trevorgas on Oct 24, 2024 17:36:48 GMT
The linesman never put his flag up for offside. The referee came over for a conversation, most likely to ask the very simple question of whether Marquis was stood behind our last defender (which he was). It was then for the referee to decide whether Marquis was obstructing the keepers view - he decided he was which going by the still photos from the South Stand is clearly wrong. Those photos show the referee was in a good enough position to see that Marquis hadn’t placed himself directly between the keeper and the direction of the shot. It was a very poor decision and Shrewsbury must be fuming. I’m delighted that even after consulting as a team the officials managed to get the wrong decision and get us the much needed 3 points instead of 1 😁 "Those photos show the referee was in a good enough position to see that Marquis hadn’t placed himself directly between the keeper and the direction of the shot. It was a very poor decision and Shrewsbury must be fuming." I kinda agree and disagree with your post. I think the ref had a poor game all round, but the consistency all night was to appear to generally award decisions - however contentious - to the defending team. In this case, he just followed his 50/50 decision making process. I'm not so sure it was a poor decision, rather than it was harsh on Shrewsbury. If JM hadn't been in offside position in first place, just a couple of steps up, no one would be having this conversation. And my point is: it's up to the player not to allow referees opportunity to make those sorts of decisions. With issuing cards the same principle applies. He was offside, and in the vicinity. Unfortunately, for him and them, JM had a poor game and showed poor decision making by being allowed to be called offside...for gawdsakes, he done it plenty (frustratingly enough) last season with us and hasn't learned his lesson. The fuming is directed in the wrong direction imo... I agree what the ref doesn't know is whether Griffiths was distracted by JM which prevented him from moving right before the ball was hit,ergo my view is JM was in an offside position interfering with play and the Ref made the correct decision. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Oct 24, 2024 17:39:42 GMT
"Those photos show the referee was in a good enough position to see that Marquis hadn’t placed himself directly between the keeper and the direction of the shot. It was a very poor decision and Shrewsbury must be fuming." I kinda agree and disagree with your post. I think the ref had a poor game all round, but the consistency all night was to appear to generally award decisions - however contentious - to the defending team. In this case, he just followed his 50/50 decision making process. I'm not so sure it was a poor decision, rather than it was harsh on Shrewsbury. If JM hadn't been in offside position in first place, just a couple of steps up, no one would be having this conversation. And my point is: it's up to the player not to allow referees opportunity to make those sorts of decisions. With issuing cards the same principle applies. He was offside, and in the vicinity. Unfortunately, for him and them, JM had a poor game and showed poor decision making by being allowed to be called offside...for gawdsakes, he done it plenty (frustratingly enough) last season with us and hasn't learned his lesson. The fuming is directed in the wrong direction imo... I agree what the ref doesn't know is whether Griffiths was distracted by JM which prevented him from moving right before the ball was hit,ergo my view is JM was in an offside position interfering with play and the Ref made the correct decision. Agreed! To compound, JM appeared to get out the way of the shot as ball passed him, to reinforce your interfering proposal. I can see why he disallowed it, and JM put himself in that position for the ref to take that option. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 24, 2024 17:56:27 GMT
"Those photos show the referee was in a good enough position to see that Marquis hadn’t placed himself directly between the keeper and the direction of the shot. It was a very poor decision and Shrewsbury must be fuming." I kinda agree and disagree with your post. I think the ref had a poor game all round, but the consistency all night was to appear to generally award decisions - however contentious - to the defending team. In this case, he just followed his 50/50 decision making process. I'm not so sure it was a poor decision, rather than it was harsh on Shrewsbury. If JM hadn't been in offside position in first place, just a couple of steps up, no one would be having this conversation. And my point is: it's up to the player not to allow referees opportunity to make those sorts of decisions. With issuing cards the same principle applies. He was offside, and in the vicinity. Unfortunately, for him and them, JM had a poor game and showed poor decision making by being allowed to be called offside...for gawdsakes, he done it plenty (frustratingly enough) last season with us and hasn't learned his lesson. The fuming is directed in the wrong direction imo... I agree what the ref doesn't know is whether Griffiths was distracted by JM which prevented him from moving right before the ball was hit,ergo my view is JM was in an offside position interfering with play and the Ref made the correct decision. Going by the Wolves v Man C decision it doesn't matter if JG might have been distracted, it seems the player has to block the line of vision. Although why authorities messed about with this decision, like the handball rules, is baffling as JM, like the Man C player, had no reason to be stood where he was. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 24, 2024 17:58:23 GMT
