So what lost us 2 points?

[Diatribe]

fair enough. hard to tell not being straight on as thye all looked marginal.

 

[magoo]

We didn't have simple chances but we had enough to put the game to bed. You have to kill teams off because at this level you can't rely on officials to make the right decisions.

 

[Return of the Rev]

Cant leave ourselves open to one bad decision need to kill games off

 

[Thunder Bolt]

We didn't have simple chances but we had enough to put the game to bed. You have to kill teams off because at this level you can't rely on officials to make the right decisions.

I agree and am struggling to think what simple chances we had. There were chances but I wouldn't have called them simple.

 

[Scampi]

We didn't create enough chances. It's not like you can look back and say we missed a shed load against Bournemouth.

 

[tottenhamseagull]

Murrays inability to stay onside? 3 balls through where he can see the last defender and is looking along the line and still strays offside, poor.

 

[Albumen]

Lua Lua's offside run in the first half pissed me off the most out of the chances. The whole of the half to run into and he strays offside. Cmon son, look up.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Lua Lua's offside run in the first half pissed me off the most out of the chances. The whole of the half to run into and he strays offside. Cmon son, look up.

Agreed. His pace means that he shouldn't have to be anywhere near offside, because he can beat the majority of defenders to the ball.

 

[Triggaaar]

Both really. Had Barnes put away any of his chances the penalty wouldn't have mattered

Barnes didn't take his chances well (why try and control it from 6 yards, he could've just sent it goalwards), but he did score 5 mins before time, and he was in line with the last defender. With correct officials, it should've been 2-0 (even with poor finishing).

 

[Silent Bob]

Barnes didn't take his chances well (why try and control it from 6 yards, he could've just sent it goalwards), but he did score 5 mins before time, and he was in line with the last defender. With correct officials, it should've been 2-0 (even with poor finishing).

Watch it on the BBC website, he was off.

Clearly it's a combination of all the factors. We can't just blame the ref because we need to be putting teams away when we are better.

 

[keaton]

What were these easy chances we missed?

Normally i'd say blaming it all the officials is stupid, but we were solid, they had no chances and never looked like scoring till an awful decision was made

 

[Mellotron]

We were "putting them away" though because Bournemouth didn't have a SINGLE chance on goal. We prevented them all match. It was 100% down to the linesman's incorrect decision. 100%.

 

[pasty]

We'd got ourselves into a winning position, and that back 4, well the whole team, sweated their bollocks off for 90 minutes to prevent a goalscoring opportunity for the opposition. Ankergren did not have a save to make. Bournemouth did not had a single effort on goal, or create a chance worthy of that description. Then right at the death, the linesman had a brainstorm and in an instant changed everything, flushing all our efforts down the toilet. And the ref let him do it.

100% officials that cost us. Absolutely 100%.

This.

We were "putting them away" though because Bournemouth didn't have a SINGLE chance on goal. We prevented them all match. It was 100% down to the linesman's incorrect decision. 100%.

And that.

 

[e77]

There has been some horrendous tackles gone unpunished in the Premier League this season and if they are, supposedly, the cream of the refs it doesn't bode well for the rest of football.

 

[Acker79]

I'm of the opinion that no one moment determines a match. Teams can collapse when faced with an injustice, or teams can be inspired to overcome an injustice, going a goal down can make a team realise they need to step up, going a goal up can cause a team to take their foot off the gas, and so on.

No result is ever down to one moment. Thousands of decisions are made from pre-match through to the final whistle, by the players, the coaches, the manager, and the officials, all of which come together to give us the result.

Our failure to create more clear cut chances or convert the ones we had, or the half chances, is part of the reason we didn't win, our quick breaks coming to a halt and giving Bournemouth a chance to get back is part of the reason, bringing everyone back for corners giving us no outlet when we clear it was part of the reason, an interferring linesman is part of the reason, a defender putting his arm up so high is part of the reason, a referee not having the courage of his convictions (either to send symes off for the elbow, or to stick to his initial decision of a free kick outside the box) is part of the reason.

 

[pasty]

Having just read a different thread, I now take back all my ranting and raving about the officials costing us the win on Saturday. The blame lies firmly at the feet of Uncle Spielberg.

