Match Thread: Lincoln City v Cambridge United | Page 17 | Vital Football

Match Thread: Lincoln City v Cambridge United

StrangelyBrown said:
Despite a shocking performance from the ref overall- I do have some sympathy on this (now that is - I didn't at 3.21pm today).

We are looking at a video and a still shot... and still have differing views.

The ref has a mili-second to observe the event.

Still think he got it right but other's will take an alternative view.

Life is like a box of chocolates
Click to expand...
should have consulted with the lino. Too fast to pull out the red and for that reason alone gets no bloody latitude from me.
 
The referee showed how poor his performance was when he overruled his linesman. The linesman gave a throw to us, which, from my view, it was, and the referee overruled him.
 
Also in total disagreement with Warnock and the red carders. I suppose it’s all down to interpretation. Does wreckless mean stepping onto a football pitch wearing boots with studs in. If so - a red card. Does wreckless mean staying on your feet going into a tackle - if so red card.
Does wreckless mean having one foot not anchored to the grass (also termed moving) - if so red card. Does wreckless mean being fractionally beaten to the ball by a player from the opposition - if so red card. I think Chapman’s main problem was he was n’t wreckless enough.

I also went back to look at the videoagain. If you look at the action of the two players, it’s Chapman who goes in standing tall, balanced and in control of his body. The Cambridge player is low and stretching and less able to control his body with neither foot anchored to the ground. In the nonsense that the laws are now, he is much more wreckless than Chapman. The only thing Chapman does wrong is not lunge in. If he had done, he would probably have reached the ball first and the Cambridge player may have suffer Chapmans fate.

Football has got itself in an almost ludicrous position where 2 players playing with no malice, make an honest (and in any normal definition of the words) “not wreckless” challenge, but stand the possibilty of being sent off and missing almost 4 full matches.

Danny Cowley sometimes says he worries for the future of football. I’m not sure the present is completely okay.
 
Chimpimp said:
Also in total disagreement with Warnock and the red carders. I suppose it’s all down to interpretation. Does wreckless mean stepping onto a football pitch wearing boots with studs in. If so - a red card. Does wreckless mean staying on your feet going into a tackle - if so red card.
Does wreckless mean having one foot not anchored to the grass (also termed moving) - if so red card. Does wreckless mean being fractionally beaten to the ball by a player from the opposition - if so red card. I think Chapman’s main problem was he was n’t wreckless enough.

I also went back to look at the videoagain. If you look at the action of the two players, it’s Chapman who goes in standing tall, balanced and in control of his body. The Cambridge player is low and stretching and less able to control his body with neither foot anchored to the ground. In the nonsense that the laws are now, he is much more wreckless than Chapman. The only thing Chapman does wrong is not lunge in. If he had done, he would probably have reached the ball first and the Cambridge player may have suffer Chapmans fate.

Football has got itself in an almost ludicrous position where 2 players playing with no malice, make an honest (and in any normal definition of the words) “not wreckless” challenge, but stand the possibilty of being sent off and missing almost 4 full matches.

Danny Cowley sometimes says he worries for the future of football. I’m not sure the present is completely okay.
Click to expand...

TBH I think this worrying for the future of football based on refereeing is hyperbole.

However, I totally agree it was not a red, but its probably not sufficiently cut and dry enough to get it overturned. The key aspect to it, as well as not being 2 footed, off the ground, studs showing or particularly high.. is that it wasnt a very strong attempted tackle, the chances of that tackle causing serious injury were basically nil.
 
Haven't read the whole thread or seen any highlights yet but I wanted to comment on their goal from memory.

As brilliant as it was, we got ourselves onto the back foot directly from our own goalkick.

From memory the fullbacks are pushed on the centre backs split with the 2 CMs deep. Vickers waived them away and then immediately kicks the ball long. We're outnumbered long so they win the ball. Pushing up we're then short of numbers and disorganised defensively.

I noticed it a few times. I just wonder whether Vickers needs to give it a bit more time to let us get out properly,

Great goal though.
 
You could still the foul of McCartan and find a quick nearly mid stomach with studs up that would like a definite red.
 
I might be in the minority here but I didn't quite understand the Akinde for Rhead switch. I've heard Danny's interview and understand his thought process around mobility and chasing lost causes but the reality is with 11 men on the pitch John can look very isolated so that's only ever going to be more evident with 10.

Matt on the other hand fills the pitch deeper, makes the ball stick and generally buys time for support to get into more advanced areas.

Maybe this is a benefit of hindsight comment but this was my feeling at the time.

That said it's very clear we played for the draw so I guess Danny's changes achieved their objectives.
 
StrangelyBrown said:
Despite a shocking performance from the ref overall- I do have some sympathy on this (now that is - I didn't at 3.21pm today).