The linesman never put his flag up for offside. The referee came over for a conversation, most likely to ask the very simple question of whether Marquis was stood behind our last defender (which he was). It was then for the referee to decide whether Marquis was obstructing the keepers view - he decided he was which going by the still photos from the South Stand is clearly wrong. Those photos show the referee was in a good enough position to see that Marquis hadn’t placed himself directly between the keeper and the direction of the shot. It was a very poor decision and Shrewsbury must be fuming. I’m delighted that even after consulting as a team the officials managed to get the wrong decision and get us the much needed 3 points instead of 1 😁 "Those photos show the referee was in a good enough position to see that Marquis hadn’t placed himself directly between the keeper and the direction of the shot. It was a very poor decision and Shrewsbury must be fuming." I kinda agree and disagree with your post. I think the ref had a poor game all round, but the consistency all night was to appear to generally award decisions - however contentious - to the defending team. In this case, he just followed his 50/50 decision making process. I'm not so sure it was a poor decision, rather than it was harsh on Shrewsbury. If JM hadn't been in offside position in first place, just a couple of steps up, no one would be having this conversation. And my point is: it's up to the player not to allow referees opportunity to make those sorts of decisions. With issuing cards the same principle applies. He was offside, and in the vicinity. The referee is entitled to draw conclusions from this in real time without the help of pictures/tv. Unfortunately, for him and them, JM had a poor game and showed poor decision making by being allowed to be called offside...for gawdsakes, he done it plenty (frustratingly enough) last season with us and hasn't learned his lesson. The fuming is directed in the wrong direction imo... If a ref is ever unsure he should let the game continue, whether that is a penalty appeal, a handball, a foul or an offside. If he isn’t sure just play on. IMO he’s just panicked, made a guess and got it wrong - which I’m delighted about btw 😁!! |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 24, 2024 18:00:56 GMT
"Those photos show the referee was in a good enough position to see that Marquis hadn’t placed himself directly between the keeper and the direction of the shot. It was a very poor decision and Shrewsbury must be fuming." I kinda agree and disagree with your post. I think the ref had a poor game all round, but the consistency all night was to appear to generally award decisions - however contentious - to the defending team. In this case, he just followed his 50/50 decision making process. I'm not so sure it was a poor decision, rather than it was harsh on Shrewsbury. If JM hadn't been in offside position in first place, just a couple of steps up, no one would be having this conversation. And my point is: it's up to the player not to allow referees opportunity to make those sorts of decisions. With issuing cards the same principle applies. He was offside, and in the vicinity. Unfortunately, for him and them, JM had a poor game and showed poor decision making by being allowed to be called offside...for gawdsakes, he done it plenty (frustratingly enough) last season with us and hasn't learned his lesson. The fuming is directed in the wrong direction imo... I agree what the ref doesn't know is whether Griffiths was distracted by JM which prevented him from moving right before the ball was hit,ergo my view is JM was in an offside position interfering with play and the Ref made the correct decision. But that’s not the current rule referees have to follow - it’s now supposed to only be ruled out if a player directly obstructs the keepers view of the ball, which in this case clearly didn’t happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Windmill Hill Gas on Oct 24, 2024 19:03:17 GMT
The next 'home' match at Shrewsbury's New Meadow Stadium? The New Saints v Astana of Kazakhstan in the UEFA Conference League!
|
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Oct 24, 2024 19:15:09 GMT
I agree what the ref doesn't know is whether Griffiths was distracted by JM which prevented him from moving right before the ball was hit,ergo my view is JM was in an offside position interfering with play and the Ref made the correct decision. But that’s not the current rule referees have to follow - it’s now supposed to only be ruled out if a player directly obstructs the keepers view of the ball, which in this case clearly didn’t happen. That's if the ref understands the rules Eric🤔🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by percy on Oct 24, 2024 19:19:19 GMT
Absolute nonsense. Underlying data is what’s important. Underlying data determines performance and consistency. If your underlying data is consistently good you’ll have more good performances than bad and performances over a longer period determine results and you’ll win more games. If the underlying data is poor (possession, passes, shots on target, chances created, chances conceded, duels won/lost etc etc) then you’ll produce more poor performances than good and over time lose more games than you win. You will of course win some games but those wins will largely be down to the performance of the opposition…..which has undoubtedly been the case. Our underlying data hasn’t changed from first game to last game, home or away, wins or losses. We’re basically a very poorly managed and coached football team with a manager full of bluster using stupid terminology which has the aim of confusing the layman. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong but under Barton we had fantastic possession and passing stats yet his PPG in L1 is inferior to Taylors. I'm bored of hearing about stats that "prove" Taylor is the devil incarnate. If people don't like him because he's dull, the football is dull, the tactics are baffling then fair enough but stats are just part of the picture, not the be all and end all. Some stats say we were poor against Charlton and Shrewsbury but there are also stats that show we were better than them. Yep |
|
|
|
Post by thegasareback on Oct 24, 2024 19:42:03 GMT
Taylor “Three points behind where we should be??”