Actually I backed Brighton to win

 

[Easy 10]

Whatever way you slice it though Acker, whether we "should" have scored more is irrelevent. We had scored a goal, they hadn't, we were in the final few seconds of the game and a blatantly WRONG decision was made which handed Bournemouth a point.

Not a disputable decision.
Not a debatable decision.
A WRONG decision.

If Bournemouth had scored a legit equaliser, rifled one in from 20 yards, or maybe even scored from the free kick the ref originally gave, THEN we can bemoan not putting them away and blame ourselves. But to be robbed of the win by a patently incorrect decision is much, much harder to take. Lua Lua's goal and that decision were the two defining moments of that match, and are the events which exclusively shaped the scoreline.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Whatever way you slice it though Acker, whether we "should" have scored more is irrelevent. We had scored a goal, they hadn't, we were in the final few seconds of the game and a blatantly WRONG decision was made which handed Bournemouth a point.

Not a disputable decision.
Not a debatable decision.
A WRONG decision.

If Bournemouth had scored a legit equaliser, rifled one in from 20 yards, or maybe even scored from the free kick the ref originally gave, THEN we can bemoan not putting them away and blame ourselves. But to be robbed of the win by a patently incorrect decision is much, much harder to take. Lua Lua's goal and that decision were the two defining moments of that match, and are the events which exclusively shaped the scoreline.

Correct. It was the only shot that Bournemouth had on target throughout the whole game.

 

[Acker79]

Decision 1 - The ref to listen to his linesman and give a penalty - This decision was wrong. It cost us.
Decision 2 - Barnes, to chest the ball down and seemingly try to dribble it into the net instead of heading it - This decision was wrong. It cost us.
Decision 3 - Lualua holding onto the ball and losing possession instead of playing it through quickly to Murray/Barnes. This decision was wrong, it cost us.

And so on.

These decisions all cost us. If barnes had headed the ball instead, we'd've been 2-0 up. If lualua played murray through on goal one on one we'd be two up. (Granted, they might not have scored, but Bournemouth might have scored the free kick).

I can't say one decision, a decision as equally wrong as the others, bears more responsibility than those other decisions.

So, we were 1-0 up when one bad decision was made, we were stuck on 0-0 when some of the others were made, preventing us taking the lead earlier. We were 1-0 up when some of the decisions prevented us going 2-0 up. To me, it doesn't matter what the score is at the time, what matters is that the decisions were wrong, and what the end result, at the final whistle is.

 

[Easy 10]

Decision 1 - The ref to listen to his linesman and give a penalty - This decision was wrong. It cost us.
Decision 2 - Barnes, to chest the ball down and seemingly try to dribble it into the net instead of heading it - This decision was wrong. It cost us.
Decision 3 - Lualua holding onto the ball and losing possession instead of playing it through quickly to Murray/Barnes. This decision was wrong, it cost us.

And so on.

These decisions all cost us. If barnes had headed the ball instead, we'd've been 2-0 up. If lualua played murray through on goal one on one we'd be two up. (Granted, they might not have scored, but Bournemouth might have scored the free kick).

I can't say one decision, a decision as equally wrong as the others, bears more responsibility than those other decisions.

So, we were 1-0 up when one bad decision was made, we were stuck on 0-0 when some of the others were made, preventing us taking the lead earlier. We were 1-0 up when some of the decisions prevented us going 2-0 up. To me, it doesn't matter what the score is at the time, what matters is that the decisions were wrong, and what the end result, at the final whistle is.

I can't have that.

Barnes didn't DECIDE to fluff those half-chances. Lua Lua didn't DECIDE to lose possession. Those are just moments, amongst hundreds and thousands of moments, that happen during the ebb and flow of a game. Even if we'd missed a penalty in that 2nd half to go 2-0 up, it wouldn't alter the fact that a concious, deliberate, incorrect decision OUTSIDE the laws of the game was made by the officials in the dying seconds.

THATS what cost us the game. A game which by rights, and if the rules of the game had been correctly applied by the officials, we'd done enough to win.