Guiseley

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

en passant
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:17 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by en passant » Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:59 am

I have just seen the game highlights and am still no wiser about what the first goal free kick was all about. From the video I can see the ball being passed back to Connell and it flicks up in the air from his boot as he attempts to control it. It is not entirely clear if on going into the air that he touches it with his hand, but if it does it is a very slight touch. The ball then drops to a Guiseley player who attempts a shot, which Connell stops with his hand. It is only at that point that the ref blows his whistle. Where is the back pass that offends the rule? Surely the rule is only brought in to play if the keeper picks up the pass from one of his own players. There was no hint of this in this sequence. The best sense I can make of it is that the ref conflated the two actions into one, so that it was Hedley's back pass is the one that Connell saves with his hand, but even that seems harsh given that the goalkeeper is there to save a ball going into his net no matter who has hit it. If Saturday's decision is within the rules then surely there should be a lot more free kicks being awarded when a goalkeeper saves a potential own goal.

darlo2001uk
Posts: 1298
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:10 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by darlo2001uk » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:58 am

H1987 wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:20 pm
quakerste wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:59 pm
It will be interesting to see Armstrong's stance on Thommo, Galbraith, Wheatley and Trotman all of whom will have been on larger contracts prior to is arrival. I would assume they will be offered reduced terms if they wish to stay.

Throw in Ainge who will be out the door end of the season as well as a couple more I can see being offloaded.
I can’t see a valid playing reason to be offering Galbraith and Thompson the same terms I’m afraid. Wheatley and Trotman might. The other two aren’t getting any younger.
There are some big decisions to be made at the end of the season regarding some of our long-serving favourites.

LoidLucan
Posts: 3237
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by LoidLucan » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:24 am

The good thing is that we have a manager who I think the fans have faith in to ensure future budgets are allocated wisely and that we have value for money. If he does that, and I think he will, then any difficult decisions will be easier to accept.

User avatar
D_F_C
Posts: 1784
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:43 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by D_F_C » Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:12 pm

1st goal, ref was correct other than the yellow card. Most annoying thing was we caused it ourselves.

1. The quick throw to Hedley (which you could argue wasn't anything bad)
2. He panicked a bit and passed it straight back
3. It bobbles up and Connell instinctively puts his hand up
4. They they put it in, so I'd have been fuming if I was them
5. The defending from the free kick. Connell's fault IMO. The wall is meant to watch one side and he watches the other. It went in the corner that he was meant to be watching. If it went over or under the wall, then that's not he keepers fault, but if it goes in the side that the keeper is covering then it's the keepers fault. He went across when should have stayed

The penalty was inside the box (not like someone I'd read on twitter that claimed it was 2 yards outside the box). I can understand why it was given. I thought we could have had one.

Most concerning is the contract rumours. Hopefully this doesn't extend to someone like Hatfield, who we should be nailing down now, along with others like Donawa and Storey (even if they get sold)

LoidLucan
Posts: 3237
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by LoidLucan » Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:20 pm

I'm sure AA has already said he favours deals with options for the club and if that's the case then I'm sure that would include players like Hatfield, Donawa etc.

HarryCharltonsCat
Posts: 1004
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by HarryCharltonsCat » Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:41 pm

DarloFaithful wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:14 am
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:36 am
Very strange game yesterday. The match reminded me of an FA Cup game where we were playing a team a few divisions above and we didn't get a sniff. Every clearance out of defence by them went to one of their players, so we hardly recycled anything. Every time we tried to come forward they pressed our midfield so hard that we surrendered possession almost immediately.

We seemed like a team of complete strangers yesterday. Movement off the ball was non-existent. The reason for this lies somewhere in the axis of the pitch, our own ineptitude, and Guiseley playing as well as they could. One other factor was the wind. Incredible bad luck that they had the benefit of a strong wind in the first half and we did well to limit them to one goal. Incredibly, the wind dropped at half time so we didn't gain any benefit in the 2nd half, so we were knackered by the start of the 2nd half after playing against it, which they should have had to have suffered but didn't. I think yesterday that anything that could go wrong did.

