Brief Synopsis!!! (Bristol Rovers)

[Metal Green Mickey]

Ness was pedestrian the first few games.

The transformation though in him as given Fox (and Sarcevic) a new lease of life. If you look at the way he plays he doesn’t really have much pace. Yet he just keeps on going and for me he has that “Nalis” calmness about him. He wins the ball back and presses opposition players but one of the features l like about him, which has added some spark to the midfield, is that he can shoot.

My only issue/worry with him is his injury record and you wonder if you can get a full season out of this guy.

Argyle though still need some pace in the CM positions. If they are to keep Fox/Ness/Sarcevic they need someone who can motor around that pitch which would add something to me they clearly are missing.

 

[memory man]

Great report Fay Green Belly-well written and made me chuckle.

Thanks old gooner and others. Glad you think my rambling literature has improved.
Still a struggle to make it readable at times though. I aint no natural at it thats for sure.
I really enjoy getting whats in my head down quick as i know itll all be gone in a couple of days.
Love trying to capture the argyle "footie experience"in words.
Even if it seems more wierdsmith than wordsmith at times. :greensmile:

I only read it for the first time this morning but I must add my congratulations and thanks for your regular and excellent contributions. It is a real art to write as you speak and to both inform and amuse at the same time. As an exile I look forward to it every week - although to be fair I also look forward to PL2's

 

[esmer]

Great report Fay Green Belly-well written and made me chuckle.

Thanks old gooner and others. Glad you think my rambling literature has improved.
Still a struggle to make it readable at times though. I aint no natural at it thats for sure.
I really enjoy getting whats in my head down quick as i know itll all be gone in a couple of days.
Love trying to capture the argyle "footie experience"in words.
Even if it seems more wierdsmith than wordsmith at times. :greensmile:

Congratulations, excellent read.

 

[esmer]

An additional comment on the Rovers second goal , it came direct from Carey “ fluffing” an easy 2 on 1 chance with Lameiras which would have given Lameiras a clear shooting chance from a decent angle . Instead he delayed , got robbed , they went straight down our end and scored . A good chance of 2-1 to us became 2-1 to them through sloppy play from 2 players . If Carey gets the pass right they don’t score that goal .

DA certainly gave them a rocket at half time . The chasing down went up at least 2 levels with Carey , Taylor and Lameiras leading the way .

Looking at the pens on Sky both seem a bit fortunate to me . The first one definitely a dive . Second one , the defender isn’t looking at Songo but has his arm out . It’s diffusion to tell whether Songo just ran into his arm or moved it to grab Songo . However given the ref gave the pen and booked him tgdvref must have been clear .

Masaki was looking for it and went down easily but clear penalty for me, the defender mistimed his challenge and didn't get the ball. The second one looked pretty clear cut as well, the defender raised his arm to stop Singo'o getting in front of him and caught Singo'o in the face. On another day another referee nay not have given it but penalty it was.

 

[davie nine]

Great report Fay Green Belly-well written and made me chuckle.

Thanks old gooner and others. Glad you think my rambling literature has improved.
Still a struggle to make it readable at times though. I aint no natural at it thats for sure.
I really enjoy getting whats in my head down quick as i know itll all be gone in a couple of days.
Love trying to capture the argyle "footie experience"in words.
Even if it seems more wierdsmith than wordsmith at times. :greensmile:

Congratulations, excellent read.

Yes, keep it going fgb, detailed and humorous to read.

 

[BstokeGreen]

Agree with most others - how FGB described the game is how I saw it. However just to give my view from block 4 on three things where there seems to be differing views.

Firstly, on the opening Gas goal, I was sat with a direct straight line view from post to where the ball was placed for the free kick. I commented to my mate next to me that I thought Matthews had lined his wall up too far to the right and assumed Matthews would cover that post. When the free kick was taken, their player didn't need to curl it, he literally just passed it into the net, what was crucial though was Matthews took a massive side step to the right just as the kick was taken and that meant he couldn't get back across to make the save in time. Give it to the Gas player for placing the pass accurately enough to find the 1 foot gap but he didn't have to do anything special, so definitely a Matthews error there.

Second, on the booing, I definitely heard it. It seemed to come from my right which would suggest blocks 1 or 2 or maybe into the corner with the Mayflower, however it was muted and stopped very quickly when whoever was doing it realised no one else was joining in.