Northampton - dull game but we edged it. Level to what performances and standard luck would say.
Rotherham - lucky to get a point (+1pt ahead of where we should be)
Stockport - battered (+1)
Cambridge - deserved win (+1)
Barnsley - deserved loss (+1)
Wigan - deserved loss (+1)
Posh - deserved loss (+1)
Wycombe - as Burton below a game of two halves so evens out (+1)
Charlton - deserved win (+1)
Burton - game of two halves, could argue we were lucky but I’ll give us benefit (+1)
Hudd - deserved loss (+1)
Shrews - the chances they had and goal at end that’s +2 for us
I’d say we’re three points better off than deserved.
How he thinks we’re three points behind is baffling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas on Oct 24, 2024 19:50:14 GMT
Think we were VERY fortunate but the three points were more than welcome.Expect the Shrews may be even madder come next May.
|
|
|
|
Post by SleepyGas on Oct 24, 2024 19:56:39 GMT
I agree what the ref doesn't know is whether Griffiths was distracted by JM which prevented him from moving right before the ball was hit,ergo my view is JM was in an offside position interfering with play and the Ref made the correct decision. But that’s not the current rule referees have to follow - it’s now supposed to only be ruled out if a player directly obstructs the keepers view of the ball, which in this case clearly didn’t happen. The laws don't explicitly specify tbf ( from www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside )  I showed the footage to a (Sunday League Level) ref and he said he would have also disallowed the goal for offside. He claimed that the current guidelines are that if the ball is struck when a player is in an offside position and between the posts then they are interfering with play (distracting the goalkeeper). Anyway. The ref was well positioned to see Marquis movement relative to the keeper and the linesman was positioned well enough to see Marquis position relative to our backline. They discussed it and determined the goal was offside... thankfully!! |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 24, 2024 20:05:03 GMT
I agree what the ref doesn't know is whether Griffiths was distracted by JM which prevented him from moving right before the ball was hit,ergo my view is JM was in an offside position interfering with play and the Ref made the correct decision. But that’s not the current rule referees have to follow - it’s now supposed to only be ruled out if a player directly obstructs the keepers view of the ball, which in this case clearly didn’t happen. It sounds like you are *really* arguing for that goal to have stood. What about the blatant penalty on Promise when he hit the bar? Seemed like the ref said to himself, I've played the advantage and you missed, rather than you missed due to your trailing leg being fouled before trying to shoot. Swings and roundabouts in football. I counted about three foul throws by them. Oh and don't get me going on the kicking the ball away ruling... |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 24, 2024 20:12:34 GMT
But that’s not the current rule referees have to follow - it’s now supposed to only be ruled out if a player directly obstructs the keepers view of the ball, which in this case clearly didn’t happen. It sounds like you are *really* arguing for that goal to have stood. What about the blatant penalty on Promise when he hit the bar? Seemed like the ref said to himself, I've played the advantage and you missed, rather than you missed due to your trailing leg being fouled before trying to shoot. Swings and roundabouts in football. I counted about three foul throws by them. Oh and don't get me going on the kicking the ball away ruling... I’m delighted it was disallowed but dismayed at the quality of refereeing generally in league one - both ones that go for us and against us. Once the game is over I don’t mind admitting we were very lucky - I never understood why managers are not willing to admit these things post match, it’s not as if admitting you got away with one will see the decision overturned. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 24, 2024 20:15:46 GMT
But that’s not the current rule referees have to follow - it’s now supposed to only be ruled out if a player directly obstructs the keepers view of the ball, which in this case clearly didn’t happen. The laws don't explicitly specify tbf ( from www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside ) I showed the footage to a (Sunday League Level) ref and he said he would have also disallowed the goal for offside. He claimed that the current guidelines are that if the ball is struck when a player is in an offside position and between the posts then they are interfering with play (distracting the goalkeeper). Anyway. The ref was well positioned to see Marquis movement relative to the keeper and the linesman was positioned well enough to see Marquis position relative to our backline. They discussed it and determined the goal was offside... thankfully!! Probably worth letting Howard Webb and the PGMOL (or whatever they are called) know as that is not the message they are giving out. It was explained pretty well by Dermott Gallagher on Sky Sports Ref Watch show as the Man City goal was contested on the same grounds but was probably even more contentious and open to debate. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 24, 2024 20:37:34 GMT
