Scunthorpe v Vale

[valefan16]

That penalty decision is a farce! No wonder Brown is steaming after that!

Really bad second goal to give away too! Both going for the header and Purkiss handing it on a platter with Alnwick stupidly off his line!

 

[MJA]

with Alnwick stupidly off his line!

SELL SELL SELL

 

[valefan16]

SELL SELL SELL

Looks like it was his last appearance in a Vale shirt. Need a new keeper or hope Kirkland will pop out of retirement for a three month stint for us.

 

[MJA]

Looks like it was his last appearance in a Vale shirt. Need a new keeper or hope Kirkland will pop out of retirement for a three month stint for us.

Will be sad if he steps down a level to play for a club like Rangers

 

[valefan16]

Will be sad if he steps down a level to play for a club like Rangers

Haha especially as they can't even afford the 250k straight up and are trying to pay it over 3.5 years!

 

[MJA]

Haha especially as they can't even afford the 250k straight up and are trying to pay it over 3.5 years!

I wouldn't allow £2.5 millions be paid over 3.5 years

 

[valefan16]

I wouldn't allow £2.5 millions be paid over 3.5 years

If they won't pay up front it makes you wonder why... 50,000 crowds 250k should be easy to pay! We are a football club not wonga!

Hopefully Hugill gets sold too this week from PNE 20-30% sell on of 2 million plus would be nice!

 

[MJA]

If they won't pay up front it makes you wonder why... 50,000 crowds 250k should be easy to pay! We are a football club not wonga!

Hopefully Hugill gets sold too this week from PNE 20-30% sell on of 2 million plus would be nice!

Rangers are a new business still in the grand scheme of things.

The Hugill sale would make me believe in tribunals once again

 

[Randolph Haggerty]

At least we had a go. Not too many teams come away from there with anything.
I think we'll have enough to stay up.

 

[leedsvaliant]

Seems like we gave it a go and but for an atrocious penalty decision we would have got a point.

Id like to ask the referee what he was thinking. The ball was going out of play, why on earth would streete foul their guy? It smacks of a decision made by someone who knows nothing about football. It's also a poor show from the scunthorpe player, surely going top of the league means they have the quality to beat us but yet resort to cheating.

If that doesnt happen, it means we don't give them a foot up back into the game. the other two were soft goals but when the home side gets help from the referee you know youre on to a loser.

Another sign of how poor this league is. A shame we had the clown in charge from the start as pretty much every team is shite.

 

[Hedonist Puncture]

Poor performance from us overall. Not up to our usual standard at home. First half tempo was way off and Alexander obviously corrected it at half time. Much better second half from us and in the end we had enough to get by a determined Vale side. Expect them to stay up based on that. Other results went our way and we are back on top. Lots of turns to come this season and just hoping we stay in the automatic places now after poor Christmas & New Year results.

 

[Hedonist Puncture]

I have reffed in my time (retired now) and I believe the penalty was given due to a push from behind. The ball was in play and the Vale defender came across the back of the Iron striker and appears to have "cutely" pushed him. The referee was superbly positioned and saw it all. The push caused the striker to lose balance, stumble over his own leg and go down. That is how the ref will have interpreted it.

The defender should not have risked crossing the striker's line, especially because it would mean going behind him. Any contact and it's likely to be a penalty. The defender stupidly lifts his arm and appears to make contact with the striker. Even if he claims there was no push, it was foolish to get that close. The striker is Craig Davies, a journeyman with loads of experience and there is no doubt that if he felt the arm/hand on his back, he is going to go down. The final trip can be seen as accidental.

I can agree that it might be seen as harsh or Davies went down too easily. The ref's vision was unimpeded and if he saw the defender's hand/arm make that contact on the striker, which I believe it did, then it becomes one of those that you either get or you don't. There is a fine line in the decision making process and the referee would have adjudged whether the contact materially affected the striker's movement. If it did, then it more times than not will be given. Intent on the defender's part is made stronger because of his movement across the back of the striker. There was no need to do that and thus he will have been deemed to intentionally done that. Any contact from then on is likely to result in a penalty.

In terms of the result, if I had been reffing that game I would have had some sympathy that you deserved something from it. BUT and it is a serious BUT, your defenders really need to do better. If you had had some real quality in that area, you could have been going home with 3 points. Tighten up at the back and you will stay up easily.

 

[leedsvaliant]

I have reffed in my time (retired now) and I believe the penalty was given due to a push from behind. The ball was in play and the Vale defender came across the back of the Iron striker and appears to have "cutely" pushed him. The referee was superbly positioned and saw it all. The push caused the striker to lose balance, stumble over his own leg and go down. That is how the ref will have interpreted it.

The defender should not have risked crossing the striker's line, especially because it would mean going behind him. Any contact and it's likely to be a penalty. The defender stupidly lifts his arm and appears to make contact with the striker. Even if he claims there was no push, it was foolish to get that close. The striker is Craig Davies, a journeyman with loads of experience and there is no doubt that if he felt the arm/hand on his back, he is going to go down. The final trip can be seen as accidental.

I can agree that it might be seen as harsh or Davies went down too easily. The ref's vision was unimpeded and if he saw the defender's hand/arm make that contact on the striker, which I believe it did, then it becomes one of those that you either get or you don't. There is a fine line in the decision making process and the referee would have adjudged whether the contact materially affected the striker's movement. If it did, then it more times than not will be given. Intent on the defender's part is made stronger because of his movement across the back of the striker. There was no need to do that and thus he will have been deemed to intentionally done that. Any contact from then on is likely to result in a penalty.