As for Gary Martin, he's not made a positive difference at all yet. A few people are moaning about him in this regard and have written him off. He hasn't had much service so far to be fair so we'll have to see.

For what it's worth I think our current position is about right for us. On our day we're capable of beating anyone. However, when we're bad, we're really bad.
Bang on.

It hasn't clicked for Martin at all yet. It was fairly obvious months ago that he was signing for us and was really looking forward to it. I just hope the move turns out well and he can live up to the hype that he himself helped to generate. He really hasn't had any service though, and it's odd that we seemed to be playing less crosses into the box yesterday than we have done with Campbell leading the line.

Saturday was the first time since we reformed that i've left a game early. We were absolutely dire. Guiseley have a few good players and were well organised, but they aren't a particularly great side and we made them look like one. Starting to wonder why Holness hasn't been used recently, especially with Reid being as ineffective as he was yesterday. Donowa was our only bright spot really, but hitting diagonals to him can only be so effective when the rest of the plan isn't working.

Must win next week
Because Reid hadn't been ineffective prior to Saturday's game. Didn't know Armstrong could predict who would have a bad game before the event. As for the first goal, Wheatley was covering the spot where the lad put it, until deciding to wander off. Connell should still have had that area covered though.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4411
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:45 pm

Also re the first goal there was a Guiseley player in our wall until Just before it was kicked, I thought that wasn’t allowed?
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

Darlo2807
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:46 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by Darlo2807 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 2:03 pm

D_F_C wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:12 pm
1st goal, ref was correct other than the yellow card. Most annoying thing was we caused it ourselves.

1. The quick throw to Hedley (which you could argue wasn't anything bad)
2. He panicked a bit and passed it straight back
3. It bobbles up and Connell instinctively puts his hand up
4. They they put it in, so I'd have been fuming if I was them
5. The defending from the free kick. Connell's fault IMO. The wall is meant to watch one side and he watches the other. It went in the corner that he was meant to be watching. If it went over or under the wall, then that's not he keepers fault, but if it goes in the side that the keeper is covering then it's the keepers fault. He went across when should have stayed

The penalty was inside the box (not like someone I'd read on twitter that claimed it was 2 yards outside the box). I can understand why it was given. I thought we could have had one.

Most concerning is the contract rumours. Hopefully this doesn't extend to someone like Hatfield, who we should be nailing down now, along with others like Donawa and Storey (even if they get sold)
Connell was covering the corner but then it seems that he instinctively moved to the middle before it was taken. Frustrating!

LoidLucan
Posts: 3237
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by LoidLucan » Mon Feb 03, 2020 2:08 pm

I do think that 9 out of 10 free kicks hit like that onto the keeper's side would be saved. It wasn't exactly a thunderbolt nor hit with swerve past the wall. Although the keeper's view is obviously obscured by all the bodies just in front of him. He obviously feared that there might be a chip into the other corner but that would have been very difficult for the scorer to attempt from a rolling ball.
Last edited by LoidLucan on Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

50 years
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by 50 years » Mon Feb 03, 2020 2:52 pm

Some have picked out Martin on this thread, I am not sure this is fair. No player really looked good, centre forwards need feeding, and there was little of that. Their pairing at centre half had him permanently covered, often having hands on him and stopping him getting past. To be honest they covered whoever had the ball very quickly and although the pitch was poor, (and looks like nothing other than cutting the grass really short is being done maintenance wise), they were able to hit there man time and again with the pass where we could not on the same ground.

I had no issues with AA's choice at the start of the game, although I may have preferred some substitutions a little earlier ;). It was just one of those days when the players all looked like they had had a good night out on the Friday night, with balls getting caught under their feet and losing 50/50 tackles etc and got frustrated with things not going right, (may need some leaders on the pitch who can calm things and organise, which I think we are short of).

