v Norwich City (a) - 5/11/23

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

When you start to invent things it diminishes your argument. 

 

He did it at least on 2 major occasions today, once for the goal and once leading to another goal at the end. He also did it a couple of times on Wednesday. Twice a game is regularly.

He had made 3 saves aside from totally routine ones that I can remember, the one from the header, the one v Cardiff and the one v Swansea. I think all 3 you would be disappointed to see any respectable keeper concede, id say they were all good saves. Hes made 3 major errors leading to goals and quite a few others that he has been lucky with.

21 minutes ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

Well ideally I wouldn’t have had pears as number 1, I wouldn’t have gave him a contract and I would have at least asked the question if anyone would pick him up- sure Tony might have been persuaded, as it was we pissed off our best keeper and self inflicted our own demise 

there is usually a taker for a keeper , we have had some dog awful ones and they have always found a club 

But Kaminski had a Premier League team actively wanting him and willing to bid 3m, and he would have been on higher wages with owners focusing more on clawing back money than any on field ambition. And he actively wanted to go. So its not a case of which we would prefer to see leave.

[joey_big_nose]

22 minutes ago, tomphil said:

It's hard to get to grips with seeing as we've had a long line of good steady goalkeepers in general up until a decade ago. No surprises why that changed but i thought we'd struck lucky again finally with TK and he'd be here until his late 30's joining other legendary Rovers stoppers.

Sadly and i'm saying it again for the umpteenth time we are a development club now and this is as good as it'll get when they scour around for cheap wage players.

At the moment 3 of our former keepers are playing in the Premier League and are highly rated (Raya, Steel and Kaminski) so we've obviously had talent in the period. Agree though that apart from Kaminski's solid spell it's not been convincing since we were relegated from the Premier League.

With the keeper situation - it's pretty obvious that the number 1 attribute we are looking for is a keeper who is very good with his feet and we are willing to put up with a lot to get that. I guess that excludes the vast majority of keepers, so the pool we are fishing in is very small. Indeed I think Kaminski was dropped because he wasn't good enough with his feet. I wonder if big brad would have made the grade?

It does seem strange. But JDT seems to know what he's doing, and that's the call. And it doesn't seem to just be us... good keepers all over are being dropped in favour of younger "sweeper keepers". Would love to see some good analysis on why exactly it's so crucial to have a sweeper keeper in today's game? As the trade off of passing a bit better but seeming an absolute bomb scare on crosses does not make sense to me. But presumably it makes sense from an angle that the mere spectator struggles to appreciate?

[chaddyrovers]

33 minutes ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

Would Luton have been in for him had he not been our backup and seemingly available 

Yes. They are PL club and had money to spend and he wanted PL football. Just took ages to agree a fee

[roversfan99]

We will never know exactly why Tomasson opted not to drop Pears last season. Did he simply rate Pears higher? Or prefer his supposed abaility on the ball over what Kaminski gave us? Im not convinced by either of those, Kaminski had been preferred before that and was about to start the season as number 1. Was it because he knew Kaminski was likely to leave? He still selected Morton and Brereton knowing they would leave so I doubt that. I personally think it was probably an ill judged decision but based on not wanting to drop Pears (which would potentially have been seen as harsh as at the time he hadnt done too badly, albeit he wasnt winning us points like Kaminski had done prior to injury) potentially causing problems in the dressing room, and also with Kaminski potentially being seen as rusty having missed a couple of months with injury, with it being quite late in the season. 

Luton cant be blamed either for messing us around, im sure we have also like any club put in lower initial bids for players to try and get prices down, its only normal. We got ourselves our supposed top target still, unfortunately he has struggled since he started playing.

[jim mk2]

Steele is the big surprise for me. At the time he ranked alongside Barton, Fettis and a few others as one of the worst goalkeepers I'd seen in a Rovers shirt. Awful. I still find it hard to believe he's now a first team regular at a ambitious club like Brighton - testament to their coaching maybe or the poor management at BRFC. 

[ageoftherover]

Just watched the highlights on Norwichs channel.

