I wonder if Wolfswinkel had taken it our season would have panned out the same ? Bit of a Back to the Future scenario.
i thought yesterday's performance was our best 90 minutes of adams reign. we controlled long spells of the game and although obviously pleased to get a point under the circumstances thanks to the timing of the whittaker goal, i felt a tad disappointed that we didn't win the game as we certainly deserved to. i think the system works in games like that, where we are trying to nullify our opponents whilst posing a threat ourselves - we keep the ball better. however, my main gripe last week was that that system was pointless (and asking for trouble) against the likes of huddersfield, especially at home, where we need to take the game to our opponents. it was no surprise that when we changed it last week we got instant rewards. but plenty of positive signs against derby, no question. the only gripe was after the game when adams had a moan about the officials. i've no issue with the penalty derby got, looked clear to me, and ok, maybe we could have had a penalty ourselves for the foul on olsson but we got a tad fortunate with our equaliser (albeit there was ample time for derby to clear the ball afterwards) but to try and suggest tettey's goal should have stood made him look a little silly really and took away from our good performance. after the wigan win i suggested we'd know if we'd turned a corner if we followed that result up with a victory over huddersfield and a good performance and result at derby - i think we got both - so very satisfied. we've now got two games in three days which we need to win to give ourselves both momentum and confidence going into a tough trip to the south coast in the new year. win both and we 'should' sit in the play off places i would think. automatic promotion is still what i think we should be achieving this season based on what we've got in our squad but if unattainable, the play offs are the absolute bare minimum. i think we can only afford two or three defeats in the final 24 games. its imperative that we get on a good run now. but things look a little brighter than they did two weeks ago. lets hope they look even rosier after we visit bournemouth
Can't resist a little dig at Adams eh Supers? But I completely agree with most of your post. The bad run has given us very little wiggle room. We need a spell of 10-15 matches with no more than a single defeat now. On the penalty - I actually think there is good argument to say it wasn't a pen (at the time I thought it was a clear penalty). I it had been Cuellar who had fallen over in that collision, we would have got a free kick, because Martin made no attempt to get the ball, just stepped across. As for Tettey's - Adams is correct, by the letter of the law it is a goal. But it's the referee guidance that prevents the goal counting and to be honest, I think that's the right rule. I'd much rather Adams went for the siege mentality, injustice for us style to get passions roused, like SAF, no matter if the statement is a bit unreasonable. Overall, I'm feeling very positive. Long way to go yet though and we are still on a knife edge
rob, sorry, what are you talking about?! 'the letter of the law' says it was correctly disallowed. jerome was interfering with the keeper's view. he stepped over the ball!!! the keeper didn't even dive until the ball was passed him because he thought jerome would touch it. i'm as biased a norwich fan as the rest of you but come off it - nobody could seriously say that goal was valid and when adams did try to on tv everyone i watched the game with sighed with dismay. it was a bit embarrassing and rather desperate and wasn't necessary. imagine if we'd conceded that goal and it had counted! we'd probably still talk about that decision in 20 years time. as for the penalty, i can't see how anyone can say it was incorrect. soft, maybe, but that's different. it was a foul and a clear one. he blatantly kicked him. it would have been a foul anywhere else on the pitch. thankfully the referee didn't give him a second yellow card - now that would have been harsh. not sure i blame cuellar though - he obviously never got a shout. i thought he should have done better for the first goal, as should r.martin who was ball watching but to be fair it was a cracking goal from derby's point of view so harsh to criticise our players. its a shame though because barring those two moments we completely controlled the game and derby never looked like scoring. we looked dangerous.
I said in an earlier post that yesterday's game could well be the one that showed whether or not we'd 'turned a corner' and IMO it proved we have. I'm feeling more positive about the remainder of our season than I have done for months. Good posts Supers and Canary Rob. I'm sure in some circumstances and with some officials - a. Tettey's goal would have stood b. The penalty would not have been awarded, as Cuellar was just trying to clear the ball and Martin suddenly appeared from nowhere. On another point, I think Cuellar's yellow was harsh and had he not been on a yellow, i think he would have battled harder for the ball which Martin won and then crossed for Russell. Mind you, I think Rusty could have cleared the xross, or at least deflected it away from Russell. Overall an excellent game and the team did well to twice come back from going a goal down.