Still on to the next game.

en passant
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:17 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by en passant » Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:25 pm

D_F_C wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:12 pm
1st goal, ref was correct other than the yellow card. Most annoying thing was we caused it ourselves.

1. The quick throw to Hedley (which you could argue wasn't anything bad)
2. He panicked a bit and passed it straight back
3. It bobbles up and Connell instinctively puts his hand up
4. They they put it in, so I'd have been fuming if I was them
5. The defending from the free kick. Connell's fault IMO. The wall is meant to watch one side and he watches the other. It went in the corner that he was meant to be watching. If it went over or under the wall, then that's not he keepers fault, but if it goes in the side that the keeper is covering then it's the keepers fault. He went across when should have stayed

The penalty was inside the box (not like someone I'd read on twitter that claimed it was 2 yards outside the box). I can understand why it was given. I thought we could have had one.

Most concerning is the contract rumours. Hopefully this doesn't extend to someone like Hatfield, who we should be nailing down now, along with others like Donawa and Storey (even if they get sold)
Just to repeat what I was stating above, the sequence you have for the goal is rather different to what I see on the match highlights. Connell only put his hand up to parry a shot by the Guiseley forward, which is after it bounced off his foot. I don't see it positively hit his hand before this. Do you see something different? And if this was the handling of the back pass I am still dubious as to why the merest touch on his glove violates the intention of the back pass rule. Can someone clarify as I still think that this puts a keeper in a crazy position and does not allow him to make a save. What if a player passes a ball back and gets his foot under the ball so that it comes to the keeper at shoulder height and is heading for the goal. In parrying the shot, thus saving the goal, does he give away a free kick for back pass. I don't think I have ever seen a kick awarded for this, but I wondered if this was really what happened on Saturday and that it should be happening more often.

en passant
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:17 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by en passant » Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:30 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:45 pm
Also re the first goal there was a Guiseley player in our wall until Just before it was kicked, I thought that wasn’t allowed?
I too am confused about this rule as it was one that caused a potential Darlo winner to be cancelled out earlier in the season when Donawa stood by the wall. I have seen numerous games since then where the idea that the attacking team should not have anyone within a metre of the wall frequently overlooked. It seems that as with many new rules that they are gradually worn down through usage to the point where they just get overlooked.

lo36789
Posts: 8485
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Guiseley

Post by lo36789 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:33 pm

en passant wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:25 pm
What if a player passes a ball back and gets his foot under the ball so that it comes to the keeper at shoulder height and is heading for the goal. In parrying the shot, thus saving the goal, does he give away a free kick for back pass. I don't think I have ever seen a kick awarded for this, but I wondered if this was really what happened on Saturday and that it should be happening more often.
Yes?

This has been the case for nearly 30 years. The only material change this season is that if a keeper 'fluffs' a clearance he can pick it up (which brings a strange 'intent' judgement into play)

See examples below which illustrate the point...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kpSReuN2-E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jpNRZDFo7s

lo36789
Posts: 8485
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Guiseley

Post by lo36789 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:36 pm

en passant wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:30 pm
I have seen numerous games since then where the idea that the attacking team should not have anyone within a metre of the wall frequently overlooked. It seems that as with many new rules that they are gradually worn down through usage to the point where they just get overlooked.
This one is more of a recognition of it. This is the first season where position of attacking in an attacking free kick has been relevant. In most cases it is simply a case that the change has been forgotten about and as most players have also forgotten about it then it isn't really called out.

