[Archived] Newport

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Regarding Brown, I think the reason he's being defending is there was clearly no intent whatsoever. He had a bad first touch, tried to win the 50/50 and got there late. If the ball is 2 feet up in the air then it defies human anatomy to try and reach it without showing your studs (unless you intend to boot it directly upwards).

You could tell from the start he was up for it. After we scored he was like a sprinter on the starting blocks when they took the kick-off. So to be honest I've a lot of sympathy for him. Give me a guy who's massively up for every game and gets sent off occasionally than one who regularly hides on the pitch and gives about 75%.

[arbitro]

Pretty much chalk and cheese performance between the first and second half. Browns sending off and going down to 10 men may have helped Lambert discover a system and formula which suited the ten men. It was surprising to see Lawrence and Rhodes up front but I thought the narrow three in midfield turned the game in our favour. At last we looked to try and pass our way through the opposition rather than through log, aimless balls. The two centre backs stood up exceptionally well and seemed to thrive on the physical side. I have to say that in my opinion Hanley was going nowhere with his career but he has been really good for the most part of this season. Well done to him for proving a lot of us wrong.

Having seen the Brown challenge again (it was difficult to tell from our angle in real time) I am sure the referee got it right. From his perspective it endangered an opponents safety and was done with excessive force. Intent doesn't come into the referees thinking as the word intentional was taken out of law several years ago. I did feel that there was a challenge on Spurr which ticked the sending off boxes but I was quite a distance away from that . I would be interested to hear the views of anybody who saw it on TV.

We left the ground relieved that we had won and were not on the end of a giant killing and the second half performance gives up some hope.

[Mike Graham]

Nope, I totally agree with you oojw! Was fully expecting to come on here after the game and see some rare praise and reasonably positive comments. But it seems most are still stuck in their default infinitely demanding/miserable setting.[/quote

Erm.......see above

What we had last night was firstly team spirit and secondly the fans getting behind the Team. It may not have been quality but the much needed effort and team togetherness that has been missing recently was in evidence.

[K-Hod]

Nope, I totally agree with you oojw! Was fully expecting to come on here after the game and see some rare praise and reasonably positive comments. But it seems most are still stuck in their default infinitely demanding/miserable setting.

Couldn't agree more with this. It was a no win situation for Lambert and the squad imo.

If we win 'well, it's only Newport'.

If we lose 'grrr, white noise'.

When in fact, after a dire first half, the players showed some mettle in the second, remembered they were the Championship side and bossed the game for large parts. There were a few near misses granted, but it was a very professional job from the players in what had the potential given our recent run to be a banana skin. Thankfully that wasn't the case.

[sharpysharps]

Just a word on the system Rovers played with 10 men, it was a narrow 3 in the middle and 2 up top, just wondering whether it would be worth sticking with that and slotting the extra man in just off the front 2 for the Charlton game.

[sambo]

Feel very sorry for Brown - he tried to toe the ball away, and inevitably studs were shown and the ref walked him. By the letter of the law it's a red, but I can't get the niggling feeling out of my head that it was soft.

Great character tonight. Rhodes helped to change the game - he offered a lot more up top for us, whilst also maybe having the indirect effect of worrying their players.

Onwards and upwards, good win with a lot of character.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Regarding Brown, I think the reason he's being defending is there was clearly no intent whatsoever. He had a bad first touch, tried to win the 50/50 and got there late. If the ball is 2 feet up in the air then it defies human anatomy to try and reach it without showing your studs (unless you intend to boot it directly upwards).

You could tell from the start he was up for it. After we scored he was like a sprinter on the starting blocks when they took the kick-off. So to be honest I've a lot of sympathy for him. Give me a guy who's massively up for every game and gets sent off occasionally than one who regularly hides on the pitch and gives about 75%.

Like it or not we'll need grafters to get us out of the position we are in.

[cesus]

Pretty much chalk and cheese performance between the first and second half. Browns sending off and going down to 10 men may have helped Lambert discover a system and formula which suited the ten men. It was surprising to see Lawrence and Rhodes up front but I thought the narrow three in midfield turned the game in our favour. At last we looked to try and pass our way through the opposition rather than through log, aimless balls. The two centre backs stood up exceptionally well and seemed to thrive on the physical side. I have to say that in my opinion Hanley was going nowhere with his career but he has been really good for the most part of this season. Well done to him for proving a lot of us wrong.

Having seen the Brown challenge again (it was difficult to tell from our angle in real time) I am sure the referee got it right. From his perspective it endangered an opponents safety and was done with excessive force. Intent doesn't come into the referees thinking as the word intentional was taken out of law several years ago. I did feel that there was a challenge on Spurr which ticked the sending off boxes but I was quite a distance away from that . I would be interested to hear the views of anybody who saw it on TV.

We left the ground relieved that we had won and were not on the end of a giant killing and the second half performance gives up some hope.

With regards to the challenge on Spurr I'd say their lad simply "left one on him" late and intentional but probably just a yellow. In the Brown red card I'd say the referee has acted on the injury to the lad, on the BBC replay that was posted on here the ref blows up and doesn't seem too bothered, the Newport lad is in agony pointing at his leg and the ref ramps it up and produces the red not sure of the wording in the rules but endangering an opponent possibly?