Final point, the Makosi pen. As a referee I see a lot of incidents like this and my take is that yes, there was contact and however Makosi was definitely on his way down as the contact was made. Technically as contact was made, it is a penalty, however, I really do not like how players start falling to make sure they do go down when the challenge comes in. In the middle of the park, Makosi would have stayed strong and held the opponent off. When I see an opposition do it I get annoyed and can see how rovers would have been aggrieved. This is what football has become whether we like it or not.

Yes technically very scrappy however it was a great game of football and even better result and made my 5 hour slog back home much more palatable!

 

[Biggs]

BG, I’m curious about how you saw the Makasi penalty as a ref.

You said that ‘technically as contact was made it is a penalty’.

Surely contact alone isn’t enough for it to be a penalty, it has to actually be a foul? I also get annoyed when I see this, and even more annoyed at the inevitable ‘entitled to go down’ comments.

 

[DavePa]

Masaki was looking for it and went down easily but clear penalty for me, the defender mistimed his challenge and didn't get the ball. The second one looked pretty clear cut as well, the defender raised his arm to stop Singo'o getting in front of him and caught Singo'o in the face. On another day another referee nay not have given it but penalty it was.

I fully agree with Esmer's opinions on both penalties. I'm able to play the youtube highlights in slow motion, the first was when their no 25 tried to kick the ball away from our no 14 who was coming through at speed towards goal , no 25 mistimed his tackle, missed the ball and kicked our players boot as he came through with the ball under control.

The second was when their number 3 swung his left arm once backward as Songo came through for the cross then swung his arm a second time backwards and caught Songo across his head as Songo was going for the ball.

The ref has been getting a hard time on the Rovers forum but the slow motion replays show he was right in both decisions. Not that it matters a bit whether he was right or wrong of course, we got the three points!!

 

[Cobi Budge]

The Rovers forum makes for amusing reading, apparently we're a team full of cheats who conned the ref into giving us the win, the cheating was 'as bad as watching Argentina', we're also a poor team low on quality, and Derek Adams should be investigated by the FA for waving at them :lol:

 

[Willis88]

The Rovers forum makes for amusing reading, apparently we're a team full of cheats who conned the ref into giving us the win, the cheating was 'as bad as watching Argentina', we're also a poor team low on quality, and Derek Adams should be investigated by the FA for waving at them :lol:

Clearly not watched Wycombe for a while then...

Like this and the DA thread, always easy to complain when you perceive yourself as a victim. I didn't think much of any cheating in the game, just two good teams going at each other.

 

[BstokeGreen]

BG, I’m curious about how you saw the Makasi penalty as a ref.

You said that ‘technically as contact was made it is a penalty’.

Surely contact alone isn’t enough for it to be a penalty, it has to actually be a foul? I also get annoyed when I see this, and even more annoyed at the inevitable ‘entitled to go down’ comments.

The way I look at penalties is exactly the same way as I would view any other challenge on the field of play. Once I have deemed an infringement has taken place, it is only then that I look at where it took place and of course, if that is inside the penalty area (which includes the white lines that mark out the area) then I give a spot kick. So the question here then becomes what is a foul? This is where the technical vs. the practical comes in.

Firstly, a foul is actually a shortening of 'foul play' which can actually mean any infringement that is against the laws of the game. Mainly however, a foul is committed when a challenge is made and a player is impeded by contact or by action (so diving in and not making contact with an opponent but forces the opponent to lose control of the ball is still a foul as the action is considered foul play).

This is true for all situations except when a) the player making the challenge plays the ball and the challenge is not excessive (so winning the ball but taking the player after the event is as much of a foul as not playing the ball in the first place) or b) the challenge is shoulder to shoulder and within playing distance of the ball.

The key here is the impeding part of the interpretation and hence why the 'falling over' part is so important. In a game there is a lot of physical contact and as referees we try not to stop play every single time there is a coming together of feet, legs, arms etc. and on the whole we can do this because the player on the receiving end of the challenge can continue without losing control of the ball. In other words we only bring it back if we believe the player has been impeded. Advantage can be given if the player still manages to continue even after they have been impeded.

When you view it in this way you can understand my comment that had Makosi been challenged in the middle of the park, he would have just held off and continued playing, but in the area he made sure he was seen to be impeded and it is this gamesmanship I dislike.