It kind of only becomes 'relevant' when a free kick is scored as well. All of those that are blazed over the bar or fired straight into the wall nobody really cares where the attacker was stood so it gets overlooked.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4411
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:46 pm

As I remember from the game there was a player right in the wall up until the kick was taken. He was pushing about and causing bother - it would seem that our defenders should have just man handled him out - but could you get into trouble for doing this.

lo?
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

Vokuhila
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlo

Re: Guiseley

Post by Vokuhila » Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:40 pm

LoidLucan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 2:08 pm
He obviously feared that there might be a chip into the other corner but that would have been very difficult for the scorer to attempt from a rolling ball.
Especially when the player concerned was Hamza Bencherif.

I mean he's a solid enough centre half, but he's no Philippe Albert!

lo36789
Posts: 8485
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Guiseley

Post by lo36789 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:40 pm

If the ball isnt in play worst case is a yellow card for adopting aggressive.

Simple answer is for defenders to question "ref can he be there?". The whole reason behind the law is to basically give referees permission in law to move them on - as historically these situations lead to aggro but there wasn't until now a legitimate reason to move them.

How many players did we have in the wall unless it's 3 or more it isn't classed as a wall.

Most refs ask AR to remind them of they forget about this part of law this season given it is new and as I say not really something that has been looked for until now as a result. Unless causing bother

H1987
Posts: 1545
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by H1987 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:48 pm

Ok, had a chance to rewatch it. It's funny what you think you see from one slightly obstructed angle, and what actually happened. As I see it now, Hedley plays it back, Connell miss-controls the ball with his right foot, it pings up and looks like it'll go past him so he sticks a hand out. He does definitely react and touches it with his left hand, although I suspect it's a natural reaction as much as anything else.

I'm still confused about how this is interpreted as a backpass. Indeed, as someone points out earlier in the thread, if the keeper has tried to deal with it with his feet, it can't be. Unless there is an aspect to the backpass rule I am unaware of, I really don't understand how this is supposedly a foul... and I can't quite understand what the referee thinks he sees. The yellow card is utterly bizarre. Everyone had long stopped before the Guiseley player puts the ball in the net, so it seems a tad ridiculous for Guiseley to be upset about it. Also, that penalty for the second goal is embarrassing. Aside from how pathetically weak it all is, Storey clearly touches the ball. A ridiculous, ridiculous decision.

We were bad, and I don't think we deserved anything from the game, but those two decisions have a huge impact for sure. I actually don't think Guiseley were terribly good until this point. It could've been 4-5 after that, thanks to us seemingly trying to throw the kitchen sink at it with 5-6 forwards on.

That said, my impression of the Wheatley hack hasn't changed. That should have been red. I do think there was an argument for a foul on Hatfield in the build-up to it, and tempers were fraying because of the referee's appalling game management... there's also another off the ball clash going on with Hatfield and another of their players at the time of the Wheatley challenge. The ref had totally lost control of the game, and it was a consequence of that. It still should have been a red card nonetheless.

Finally - I've seen enough of Connell. I think it's worth noting that the first goal came about from his poor distribution and control - whatever the referee makes of it, it was totally avoidable. He was also guilty of some other shaky play, and his kicking and distribution were poor in general. I also agree that the first goal he should have that side covered, and the wall isn't properly organised. I think this game served as an illustration of two things. One - that Elliott should be the undisputed number one. Stop mucking around after one game and give Chris the gloves for a few games, which he keeps unless he does something majorly wrong. Two - that there should be a substitute keeper named on the bench. That moment when I and those around me thought 'he's off, he's handled it out of the area' should very much illustrate *why* we should have a substitute keeper. It makes me nervous every time, and it seems totally unnecessary while we have two experienced keepers at the club.

H1987
Posts: 1545
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by H1987 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:23 pm

By the way, I noticed the banner still wasn't back up. Is it ruined because of the scruffy little urchins up the road?

lo36789
Posts: 8485
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Guiseley

Post by lo36789 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:42 pm

H1987 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:48 pm
I'm still confused about how this is interpreted as a backpass. Indeed, as someone points out earlier in the thread, if the keeper has tried to deal with it with his feet, it can't be. Unless there is an aspect to the backpass rule I am unaware of, I really don't understand how this is supposedly a foul... and I can't quite understand what the referee thinks he sees. The yellow card is utterly bizarre. Everyone had long stopped before the Guiseley player puts the ball in the net, so it seems a tad ridiculous for Guiseley to be upset about it.
Was correct last season (not the caution) but incorrect this season.

