Yep. That.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
So what lost us 2 points?
- Thread starter Husty
- Start date
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I'll acknowledge that our failure to score another goal ended up as being a FACTOR in us ending up with another draw. But it was not the REASON.
The REASON we ended up with a draw was directly down to the stinking rank incompetence of the officials.
The REASON we ended up with a draw was directly down to the stinking rank incompetence of the officials.
100,000% correct. If they scored a justified goal then fair enough. But they didn't.
They didn't decide to fluff it, or lose possession, but Barnes did decide to chest it down instead of head it, LuaLua did decide to try to take on one more person. This resulted in a fluffed shot and lost possession.
A wrong decision is a wrong decision whether it follows the laws of the game or not.
If the rules of the game had been applied, both teams would be down to ten men (Symes for elbowing Elphick, Murray for elbowing their player) Murray would never have been there to fall over at the merest touch, and even if you argue he wouldn't have gone because his elbow was accidental, so if he was there to throw himself to the floor, the ref wouldn't have given the free kick because it wasn't a foul so we'd've never been 1-0 up in the first place.
Silent Bob
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Dec 6, 2004
- 22,172
The point is if you only have a 1 goal lead you're leaving yourself open to losing the points based on one moment, whether that be by poor refereeing or by the other team improving (Tranmere), or the keeper cocking up a simple catch, whatever. If we'd taken our chances the ref could still have given a wrong decision, all it would have meant was one less goal on the goal difference.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Not really.
There is a difference between an official making a wrong decision as regards the LAWS of the game, and a player making a "wrong decision" in the way he plays the game, ie what he decides to do in any given situation. What the player decides to do may result in a disappointing outcome from our point of view (ie the chance is missed), but it does not lead to an INCORRECT outcome.
What the officials did in awarding a penalty when the ball was outside the box was a WRONG decision within the laws of the game. A wrong call. Just like the dunderhead who gave Rochdale a penalty when the ball was dead. Its a wrong decision, which has meant an incorrect outcome to the match. Its directly affected the result.
Well, these instances are down to the refs interpretation, and yes, it can be argued he got them wrong as well - but its not quite as cut and dried or as directly result-altering as a horrendously fouled-up LINE call wrongly giving Bournemouth a penalty to score with the last kick of the game.
Sorry, but I can't agree with that.*
*it wasn't the last kick of the game. You may recall that in the remaining seconds AFTER the goal, he manged to award them another soft free kick just outside the box, to give B'muff the chance to steal all three points...
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
That thought occurred to me at the time, considering he had reffed Bournemouth twice before. They won both games.
I think Bournemouth could still be playing now and not got a shot on target if it hadn't been for that penalty.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Good points.
And guess who was in possession and on the attack when he blew for full time...
And guess who was in possession and on the attack when he blew for full time...
Tony Meolas Loan Spell
Slut Faced Whores
It was the QUICKEST 4 mins of injury time ever.
There's no such thing as an incorrect outcome. If there was a right and wrong outcome, the FA would be able to, when faced with mistakes such as this, be able to say "the correct result is 1-0 brighton, so the records will be changed".
The problem being, there's no way of proving that what we got from the wrong decision wouldn't have happened with the right decision. If he'd've given a freekick and they scored from it the game ends 1-1. It wouldn't be the "incorrect outcome", would it? The "correct outcome" could have always been 1-1, they just needed a helping hand from crappy officiating to attain it.
Perhaps it's unfair on the balance of play, perhaps it's controversial, but it isn't 'incorrect' because there's no 'correct'. There is only what is.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
There absolutely IS a 'correct' - he made the correct decision the first time round, but was then talked out of it by the lino. As you say, theres a (small) chance that they might have banged in that free kick for 1-1, and had THAT happened, we could have absolutely no complaints. We'll never know for definite.
But it doesn't alter the fact that as a direct result of a patently incorrect decision being given, the referee effectively awarded Bournemouth a draw on a plate and materially and directly altered the result of the game. It was a catastrophic error of judgement.
Tony Meolas Loan Spell
Slut Faced Whores
If Bmth has scored from the free kick I certainly would have been disappointed but can honestly say that having seen it happen soooooo many times I probably would have shrugged my shoulders and yep rued the fact we couldnt "kill them off".
But to be anally gang raped by the officials thats a different story altogether.
Its not even if it was a handball well inside the box and a 50/50, or a tackle where a pen is given and replays showed they dived or whatever. I would even have taken that. Even the Rochdale game where the pen was given and then the dead ball debate, my first reaction was it was a penalty because it happened clearly INSIDE the box.
It was completely, utterly and unequivocably the WRONG decision and we was mugged. No debate, no question. Even worse that the ref gave the right decision then changed his mind by consulting a linesman FURTHER away!
But to be anally gang raped by the officials thats a different story altogether.
Its not even if it was a handball well inside the box and a 50/50, or a tackle where a pen is given and replays showed they dived or whatever. I would even have taken that. Even the Rochdale game where the pen was given and then the dead ball debate, my first reaction was it was a penalty because it happened clearly INSIDE the box.
It was completely, utterly and unequivocably the WRONG decision and we was mugged. No debate, no question. Even worse that the ref gave the right decision then changed his mind by consulting a linesman FURTHER away!
There's a correct decision, I'm not disputing the ref got it wrong, but there isn't a correct outcome (i.e. a correct final score) there is only the actual outcome.
It awarded them a goal on a plate (well, an approximately 75% chance of a goal, which they converted). That the goal was an equaliser was due to our inability to convert our chances, or squandering the opportunities we had to create more clear cut opportunities prior to the officials' errors.
Christ, how can you be talking about this for so long.
1) The referee made a shocking mistake.
2) We should've tucked away at least one of the two or three additional chances away.
3) 2) is true because of the possibilty of 1) or some other method of the other team scoring a lucky goal at the death. Unfortunately, we've suffered this two or three times already this season and it has cost four or six points.
1) The referee made a shocking mistake.
2) We should've tucked away at least one of the two or three additional chances away.
3) 2) is true because of the possibilty of 1) or some other method of the other team scoring a lucky goal at the death. Unfortunately, we've suffered this two or three times already this season and it has cost four or six points.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
You're right Sim, I'm bored now.
kevtherev
Well-known member
1-0 up is never safe. Officials will always make mistakes, sometime for us and sometimes against us. With the chances we have been creating lately, we need to be putting games to bed, long before 90mins, therefore making officals decisions irrelevant.