Quiet...
- Thread starter brb
- Start date
maybe this has got something to do with it
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/teams/gillingham/12199903/gillingham-4-1-crewe
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/teams/gillingham/12199903/gillingham-4-1-crewe
Gills played really well - Gills played really well, Gills played really well...... as for Crewe ---
How on earth had Crewe gone 10 games without being beaten ? They were appalling. Their passing was dreadful. What the link ( above post ) doesn't show is the howler made by No.29 before the mess by No.4 when Dempsey scored..... and it happened loads of time in the match. It was an awful performance by Crewe - but - who cares - because the important matter is that Gills played really well.
How on earth had Crewe gone 10 games without being beaten ? They were appalling. Their passing was dreadful. What the link ( above post ) doesn't show is the howler made by No.29 before the mess by No.4 when Dempsey scored..... and it happened loads of time in the match. It was an awful performance by Crewe - but - who cares - because the important matter is that Gills played really well.
Glad to see that the performance was raised last night. Would be nice if that intensity would be kept up for our other matches. Sunderland won't be a walk over so we need everyone to be at their best again.
Dempsey scoring though certainly wouldn't have helped trying to keep hold of him though
Dempsey scoring though certainly wouldn't have helped trying to keep hold of him though
Decent result alright, but back to one of my perennial bugbears - Jackson's throw (from the right) for the disallowed goal was a huge foul throw, but I don't think disallowed for that. I'm pretty sure that his throw for the 4th goal was a foul throw as well, though the camera position means that it's impossible to tell for sure.
Where VAR is available referees are more than happy to allow microscopic analysis of whether a player was offside, or whether a foul was inside or outside the penalty area. But linesmen can't seem to be able to see someone's size 11 completely across the sideline and about 6" onto the unmarked bit of the pitch.
The pitch includes the line. If the ball doesn't completely cross the line it's still in play, but apparently when someone's foot crosses the line it's not in play. Time for a bit of consistency please.
I'd be furious if a long 'foul' throw that led to a goal against us that cost us a match was allowed to stand. Yesterday we had the rub of the green and it probably didn't affect the overall result, but Jackson needs to be more careful.
Where VAR is available referees are more than happy to allow microscopic analysis of whether a player was offside, or whether a foul was inside or outside the penalty area. But linesmen can't seem to be able to see someone's size 11 completely across the sideline and about 6" onto the unmarked bit of the pitch.
The pitch includes the line. If the ball doesn't completely cross the line it's still in play, but apparently when someone's foot crosses the line it's not in play. Time for a bit of consistency please.
I'd be furious if a long 'foul' throw that led to a goal against us that cost us a match was allowed to stand. Yesterday we had the rub of the green and it probably didn't affect the overall result, but Jackson needs to be more careful.
I think Jackson should use a catapult for his throw ins ! **
Tim - as everyone knows, I take particular interest in Jackson ( including his throw-ins. )..... It was good to see a successful one - leading to Lee's 2nd goal.
I too have noticed his feet 'encroaching' into the pitch ( in front of the line). I have wondered if his throws could be deemed a 'foul throw .' However the laws governing throw-ins merely stipulates that only a 'part' of the feet need to be on or behind the line at the point of release of the ball. I have seen Jackson 'stretching ' this point.
I am not surprised that any 'foot fault' is not punished. Every time a player takes the throw, the linesman never watches that player -- the linesman always seems to be more interested in any 'engagement' between the players likely to receive the ball - or ( more ridiculously ), seemingly looking for players who might be 'offside.' ----- and regularly fail to see the strangleholds and shirt pulling.
I am unsure if the throw-in law ( relating to the position of at least part of the feet being on the line ), has changed in its' interpretation -- just like the ridiculous nonsense of the ball being placed outside the corner quadrant when corners are taken --- and yet deemed legal because only a part of the ball has to 'hover above' the quadrant !
It doesn't really help the players or the fans when the FA make it up as they go along ---- The goal that Man City scored last week ( v Aston Villa ), that caused controversy - because of the City player coming from 'offside' - behind the Villa defender, and robbing the ball leading to the goal --- was justified by the Referees Association - because the defender had 'intentionally' played the ball - before he had it nicked off him....... A couple of days later the Referees Association tell us that the same situation will not be allowed in future ----- well, not again until there's R in the month !
** I don't think the laws prohibit the use of a catapults for throw-ins --- but what do I know ....( not a lot less than the FA, so it seems )
Tim - as everyone knows, I take particular interest in Jackson ( including his throw-ins. )..... It was good to see a successful one - leading to Lee's 2nd goal.
I too have noticed his feet 'encroaching' into the pitch ( in front of the line). I have wondered if his throws could be deemed a 'foul throw .' However the laws governing throw-ins merely stipulates that only a 'part' of the feet need to be on or behind the line at the point of release of the ball. I have seen Jackson 'stretching ' this point.
I am not surprised that any 'foot fault' is not punished. Every time a player takes the throw, the linesman never watches that player -- the linesman always seems to be more interested in any 'engagement' between the players likely to receive the ball - or ( more ridiculously ), seemingly looking for players who might be 'offside.' ----- and regularly fail to see the strangleholds and shirt pulling.
I am unsure if the throw-in law ( relating to the position of at least part of the feet being on the line ), has changed in its' interpretation -- just like the ridiculous nonsense of the ball being placed outside the corner quadrant when corners are taken --- and yet deemed legal because only a part of the ball has to 'hover above' the quadrant !
It doesn't really help the players or the fans when the FA make it up as they go along ---- The goal that Man City scored last week ( v Aston Villa ), that caused controversy - because of the City player coming from 'offside' - behind the Villa defender, and robbing the ball leading to the goal --- was justified by the Referees Association - because the defender had 'intentionally' played the ball - before he had it nicked off him....... A couple of days later the Referees Association tell us that the same situation will not be allowed in future ----- well, not again until there's R in the month !
** I don't think the laws prohibit the use of a catapults for throw-ins --- but what do I know ....( not a lot less than the FA, so it seems )
Last edited:
i'M NOT SURE WHETHER THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE MY DAY BUT YEARS AGO YOU COULDN'T BE OFFSIDE FROM A THROW-IN.
grumpygit - YES - I KNOW -- but - it never ceases to amaze me ( when I was allowed to go to games ), that the linesmen always seemed to focus on a possible offside--- and missed so many incidents of almost grevious bodily harm !! -- despite my encouragement !
The taking of throw-ins are probably the time when so much 'liberty' is taken ( including by The Gills ) ---- When was the last time a throw-in was taken from the correct position - or within 20 yards from where the ball went out ?
