v PNE (a) - 22/09/2024

[only2garners]

2 hours ago, rigger said:

Exactly the same. " Good save, bad miss". 

That’s the whole point, it wasn’t a good save, he just got away with an airy push into the danger zone.

. 

[rigger]

3 minutes ago, only2garners said:

That’s the whole point, it wasn’t a good save, he just got away with an airy push into the danger zone.

. 

The ball didn't go into the net. In my opinion that is a good save

[only2garners]

1 minute ago, rigger said:

The ball didn't go into the net. In my opinion that is a good save

I give up. If I could be arsed I could look back at countless times when Pears (or other goalkeepers) have been blamed for poor saves and particularly punches that we have got away with because they were not finished off. Suggesting any save is automatically good if there is no goal is frankly beyond parody.

[arbitro]

According to the process in the FA regulations any allegations of unseen incidents of violent conduct in games played on a Saturday or Sunday are investigated and the player concerned should be charged by 6 pm on the Tuesday if there is a case to answer. Having read this I'm starting to think that Nobbers Transylvanian international has got off with it. If there is a case to answer a three man panel are asked for their opinion and the punishment is decided from there.

[Upside Down]

12 minutes ago, arbitro said:

According to the process in the FA regulations any allegations of unseen incidents of violent conduct in games played on a Saturday or Sunday are investigated and the player concerned should be charged by 6 pm on the Tuesday if there is a case to answer. Having read this I'm starting to think that Nobbers Transylvanian international has got off with it. If there is a case to answer a three man panel are asked for their opinion and the punishment is decided from there.

Do you mean to say the football authorities are completely incompetent and are not enforcing their own rules and standards?

What is the world coming to!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[arbitro]

7 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

Do you mean to say the football authorities are completely incompetent and are not enforcing their own rules and standards?

What is the world coming to!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Taking my Rovers had off it's as crystal clear when he has done but the FA have to abide by their own regulations however open ended they are.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/rules-of-the-association/schedule-a-to-d---standard-directions.ashx&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjSw8nPyN2IAxWGaEEAHXXhIPgQFnoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw0OnH-_kOG8gdl3MpL3aA7W

[windymiller7]

That's a bit concerning! How much evidence do they need? video of his teeth actually sinking into Beck's shoulder? In a court of law it would definitely come into the 'beyond reasonable doubt' category.

If the FA don't do anything I'd suggest a report to Lancs plod should go in.

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, windymiller7 said:

That's a bit concerning! How much evidence do they need? video of his teeth actually sinking into Beck's shoulder? In a court of law it would definitely come into the 'beyond reasonable doubt' category.

If the FA don't do anything I'd suggest a report to Lancs plod should go in.

I'm hoping that the FA's own timescales aren't applied due to the unusual circumstances. But as ever with the FA you just don't know. 

[windymiller7]

6 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I'm hoping that the FA's own timescales aren't applied due to the unusual circumstances. But as ever with the FA you just don't know. 

Yeah, I hope so too. It would help if they'd put a statement out to that effect though if that's the case, but, as you say, this is the FA we're talking about here.

I suppose the only real timescale that matters is when Nobend next play which is, I presume, where the 6pm Tuesday deadline comes from for weekend games to ensure that a player is sanctioned before he has the chance to play again (ie a Tues 7:30pm KO)

[lraC]

11 hours ago, only2garners said:

I give up. If I could be arsed I could look back at countless times when Pears (or other goalkeepers) have been blamed for poor saves and particularly punches that we have got away with because they were not finished off. Suggesting any save is automatically good if there is no goal is frankly beyond parody.

There are routine saves and good saves, in almost every game.

When I pass back is miss kicked by the goal keeper and it rolls into the net, that's an error and not a bad save and as we all know this has happened to Pears.

[windymiller7]

10 minutes ago, windymiller7 said:

Yeah, I hope so too. It would help if they'd put a statement out to that effect though if that's the case, but, as you say, this is the FA we're talking about here.

I suppose the only real timescale that matters is when Nobend next play which is, I presume, where the 6pm Tuesday deadline comes from for weekend games to ensure that a player is sanctioned before he has the chance to play again (ie a Tues 7:30pm KO)

A bit odd quoting myself, but anyway......just having a mooch online & I can't see confirmation of the suspension for Greenwood for his red card on Sun. 🤞

[MarkBRFC]

11 hours ago, only2garners said:

I give up. If I could be arsed I could look back at countless times when Pears (or other goalkeepers) have been blamed for poor saves and particularly punches that we have got away with because they were not finished off. Suggesting any save is automatically good if there is no goal is frankly beyond parody.

A goalkeepers job is to keep the ball out of the net by any means possible, sometimes they have to parry it out into the danger area, you are then relying on your defenders to react quicker than the forwards.

