Hungerford 1 City 2

[Rijs]

A good result and performance today, under difficult circumstances: a sloping, uneven pitch which made our normal slick passing game impossible; a physical home team, and two City players injured (Craig King had to be helped off -- bad news for us); and some pretty abject refereeing. Kyran Lofthouse was brought down by the last man when he might have scored a clinching third goal, but no red card was produced, only a yellow -- and Finn Tapp had the same punishment for an innocuous-looking shirt-pull out on the touchline halfway up the pitch! Plus two penalty shouts turned down. Two good goals brought the points: Josh Ashby's perfectly placed free-kick, not long after his rasping drive brought a good save from their keeper, and Kyran's sweet finish at full throttle down the right channel, into the far corner. By contrast, Hungerford's equaliser, the very last kick of a long stint of added minutes before half time, was a fortunate deflection.

That said, they did also hit the post when King was scrambling across his goal. But Craig must be commended for bravely continuing when he could not even walk after a long period of treatment in the second half. He did manage to make some good saves even when injured, but expect the management to seek a loanee for Saturday. Kevin Berkoe also limped off after coming in for some rough treatment at times.

City showed splendid commitment and fighting spirit and were worthy winners in the face of adversity. Zac gave another stand-out performance despite always having two opponents on him when he got the ball.

[city since the fifties]

Sorry but the ref got it right, might have scored is not in the rule book, it has to be a clear goal scoring opportunity which it was not, so the harshest penalty the ref could give was a yellow card.So do not blame the ref he was only following the wording of the rule book.

[City longer than you]

Jan 3, 2020 9:46:52 GMT city since the fifties said:

Sorry but the ref got it right, might have scored is not in the rule book, it has to be a clear goal scoring opportunity which it was not, so the harshest penalty the ref could give was a yellow card.So do not blame the ref he was only following the wording of the rule book.

What about the other decisions???  He has form with us does the little man from Wiltshire ...
First half their defender catching the ball in the area in front of the ref, was ridiculous..He laughed..
It was a spot kick... From than on he went down hill if that's possible...

[Marston Blue]

Jan 3, 2020 9:46:52 GMT city since the fifties said:

Sorry but the ref got it right, might have scored is not in the rule book, it has to be a clear goal scoring opportunity which it was not, so the harshest penalty the ref could give was a yellow card.So do not blame the ref he was only following the wording of the rule book.

“Might have scored is not in the rule book” - so what you’re saying is that it has to be a situation that the player can’t miss in order to warrant a red card?

Surely all goal scoring chances are a case of ‘he might score’ until the ball crosses the line?

[Rijs]

If Kyran had not been cynically brought down there, he would have been straight through down the middle with only the keeper to beat. Admittedly he was maybe 30-35 metres from goal and he might possibly have been caught or blocked, but it was a good chance and he has scored from lesser opportunities. I would call it a clear goalscoring opportunity. And yesterday he was again brought down, this time in the penalty area, and the ref gave nothing. He also hit the post with a powerful drive. He is due for a brace of goals soon.

[toocoulson4schoolson]

It always amazes me that there's seemingly no good definition of an 'obvious goal-scoring opportunity' in the laws of the game. There are some loose guidelines referring to how far from goal it happens, the number and position of defenders, where the player with the ball is going, etc but it isn't helpful.

If its true that about 1 in 3 one-on-ones are converted, is a one-on-one an obvious enough opportunity? Does it have to be a near open goal? Should we be thinking about whether the player who is clear is faster or slower than the defenders?

I don't see how the authorities expect referees to be consistent with such crap guidance, and its no wonder it all feels like such a lottery.

[Rijs]

A good point. There is latitude for refs to be on the side of attackers generally, or to be pessimistic about chances and therefore tend to side with the defence. We have seen deliberate fouls like this punished with a red card, a yellow or just a free kick. What we want is consistency; the fouls will continue while defenders may well get away with it.
My point in this instance was the apparent inconsistency. A City player is booked for a shirt pull in a harmless place, but a Hungerford player holds Joe in the area at a corner and goes unpunished, while Kyran is brought down in a central area 30 metres or so from goal by the last defender, who would not have done it if he had not believed there would otherwise have been a clear goalscoring opportunity. What that defender did is not on a par with what Finn did, yet the punishment is the same.