[den]

Pretty much chalk and cheese performance between the first and second half. Browns sending off and going down to 10 men may have helped Lambert discover a system and formula which suited the ten men. It was surprising to see Lawrence and Rhodes up front but I thought the narrow three in midfield turned the game in our favour. At last we looked to try and pass our way through the opposition rather than through log, aimless balls. The two centre backs stood up exceptionally well and seemed to thrive on the physical side. I have to say that in my opinion Hanley was going nowhere with his career but he has been really good for the most part of this season. Well done to him for proving a lot of us wrong.

Having seen the Brown challenge again (it was difficult to tell from our angle in real time) I am sure the referee got it right. From his perspective it endangered an opponents safety and was done with excessive force. Intent doesn't come into the referees thinking as the word intentional was taken out of law several years ago. I did feel that there was a challenge on Spurr which ticked the sending off boxes but I was quite a distance away from that . I would be interested to hear the views of anybody who saw it on TV.

We left the ground relieved that we had won and were not on the end of a giant killing and the second half performance gives up some hope.

You're right in saying that intent isn't mentioned in the laws, but neither does it say every dangerous challenge should be a red card. The referee surely has to take intent into consideration though, unless you think every dangerous incident should be a sending off?

For me, Browns foot was high because the ball was high. His foot caused the damage as it came down - which it had to come down. I think it was a well intentioned challenge that accidentally caused damage to his opponent. I also think a yellow for dangerous play would have been enough and as others have said the ref reacted to the extent of the injury - which was wrong.

He also got the penalty and the Newport keeper sending off wrong.

[FGS5635]

The countless slow mo replays from different angles can help change your mind. In normal speed it looked fine. On 1st replay they showed it looked like really soft.

But the more you watched it from different angles the worse the tackle seemed to get. It clearly seemed a red after a few replays.

Real shame for him personally, as he is finally fit and in the team and now he is suspended. By the time he is back we will hopefully have another striker signed and his chance may have gone.

[oldjamfan1]

You're right in saying that intent isn't mentioned in the laws, but neither does it say every dangerous challenge should be a red card. The referee surely has to take intent into consideration though, unless you think every dangerous incident should be a sending off?

For me, Browns foot was high because the ball was high. His foot caused the damage as it came down - which it had to come down. I think it was a well intentioned challenge that accidentally caused damage to his opponent. I also think a yellow for dangerous play would have been enough and as others have said the ref reacted to the extent of the injury - which was wrong.

He also got the penalty and the Newport keeper sending off wrong.

Agree Den. As I posted last night, for me Brown's was a borderline yellow/red and the scales only tipped towards red with the combination of the soft penalty just 90 seconds earlier and the nasty injury to their lad. Without either of those two factors I think he would have received a yellow card. Likewise their keeper was sent off harshly if you go by the letter of the law.

[arbitro]

You're right in saying that intent isn't mentioned in the laws, but neither does it say every dangerous challenge should be a red card. The referee surely has to take intent into consideration though, unless you think every dangerous incident should be a sending off?

For me, Browns foot was high because the ball was high. His foot caused the damage as it came down - which it had to come down. I think it was a well intentioned challenge that accidentally caused damage to his opponent. I also think a yellow for dangerous play would have been enough and as others have said the ref reacted to the extent of the injury - which was wrong.

He also got the penalty and the Newport keeper sending off wrong.

Excessive force? He was nowhere near the ball at the moment of contact. However I was (and still am) of the opinion that the referee was influenced by the severity of the injury. I don't think every incident of dangerous play should be a sending off but the referee has to consider the aspect of endangering an opponents safety. On this basis I don't think any appeal would be successful. I think a Newport appeal would be successful though.

[den]

Excessive force? He was nowhere near the ball at the moment of contact. However I was (and still am) of the opinion that the referee was influenced by the severity of the injury. I don't think every incident of dangerous play should be a sending off but the referee has to consider the aspect of endangering an opponents safety. On this basis I don't think any appeal would be successful. I think a Newport appeal would be successful though.

No, I don't think an appeal would be successful either Arbitro. I didn't see excessive force though. I think it was a dangerous, but honest challenge. It's just a matter of personal interpretation.

[USABlue]

Berg won 1 in 10 and Appleton 3 in 15. Lambert's not much better, so why is he being given time when they weren't? .

Cos he's cost more.

[Lancaster Rover]

Last night epitomised the difference between Lambert and Bowyer for me. To see us down to 10 men for 80 minutes yet line up for the second half wanting to take the game to the opposition was really refreshing, I just cant see Bowyer having done that. I think we would have sat back and hoped to take them to Ewood for a replay with talk of 'great character' giving it a real good go', and various other platitudes.

[JHRover]

Excessive force? He was nowhere near the ball at the moment of contact. However I was (and still am) of the opinion that the referee was influenced by the severity of the injury. I don't think every incident of dangerous play should be a sending off but the referee has to consider the aspect of endangering an opponents safety. On this basis I don't think any appeal would be successful. I think a Newport appeal would be successful though.