It sounds like you are *really* arguing for that goal to have stood. What about the blatant penalty on Promise when he hit the bar? Seemed like the ref said to himself, I've played the advantage and you missed, rather than you missed due to your trailing leg being fouled before trying to shoot. Swings and roundabouts in football. I counted about three foul throws by them. Oh and don't get me going on the kicking the ball away ruling... I’m delighted it was disallowed but dismayed at the quality of refereeing generally in league one - both ones that go for us and against us. Once the game is over I don’t mind admitting we were very lucky - I never understood why managers are not willing to admit these things post match, it’s not as if admitting you got away with one will see the decision overturned. I'm dismayed at your dismay of league one refs, league two refs as well for that matter. I think there is probably only about one or two home games a season that we get a good ref. The ref on Tuesday allowed Promise to be assaulted everything he got close to the ball, missed penalties and foul throws. |
|
|
|
Post by SleepyGas on Oct 24, 2024 21:16:35 GMT
Probably worth letting Howard Webb and the PGMOL (or whatever they are called) know as that is not the message they are giving out. It was explained pretty well by Dermott Gallagher on Sky Sports Ref Watch show as the Man City goal was contested on the same grounds but was probably even more contentious and open to debate. Nah, I’ll leave it to Paul Hurst if he wants to call up Mike Jones for a whinge 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Oct 24, 2024 21:19:14 GMT
Absolute nonsense. Underlying data is what’s important. Underlying data determines performance and consistency. If your underlying data is consistently good you’ll have more good performances than bad and performances over a longer period determine results and you’ll win more games. If the underlying data is poor (possession, passes, shots on target, chances created, chances conceded, duels won/lost etc etc) then you’ll produce more poor performances than good and over time lose more games than you win. You will of course win some games but those wins will largely be down to the performance of the opposition…..which has undoubtedly been the case. Our underlying data hasn’t changed from first game to last game, home or away, wins or losses. We’re basically a very poorly managed and coached football team with a manager full of bluster using stupid terminology which has the aim of confusing the layman. Spot on. Anomaly results prove nothing, our performances and stats are very poor. Have a look at the stats in league 1. Week in week out the majority of the teams that has less Possession and shots wins the game. There’s so many clubs in the lower leagues trying to replicate Gardiolas style that now in those lower league the team with less of the ball , less territorial possession usually wins . Take Tuesday ,every winning team bar Birmingham had less possession and that’s not unusual, football is going through a strange time currently I’ve been studying the stats of the league 1 and 2 sides for a while now because I find it intriguing how so many lower league managers are trying to adapt a playing out from the back slow possession based style with players that clearly aren’t comfortable with it. it started at the beginning of last season when lots on here were saying that we were playing beautiful football under Barton and that the results would come, I didn’t buy in to it so started to look in to it. Literally the only stat that matters is the league table and Taylor has us looking bang average which is what we are. We could go back to playing hundreds of passes across the back four / five and in to trouble and I can pretty much guarantee we’d be getting beat more than we are currently ( see Barton, Garner in league 1 ) Without Collins and Evans this squad probably isnt as strong as last season yet Taylor is getting more out of his squad just like he did get more out of Barton’s squad because he understands the level which we are playing at. I’m not saying Taylor is the messiah , he’s quite dull and he’s unlikely to get us in to the top 6 but he’s way more likely to keep us up than Barton , Garner or Tisdale were. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Oct 24, 2024 21:27:34 GMT
Spot on. Anomaly results prove nothing, our performances and stats are very poor. Have a look at the stats in league 1. **Week in week out the majority of the teams that has less Possession and shots wins the game**. There’s so many clubs in the lower leagues trying to replicate Gardiolas style that now in those lower league the team with less of the ball , less territorial possession usually wins . Take Tuesday ,every winning team bar Birmingham had less possession and that’s not unusual, football is going through a strange time currently I’ve been studying the stats of the league 1 and 2 sides for a while now because I find it intriguing how so many lower league managers are trying to adapt a playing out from the back slow possession based style with players that clearly aren’t comfortable with it. it started at the beginning of last season when lots on here were saying that we were playing beautiful football under Barton and that the results would come, I didn’t buy in to it so started to look in to it. Literally the only stat that matters is the league table and Taylor has us looking bang average which is what we are. We could go back to playing hundreds of passes across the back four / five and in to trouble and I can pretty much guarantee we’d be getting beat more than we are currently ( see Barton, Garner in league 1 ) Without Collins and Evans this squad probably isnt as strong as last season yet Taylor is getting more out of his squad just like he did get more out of Barton’s squad because he understands the level which we are playing at. I’m not saying Taylor is the messiah , he’s quite dull and he’s unlikely to get us in to the top 6 but he’s way more likely to keep us up than Barton , Garner or Tisdale were. Interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Oct 24, 2024 21:32:26 GMT