Pretty sure Adams is in a position where if we get promoted a section of our fans will say that any manager could have achieved it with our amazing squad and if we don't he will be strung up as a failure. Supporting the side is much easier as they will claim to be right regardless , the fact is this is his first full season and we are still in with a good shot at promotion so no complaints from me. How many times have you seen the greats Alex Ferguson Wenger and Mourinho argue the key decisions after a game with bias ?. That is part of their job as a manager and I have seen goals like Tetty's given before, I still think Fer's goal against Cardiff should have stood last year . Hughton got slated for accepting defeats too easily in interviews so I personally prefer the new approach.
i think that its rule 11.17-18 that states that the tettey goal would NEVER have stood. if it had, there'd have been a riot and the referee would have been dismissed. we really, really REALLY cannot moan about that decision! i think the challenge on olsson was worth talking about because its challenges like that which illustrates perfectly why so many footballers feel the need to dive these days. there was a definite foul but he tried to remain honest and get back on his feet. had he arched his back and fallen to the floor i suspect we'd have got a penalty. bit disappointed that incident wasn't talked about after the game.
Calm down Supers. Try to read my post properly. Law: "A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by: • interfering with play or • interfering with an opponent or • gaining an advantage by being in that position" Now from a legal viewpoint the verb "interfere" is a tricky one. Does that mean the player has to be active or passive? Interference is a positive action and would almost certainly be considered an active verb. Jerome was not active (he did not touch the ball) he was passive. Therefore it is difficult (for a legal point of view) to argue he falls into either category. So the only real question is whether he "gained an advantage" from being in that position. Well that is a technicality, but the word used is "he" (the player) as opposed to the team gaining an advantage. Jerome gained no advantage (he didn't shoot) and the ball didn't move. Also, did the team gain an advantage? The shot did not move. He did not block a defender. He wasn't even in the line of sight of the 'keeper. What actually happened is that it was a disadvantage for the 'keeper. But the rule doesn't cover that. The rule specifically states it has to be an advantage. It's poor drafting because it's ambiguous, but it's difficult (albeit logical) from a legalistic analysis to say that the wording defines that as a penalisable offside position. However, as I said, all that is a moot point. Referee guidance is as much part of the rules as the written words, just like in our common law we follow the rulings of previous judges rather than just the pure wording (loose comparison I know, but you get my point). So Adams is absolutely correct when he states that it was not offside by the letter of the law. He was absolutely wrong (as I said) that it was a goal. It wasn't. Indisputable. In the circumstances, on the penalty, I don't think the referee has any choice but to give the penalty. But if you look at it, I'm just saying you could argue the opposite way. Soft indeed. And the way Martin went down was clever, so credit for that. Supers, if you're "embarrassed" by our manager, that's your choice. Don't expect everyone to feel the same. As I said, I want my manager to have some fire in his belly. Crying injustice in the face of reason I have no issue with. All the best managers do this. Your problem is you will always want to criticise Adams so with something like that of course you won't like it, but I'm just saying I don't feel the same.
Standing in front of the keepers and the ball goes thru his legs- **** me if that's not interfering with play then I'm an Ipswich fan
It's the words they use in the laws. I think we're all agreed it was a goal... Even Adams (inwardly). Although happy to be proven wrong.
Rob, you do come out with some squit sometimes! That was the most obvious case of interferring with play ever!
Oh god! Why did you have to say that Guru! Rob is now going to write another 800 word essay in response!
Perhaps, but given that I agree with you that Jerome obviously had an impact means you didn't read my post (or you are referring to something else I've written...) I wasn't arguing that the goal should stand. It shouldn't. The question was whether it was right within "the letter of the law", and a purely legalistic analysis shows Adams was correct, or at least has a good case. The fact that I agree with you that the referee guidance says it's not a goal, it would be a nonsense to say he didn't have an impact on the goal from an offside position and logically you cannot allow that to be a goal, is neither here nor there for the purposes of the discussion. It's a subtle point I don't expect the likes of you to understand Guru Walt - this only looks to be around 120, but I can fluff it out a bit if you're feeling short changed.
A day of rest and recuperation after a hectic weekend Thai? Same goes for me, had a long hash house harriers trek in the hill jungle near us on Saturday, followed by a long drinking session with the city match in the middle of it. 8:15 pm kick off for me.