It was clearly the case that the referee was influenced by either the severity of the injury/their player's reaction to the foul/somebody radioing him after the event.

If the referee had seen the foul and deemed it serious foul play an immediate red card then he would have done as every other referee does and immediately reach for his pocket and send Brown on his way. Instead he blew for a foul, wandered over, had a look at their player, ushered the physio and stretcher bearer on, and then eventually decided that it was a straight red.

His reaction was such that I had turned to the person behind me and started talking about something unrelated as I thought the most he would get was a yellow card.

[arbitro]

It was clearly the case that the referee was influenced by either the severity of the injury/their player's reaction to the foul/somebody radioing him after the event.

If the referee had seen the foul and deemed it serious foul play an immediate red card then he would have done as every other referee does and immediately reach for his pocket and send Brown on his way. Instead he blew for a foul, wandered over, had a look at their player, ushered the physio and stretcher bearer on, and then eventually decided that it was a straight red.

His reaction was such that I had turned to the person behind me and started talking about something unrelated as I thought the most he would get was a yellow card.

Pretty much how I read it. Part of the referees defusing mechanism is a quick red card. This can often prevent escalation following a dangerous challenge. This referee did neither and I think the decision lost some credibility because of it. Conversely he was too quick with the red card for the home keeper.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Last night epitomised the difference between Lambert and Bowyer for me. To see us down to 10 men for 80 minutes yet line up for the second half wanting to take the game to the opposition was really refreshing, I just cant see Bowyer having done that. I think we would have sat back and hoped to take them to Ewood for a replay with talk of 'great character' giving it a real good go', and various other platitudes.

I agree. Previously we would have tried to hang on for a draw and then conceded towards the end of the game. I don't know what Lambert said at half time but it certainly rallied the troops. The sending off had pushed us back into our old ways, Lambert said and did what had to done. Let's give him some credit for once.

Pretty much how I read it. Part of the referees defusing mechanism is a quick red card. This can often prevent escalation following a dangerous challenge. This referee did neither and I think the decision lost some credibility because of it. Conversely he was too quick with the red card for the home keeper.

He'd already sent one of our guys off very early in the game. It's only human nature to consider evening the score, especially when the game is as good as over.

[JAL]

Regarding Brown, there was clearly no intent whatsoever. He had a bad first touch, tried to win the 50/50 and got there late. If the ball is 2 feet up in the air then it defies human anatomy to try and reach it without showing your studs (unless you intend to boot it directly upwards).

Has he ever had a good first touch ?

How many does he score ?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

It was clearly the case that the referee was influenced by either the severity of the injury/their player's reaction to the foul/somebody radioing him after the event.

I agree it looked like a radio job to me. In the few seconds after the foul the referee's reaction was so muted that I thought Brown would escape even a booking. Then there's a puzzling 20-30 seconds where the ref does nothing except inspect the injured player, then its a red. Think someone definitely said something to him.

The 2 points made above about the ball being nowhere to Brown's foot and it looking terrible in slow motion I think ignores the speed of the professional game somewhat. These guys are like race horses in terms of physique and training, everything they do is incredibly fast. I'd say its very easy in the modern game to look quite late into a challenge and actually be less than half a second late.

[JAL]

It was clearly the case that the referee was influenced by either the severity of the injury/their player's reaction to the foul/somebody radioing him after the event.

If the referee had seen the foul and deemed it serious foul play an immediate red card then he would have done as every other referee does and immediately reach for his pocket and send Brown on his way. Instead he blew for a foul, wandered over, had a look at their player, ushered the physio and stretcher bearer on, and then eventually decided that it was a straight red.

His reaction was such that I had turned to the person behind me and started talking about something unrelated as I thought the most he would get was a yellow card.

What shade of black was the referee wearing ?

[deryck guyler's spoon]

What shade of black was the referee wearing ?

It sometimes difficult to tell whether you are attempting to be enigmatic or you are a genuine whoop ding.

[BiggusLaddus]

These guys are like race horses in terms of physique and training

They are really not. I take the point (and agree with you) that a slow mo often makes things look worse than reality, but a lot of professional footballers are really not all that fit at all.

Compare the physique of a typical top level footballer to other elite sportsmen.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Has he ever had a good first touch ?

How many does he score ?

Which league are we in?

Where have we been finishing in that league in recent seasons?

How much money do we have?

How many fans do we have?

What do those fans contribute financially to the club in season ticket prices?

I'm not saying we can't do better than Brown, but all things being equal (i.e. unless the manager/scouts play a blinder) we can't do much better. Brown has about the appropriate ability for a squad player for a club of Rovers stature. Its not his fault we've got a huge number of fans who are still totally delusional about that stature. The Walker Era will apparently leave a long, long shadow of delusional grandeur amongst our support. I thought 5 years of decline would have got rid of it but maybe it'll take more like 50.

[deryck guyler's spoon]

They are really not. I take the point (and agree with you) that a slow mo often makes things look worse than reality, but a lot of professional footballers are really not all that fit at all.

Compare the physique of a typical top level footballer to other elite sportsmen.

Aussie Rules players are physical specimens but not as ripped as Ronaldo or Bale.