Spot on. Anomaly results prove nothing, our performances and stats are very poor. Have a look at the stats in league 1. Week in week out the majority of the teams that has less Possession and shots wins the game. There’s so many clubs in the lower leagues trying to replicate Gardiolas style that now in those lower league the team with less of the ball , less territorial possession usually wins . Take Tuesday ,every winning team bar Birmingham had less possession and that’s not unusual, football is going through a strange time currently I’ve been studying the stats of the league 1 and 2 sides for a while now because I find it intriguing how so many lower league managers are trying to adapt a playing out from the back slow possession based style with players that clearly aren’t comfortable with it. it started at the beginning of last season when lots on here were saying that we were playing beautiful football under Barton and that the results would come, I didn’t buy in to it so started to look in to it. Literally the only stat that matters is the league table and Taylor has us looking bang average which is what we are. We could go back to playing hundreds of passes across the back four / five and in to trouble and I can pretty much guarantee we’d be getting beat more than we are currently ( see Barton, Garner in league 1 ) Without Collins and Evans this squad probably isnt as strong as last season yet Taylor is getting more out of his squad just like he did get more out of Barton’s squad because he understands the level which we are playing at. I’m not saying Taylor is the messiah , he’s quite dull and he’s unlikely to get us in to the top 6 but he’s way more likely to keep us up than Barton , Garner or Tisdale were. Interesting and what I’ve often thought. Ponce about with it too much at the back and you’ll invariably get caught out at this level. Players just aren’t good enough in tight situations like they are at prem level. As much abuse as Taylor and his football gets I prefer it to some of the boring stuff we had to suffer under Barton . |
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Oct 24, 2024 21:37:44 GMT
Have a look at the stats in league 1. **Week in week out the majority of the teams that has less Possession and shots wins the game**. There’s so many clubs in the lower leagues trying to replicate Gardiolas style that now in those lower league the team with less of the ball , less territorial possession usually wins . Take Tuesday ,every winning team bar Birmingham had less possession and that’s not unusual, football is going through a strange time currently I’ve been studying the stats of the league 1 and 2 sides for a while now because I find it intriguing how so many lower league managers are trying to adapt a playing out from the back slow possession based style with players that clearly aren’t comfortable with it. it started at the beginning of last season when lots on here were saying that we were playing beautiful football under Barton and that the results would come, I didn’t buy in to it so started to look in to it. Literally the only stat that matters is the league table and Taylor has us looking bang average which is what we are. We could go back to playing hundreds of passes across the back four / five and in to trouble and I can pretty much guarantee we’d be getting beat more than we are currently ( see Barton, Garner in league 1 ) Without Collins and Evans this squad probably isnt as strong as last season yet Taylor is getting more out of his squad just like he did get more out of Barton’s squad because he understands the level which we are playing at. I’m not saying Taylor is the messiah , he’s quite dull and he’s unlikely to get us in to the top 6 but he’s way more likely to keep us up than Barton , Garner or Tisdale were. Interesting. It is. If Taylor was sacked tomorrow I wouldn’t be gutted but I would be worried. Worried we’d go back down the Garner tikka taka route because unless you have a top 6 squad and budget playing that way will almost certainly end in tears at this level. I’m hoping as the team gels we become a tough hard to beat side that plays the way that works at this level like we did under DC until we started slowing it down and going more possession based under him. Our special move ( if you like ) under DC when we were at our best was the long diagonal ball from defence or from a deep lines in to the forwards or a marauding full back. Then we either brought it down in the final third and had a chance or fed off the scraps and had them on the ropes in their danger area. It remains to be seen if our squad and manager can do as well as DC did in his first couple of seasons in league 1 but I think there’s loads more chance of it under Taylor than any of our three previous managers we’ve had in league 1. in the last 3 games I’ve been to there’s signs that it could be starting to click , we haven’t looked great but we’ve looked determined and we’ve won all three. The thing I dislike the most about Taylor is his favourite formation, I think that if we stick to a back four and play to our strengths we’ll be fine. |
|