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, MarkBRFC said:

A goalkeepers job is to keep the ball out of the net by any means possible, sometimes they have to parry it out into the danger area, you are then relying on your defenders to react quicker than the forwards.

That save v Bristol was a prime example.

A good reflex save on the line stopping a goal bound shot but the ball naturally goes straight back in the danger zone and needs a superb defensive block to stop a highly likely goal.

It's called teamwork.

Had it gone in the ghouls would no doubt have been all over the keeper blaming him which would've been beyond numb but that's where we are at with Pears in a lot of eyes, he's like a condemned man.

[Exiled_Rover]

4 hours ago, arbitro said:

According to the process in the FA regulations any allegations of unseen incidents of violent conduct in games played on a Saturday or Sunday are investigated and the player concerned should be charged by 6 pm on the Tuesday if there is a case to answer. Having read this I'm starting to think that Nobbers Transylvanian international has got off with it. If there is a case to answer a three man panel are asked for their opinion and the punishment is decided from there.

If the FA refuse to charge him then Rovers' next step is to approach the police imo.

[MarkBRFC]

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

That save v Bristol was a prime example.

A good reflex save on the line stopping a goal bound shot but the ball naturally goes straight back in the danger zone and needs a superb defensive block to stop a highly likely goal.

It's called teamwork.

Had it gone in the ghouls would no doubt have been all over the keeper blaming him which would've been beyond numb but that's where we are at with Pears in a lot of eyes, he's like a condemned man.

Yep, this isn't aimed at @only2garners at all it's just him who I quoted, but there are far too many goalkeeping experts everywhere that have never stood in a goal in there life and have no idea what it's like.

There was a documentary on BT Sport called "The Special 1" about goalkeepers not that long ago, told from the eyes of goalkeepers who have experienced highs and low's, think Rob Green was heavily involved from memory. It's a really good watch.

[arbitro]

2 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

If the FA refuse to charge him then Rovers' next step is to approach the police imo.

If he isn't charged by the FA it just sends out the wrong message. Whilst not entirely conclusive his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence. If it went to the police I'm pretty sure they would be happy enough to charge him given the evidence but as you say let's see what happens with the FA first.

[MarkBRFC]

2 minutes ago, arbitro said:

If he isn't charged by the FA it just sends out the wrong message. Whilst not entirely conclusive his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence. If it went to the police I'm pretty sure they would be happy enough to charge him given the evidence but as you say let's see what happens with the FA first.

Don't really agree with that, would hopefully show the FA up for how incompetent they are.

[arbitro]

6 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

Don't really agree with that, would hopefully show the FA up for how incompetent they are.

It would mean for me that he has got away with a vile act and there hasn't been a deterrent. The worry for me now is that nothing has been said either way. 

[rigger]

15 hours ago, only2garners said:

That’s the whole point, it wasn’t a good save, he just got away with an airy push into the danger zone.

. 

In that case, with your reasoning, the save Pears made from Twine against Bristol wasn't a good save. But I would say it was.

[NeilInBristol]

Just did a bit of googling...

 

Teams are better at playing with a man down that they used to be.

(Comparison 1990-2000 Vs 2000- currently)

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/feb/11/the-question-teams-better-10-men

[ABBEY]

makes it OK then 👌 🙄 👀 

[roversfan99]

A myth that is sometimes peddled is that its more difficult to play against 10 men.

If you have an extra player for a significant period of time, you have such a big advantage. If you fail to capitalise, especially not creating a chance of note then it has to be a huge disappointment.

On the flip side, we had 10 men against Burnley for half an hour and did very well to keep them at bay, again with minimal chances created.

[MarkBRFC]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

A myth that is sometimes peddled is that its more difficult to play against 10 men.

If you have an extra player for a significant period of time, you have such a big advantage. If you fail to capitalise, especially not creating a chance of note then it has to be a huge disappointment.

On the flip side, we had 10 men against Burnley for half an hour and did very well to keep them at bay, again with minimal chances created.

So were we disappointing against PNE, and did well against Burnley, or did PNE do well against us, and Burnley were disappointing against us?

[47er]

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

A myth that is sometimes peddled is that its more difficult to play against 10 men.

If you have an extra player for a significant period of time, you have such a big advantage. If you fail to capitalise, especially not creating a chance of note then it has to be a huge disappointment.

On the flip side, we had 10 men against Burnley for half an hour and did very well to keep them at bay, again with minimal chances created.

The answer is good widemen and we've lacked them for years.

[Mattyblue]

It is a football cliche, but there is a kernel of truth in it. If a side goes to 10 men and then parks the bus for half an hour when before they were attempting to win the game, it can be difficult to break them down as their whole mentality has changed.