You miss a lot of a keepers performance with just highlights, but of the 3 moments I saw I though Leo did fine in all of them. One good save from a header from 6 yards out. The goal was unlucky, you're always going to struggle to hold a shot like that and it just happened to fall to the wrong player. The shot he "spilled" was very tough, with an opposition player blocking his sight and potentially deflecting it. He's made some howlers but none of those incidents fall into that category for me.

Goals were great bits of work. Dolan, Sammie and Moran with some sublime interplay for all 3. Great to see.

Thought the red card was fair, particularly in real time. Not sure Wharton gets any ball there, even with a slowed down replay and there's no question he cleans the player up. We'd be livid if that went against us.

[philipl]

I watched Rovers TV in the first half and when the signal froze a Sky feed in the second half.

The commentaries couldn't have been more different.  

Tronstad ran the first half and disappeared in the second but actually had the same involvement in both halves!

It was also very clear the Sky boys have totally written Wahlstedt off as a useless flapper of a keeper. I think that is on the unfair side but he has to ally his positional sense to making the ball stick. 

ageoftherover contribution above is very much how I saw the game too. 

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by philipl

[wilsdenrover]

9 hours ago, neophox said:

Hopefully Hayden is ready for the biggest game this season on Friday!

Why would PNE be our biggest game? 

They are nobodies.

[Tom]

To lay any blame on Leo for the goal is harsh, there’s players literally anywhere he parries that and it’s tough to hold and near impossible to turn out for a corner 

As an integral part of a defence in a 3-1 win with 10 men he’s done his job; the question marks today were two crosses one he didn’t claim and got flattened the other when he came when he shouldn’t have

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, Tom said:

To lay any blame on Leo for the goal is harsh, there’s players literally anywhere he parries that and it’s tough to hold and near impossible to turn out for a corner 

As an integral part of a defence in a 3-1 win with 10 men he’s done his job; the question marks today were two crosses one he didn’t claim and got flattened the other when he came when he shouldn’t have

I get complaints about that too 😄

[arbitro]

11 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Would you be appealing the red card if you were JDT ?

Definitely. The contact on the Norwich player was as a consequence of Scott sliding in to win the ball. If he caught the man first I would accept the decision but he didn't. The contact is inevitable but contact alone doesn't make it a foul.

I made some enquiries on the way home !set night and Rovers have to have the appeal in today by noon and pay a deposit to do so (I really hope our financial situation doesn't preclude this). The appeal goes to three members of a panel of ex players and managers. There is a pool of these people and three are selected secretly and randomly. If the vote is 2:1 in the players favour the sending off is rescinded and no suspension to be served. Likewise 2:1 against and Scott will get a one match ban.

[Mattyblue]

Didn’t the rule change a few years ago that says it isn’t a red card if a genuine attempt to play the ball or not a handball in the box?

Or is that only for fouls in the box due to the ‘double jeopardy’ thing that used to lead to a red card and a penalty?

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Definitely. The contact on the Norwich player was as a consequence of Scott sliding in to win the ball. If he caught the man first I would accept the decision but he didn't. The contact is inevitable but contact alone doesn't make it a foul.

I made some enquiries on the way home !set night and Rovers have to have the appeal in today by noon and pay a deposit to do so (I really hope our financial situation doesn't preclude this). The appeal goes to three members of a panel of ex players and managers. There is a pool of these people and three are selected secretly and randomly. If the vote is 2:1 in the players favour the sending off is rescinded and no suspension to be served. Likewise 2:1 against and Scott will get a one match ban.

How much is the deposit?

[lraC]

17 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I get complaints about that too 😄

I got an invite to the annual premature ejaculation society dinner dance and I called the venue beforehand to check the dress code.

 

I was told to just come in my pants. 🙂 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, Mattyblue said:

Didn’t the rule change a few years ago that says it isn’t a red card if a genuine attempt to play the ball or not a handball in the box?

Or is that only for fouls in the box due to the ‘double jeopardy’ thing that used to lead to a red card and a penalty?

It’s just in the box:

DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO)

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off.

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, Mattyblue said:

Didn’t the rule change a few years ago that says it isn’t a red card if a genuine attempt to play the ball or not a handball in the box?