We are looking at a video and a still shot... and still have differing views.

The ref has a mili-second to observe the event.

Still think he got it right but other's will take an alternative view.

Life is like a box of chocolates
Click to expand...

Given that the ref. went straight to his pocket without consulting the fourth official or the Senility side linesman, I think he jumped the gun.

In any case, his patronising attitude stank.
 
I would say yellow for Chapman. You can’t deny he was late. If we’re lucky the suspension will get reduced to 1 match but i wouldn’t get your hopes up.

Perhaps what’s angering some of you so much is the speed the red came out rather than being considered red card worthy?
 
Having watched the zoomed in, slowed down footage on banter the appeal won't be overturned.

I still think it's an incredibly harsh red card because it's a slightly late and slightly high tackle. That means that any foul over ankle height is a red card? As has been said before there is no intent to injure, its not overly aggressive, no studs showing.
 
JT_LCFC said:
You could still the foul of McCartan and find a quick nearly mid stomach with studs up that would like a definite red.
Click to expand...

A very good point.

I haven't got that, but remember when Howard Webb only gave a yellow card for this?

000.jpg

There's never going to be the mythical "consistency" and wrong decisions get made that change matches. Sometimes they're early sending offs, contentious penalties, non-existent penalties, offside goals and ghost goals.

It doesn't happen every week, these are the breaks.
 
imps_joe said:
Having watched the zoomed in, slowed down footage on banter the appeal won't be overturned.

I still think it's an incredibly harsh red card because it's a slightly late and slightly high tackle. That means that any foul over ankle height is a red card? As has been said before there is no intent to injure, its not overly aggressive, no studs showing.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will be over-turned because it is late and high. Which implies the decision was right - VAR would have upheld the decision on the field.

There is no way Ellis intended to harm their No6- in fact, as he is still learning his trade as a young lad, tackling is one of his weaker areas which means his right leg does drift in a tackle.

I will say the reaction of the Number 6 initially is to roll onto him knees and pound the floor and generally act as if he is in agony- that instant display (which some of our plays are very adept at too) will have added to the ref's opinion.

As he has said- good learning for him and maybe we'll get a suspension reduction for lack of intent. Maybe.
 
imps_joe said:
Having watched the zoomed in, slowed down footage on banter the appeal won't be overturned.

I still think it's an incredibly harsh red card because it's a slightly late and slightly high tackle. That means that any foul over ankle height is a red card? As has been said before there is no intent to injure, its not overly aggressive, no studs showing.
Click to expand...
I agree, it's unlikely to be overturned looking at the footage. Very harsh red card. I think if the ref had given a yellow there would be no complaints from either side. The ref was obviously 100% sure in his own mind, the way he ran over immediately.
 
I think it's a case of a young footballer learning his trade against a seasoned pro, the way I saw it was that Ellis hesitated for a split second as Deegan went to ground so it did look high but Deegan initially acted if he was badly hurt and as soon as the red was out of the clowns pocket he almost did a backflip to get up. Poor referring but an oscar nomination for Deegan. Yellow at most but I suspect the FA will not want to spotlight the overall poor performance of the 4 officials and rescind it. The 4th official and linesman are culpable too. Rant over .
 
stokeimp said:
At the end of the day, and given the circumstances imposed on us by the ref, the result was not a bad one. The biggest disappointment for me was not making more of our dead ball situations - especially after last week - we gave their goalie a lot of catching practice
Click to expand...

Thought we missed a trick yesterday on our free kicks we still doubled up with Lincoln players over the ball tho we were down to 10 men
 
gijsbert_bos said:
This is why a still image is useless as I said earlier. The initial tackle as at ground level, studs facing down. The reason his foot goes up is because the Cambridge player comes sliding in (arguably much less "in control") and pushes Ellis' foot up and spins him round.
Click to expand...

Isn't the Cambridge players foot low because he's just kicked the ball? Having seen the photo later in the thread I reckon he's going to struggle big time to overturn it when you take into account the ball has gone.
 
StrangelyBrown said:
I will say the reaction of the Number 6 initially is to roll onto him knees and pound the floor and generally act as if he is in agony- that instant display (which some of our plays are very adept at too) will have added to the ref's opinion.
Click to expand...

Did you see the way he got up after the tackle!? He pretty much did a backwards/flip!
 
New gold dream said:
Thought we missed a trick yesterday on our free kicks we still doubled up with Lincoln players over the ball tho we were down to 10 men
Click to expand...

Very good point. I thought exactly the same, and to be honest, I think the same even with 11 men on the pitch. Toffolo and Andrade double up on EVERY free-kick and corner, and whilst I understand it might be a useful tactic on one or two occasions during the game (presumably to 'outwit' the opposition), there was no need for it yesterday as surely we'd have been better served having an extra man picking up second balls outside the box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.