In terms of the result, if I had been reffing that game I would have had some sympathy that you deserved something from it. BUT and it is a serious BUT, your defenders really need to do better. If you had had some real quality in that area, you could have been going home with 3 points. Tighten up at the back and you will stay up easily.

Whilst I understand what you are saying, you also have to look at the context of the 'foul'. The ball was going out of play, so any foul would have been pointless - I don't think the referee considered this and just saw Davies go down and was too quick to blow the whistle. You have to ask the question of intent with a foul and even if there was contact (which there wasn't) there was clearly no intent as there was no requirement to even make contact with the player. It was a disastrous decision and I'd be amazed if any other referee thought this was a penalty.

As you rightly say, our defending was/is horrific but if we'd have kept it at 1-0 until later on I think we might have been able to see the game out. It's very disappointing as we're actually starting to play better now and the referee (who has a history of giving shocking decisions against us) makes basic errors.

Fair play to you guys for digging out a result but I just wish we'd have started the season without the clown in charge as there's nothing to be scared of in this league.

 

[valefan16]

Oddly our 2 centre halves are being raved about this season... too youngsters with Smith linked with multi million pound moves to the Premiership/Top end Championship... but past that weve got nothing, Knopps isn't great and well we collapsed when Smith went off injured and Purkiss, Ryan Taylor, Hart, Knopps etc who have played at Full back haven't impressed... interestingly the only one I have been impressed by Kiko was on his PS4 between 3 and 5 on Saturday!

I feel we need an experienced head at the back... problem is that may mean not playing both young starlets together at the same time... but then who do you drop!

 

[Hedonist Puncture]

Whilst I understand what you are saying, you also have to look at the context of the 'foul'. The ball was going out of play, so any foul would have been pointless - I don't think the referee considered this and just saw Davies go down and was too quick to blow the whistle. You have to ask the question of intent with a foul and even if there was contact (which there wasn't) there was clearly no intent as there was no requirement to even make contact with the player. It was a disastrous decision and I'd be amazed if any other referee thought this was a penalty.

As you rightly say, our defending was/is horrific but if we'd have kept it at 1-0 until later on I think we might have been able to see the game out. It's very disappointing as we're actually starting to play better now and the referee (who has a history of giving shocking decisions against us) makes basic errors.

Fair play to you guys for digging out a result but I just wish we'd have started the season without the clown in charge as there's nothing to be scared of in this league.

If a foul was deemed to have been committed by the defender making contact with his arm/hand, then the ball was still in play at the time of the offence. The ref will have seen the striker being denied an attempt of getting to the ball. I do not believe the ref gave the decision for Davies going down. I believe he gave the decision for a push before Davies hit the deck. Whatever really happened and whatever the intent was from both players, the ref was in a great position and in sight. It looked to me as if Davies was pushed in the back, a foul which may or may not caused Davies to go down. If I had seen it like that, I would have given a penalty. Whatever happened, you'll have more penalties go against you and you will get some that maybe you don't deserve. It is the nature of football.

Brown is football man and I think he will make you a good manager.

 

[Hedonist Puncture]

Oddly our 2 centre halves are being raved about this season... too youngsters with Smith linked with multi million pound moves to the Premiership/Top end Championship... but past that weve got nothing, Knopps isn't great and well we collapsed when Smith went off injured and Purkiss, Ryan Taylor, Hart, Knopps etc who have played at Full back haven't impressed... interestingly the only one I have been impressed by Kiko was on his PS4 between 3 and 5 on Saturday!

I feel we need an experienced head at the back... problem is that may mean not playing both young starlets together at the same time... but then who do you drop!

Nothing can a beat bit of experience at the back. In my experience, youngsters can make too many errors. The higher up they go, the more that they are punished. Goode, the big tall lad at the back for us against you was bought from Hendon. He is getting his first taste of league football. Two own goals and numerous errors, but he has Murray Wallace alongside him. Wallace is one of the best centre backs in L1. Tells its own tale.

 

[leedsvaliant]

If a foul was deemed to have been committed by the defender making contact with his arm/hand, then the ball was still in play at the time of the offence. The ref will have seen the striker being denied an attempt of getting to the ball. I do not believe the ref gave the decision for Davies going down. I believe he gave the decision for a push before Davies hit the deck. Whatever really happened and whatever the intent was from both players, the ref was in a great position and in sight. It looked to me as if Davies was pushed in the back, a foul which may or may not caused Davies to go down. If I had seen it like that, I would have given a penalty. Whatever happened, you'll have more penalties go against you and you will get some that maybe you don't deserve. It is the nature of football.

Brown is football man and I think he will make you a good manager.

Agreed that you get penalties given for and against you throughout the season. it's just a shame this one changed the course of the game. For me it's about the referee having a knowledge and understanding of the game - if the ball was clearly going out of play, why would a foul be committed? To me, Davies bought the foul by going down (if indeed there was any contact) and the referee should surely see through this. Whether the ball was in play or not is irrelevant - it's about a little bit of foresight as to what is likely to happen next - was Davies likely to have an opportunity from the resulting play? No. Was Davies likely to be able to stop the ball from going out of play?No. A foul should be a deliberate attempt to impede the other player and in this instance I believe it was not.

Anyway, we move on and I hope that a team like Scunthorpe prevails above teams like Sheffield Utd as it gives all of us 'smaller' clubs hope.