Or is that only for fouls in the box due to the ‘double jeopardy’ thing that used to lead to a red card and a penalty?

It only applies in the penalty area as you say and the referee has to determine whether it was a genuine challenge for the ball. If it is considered cynical or reckless then it's still a penalty and red card.

[lraC]

6 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Definitely. The contact on the Norwich player was as a consequence of Scott sliding in to win the ball. If he caught the man first I would accept the decision but he didn't. The contact is inevitable but contact alone doesn't make it a foul.

I made some enquiries on the way home !set night and Rovers have to have the appeal in today by noon and pay a deposit to do so (I really hope our financial situation doesn't preclude this). The appeal goes to three members of a panel of ex players and managers. There is a pool of these people and three are selected secretly and randomly. If the vote is 2:1 in the players favour the sending off is rescinded and no suspension to be served. Likewise 2:1 against and Scott will get a one match ban.

I would imagine anyone who has played or managed at a decent level who vote against that being a red.

In real time, I didn't think it was and now that I have seen a fee replays, it definitely wasn't.

Is the ref allowed to hold his hands up and admit it was a mistake, to help the situation?

[arbitro]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

How much is the deposit?

It used to be £500 when I was active but I'm not sure now. If you win the appeal then it's refunded.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, arbitro said:

It used to be £500 when I was active but I'm not sure now. If you win the appeal then it's refunded.

Thank you.

When you were active did the panel seek your input on any of your decisions which were appealed?*

* this question is in no way an assumption that you got any decisions wrong 😄

[arbitro]

Just now, lraC said:

I would imagine anyone who has played or managed at a decent level who vote against that being a red.

In real time, I didn't think it was and now that I have seen a fee replays, it definitely wasn't.

Is the ref allowed to hold his hands up and admit it was a mistake, to help the situation?

I think ex players would look at the challenge and say it was a good tackle and that gives me hope. The referee is allowed to admit he was wrong but that hasn't happened for years as the arrogance of most of them won't allow them to admit it. 

[arbitro]

Just now, wilsdenrover said:

Thank you.

When you were active did the panel seek your input on any of your decisions which were appealed?*

* this question is in no way an assumption that you got any decisions wrong 😄

After the report is submitted there is no referee input. If he was to admit he was  wrong the report would still be made but with an admission that they got it wrong. I did get some wrong (three from memory) and told the FA. The players concerned were exonerated.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, arbitro said:

After the report is submitted there is no referee input. If he was to admit he was  wrong the report would still be made but with an admission that they got it wrong. I did get some wrong (three from memory) and told the FA. The players concerned were exonerated.

Interesting - how long did you have to submit your report?

I’m wondering whether it was sufficient time to ‘reflect’ on the decisions you’d made.

Sorry about all the questions!

[Mattyblue]

9 minutes ago, arbitro said:

It only applies in the penalty area as you say and the referee has to determine whether it was a genuine challenge for the ball. If it is considered cynical or reckless then it's still a penalty and red card.

Ban it is then.

[Parsonblue]

Long day yesterday with a 4am start, but a fantastic performance and result.  A real gave of two halves in terms of performance.  First half we played some wonderful football and in the second, when we went down to ten men we showed grit and character.  Everything you want from a team.

I thought Szmodics, Dolan and Moran were superb as an attacking three in terms of their movement and eye for the pass - not to mention the finishing of Szmodics and Dolan.

My only concern remains the goalkeeping position.  Leo looks a bundle of nerves on crosses and too many of his saves bounce off him into dangerous areas.  I think this is going to become an increasingly problematic position for Rovers unless we can bring in a relatively cheap and experienced 'keeper.  At the moment, neither of our senior 'keepers looks the part for me. 

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

Interesting - how long did you have to submit your report?

I’m wondering whether it was sufficient time to ‘reflect’ on the decisions you’d made.

Sorry about all the questions!

Whilst I was active it was a written report and had to be sent within a couple of days. A few years before I retired the caution and send off details had to be telephoned through to PA Copy within a few hours. It became more difficult then to admit any wrongdoings before the report went in. I think that's why they have improved the appeals process and reduced the timelines. If we do appeal the result should be known by Wednesday at the latest.