Tbh guiseley would have done well not to score had play continued.

al_quaker
Posts: 5570
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by al_quaker » Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:11 pm

So the referee literally didn't know what he was doing? Sums him up

Mind, what we are doing playing back to the keeper in such close proximity on that pitch I've no idea. The pitch looks even worse on the highlights - if it doesn't get better we are in for some horrific games of football at Blackwell Meadows for the rest of the season. No chance of decent football being played on that field..

onewayup
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by onewayup » Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:24 pm

In the cold light of day let's just say a very bad day at the office for Darlington fc players, and very poor referee,
Put it to bed and concentrate on our nex game.
Up the Quakers, com'on darlo

Vokuhila
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlo

Re: Guiseley

Post by Vokuhila » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:05 pm

al_quaker wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:11 pm
Mind, what we are doing playing back to the keeper in such close proximity on that pitch I've no idea. The pitch looks even worse on the highlights - if it doesn't get better we are in for some horrific games of football at Blackwell Meadows for the rest of the season.
I'm calling it first: there will be a Gary Neville/Paul Robinson-style own goal at BM before the season's out.

I just hope Steve McClaren isn't there to see it.

User avatar
D_F_C
Posts: 1784
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:43 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by D_F_C » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:59 pm

en passant wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:25 pm
D_F_C wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:12 pm
1st goal, ref was correct other than the yellow card. Most annoying thing was we caused it ourselves.

1. The quick throw to Hedley (which you could argue wasn't anything bad)
2. He panicked a bit and passed it straight back
3. It bobbles up and Connell instinctively puts his hand up
4. They they put it in, so I'd have been fuming if I was them
5. The defending from the free kick. Connell's fault IMO. The wall is meant to watch one side and he watches the other. It went in the corner that he was meant to be watching. If it went over or under the wall, then that's not he keepers fault, but if it goes in the side that the keeper is covering then it's the keepers fault. He went across when should have stayed

The penalty was inside the box (not like someone I'd read on twitter that claimed it was 2 yards outside the box). I can understand why it was given. I thought we could have had one.

Most concerning is the contract rumours. Hopefully this doesn't extend to someone like Hatfield, who we should be nailing down now, along with others like Donawa and Storey (even if they get sold)
Just to repeat what I was stating above, the sequence you have for the goal is rather different to what I see on the match highlights. Connell only put his hand up to parry a shot by the Guiseley forward, which is after it bounced off his foot. I don't see it positively hit his hand before this. Do you see something different? And if this was the handling of the back pass I am still dubious as to why the merest touch on his glove violates the intention of the back pass rule. Can someone clarify as I still think that this puts a keeper in a crazy position and does not allow him to make a save. What if a player passes a ball back and gets his foot under the ball so that it comes to the keeper at shoulder height and is heading for the goal. In parrying the shot, thus saving the goal, does he give away a free kick for back pass. I don't think I have ever seen a kick awarded for this, but I wondered if this was really what happened on Saturday and that it should be happening more often.
A shot by the Guiseley player? No, Hedley passes it directly back to Connell after it had been thrown to him, it bobbles and hits his foot, Connell moves his hand and the ball strikes it. No other players intervened at this point. I believe this is therefore classed as a passback. It's irrelevant that it touched his foot first, otherwise what would stop a defender playing it back to the keeper who could chip it up into his hands.

All in all it was a bunch of errors on our part

H1987
Posts: 1545
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by H1987 » Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:32 pm

D_F_C wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:59 pm
en passant wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:25 pm
D_F_C wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:12 pm
1st goal, ref was correct other than the yellow card. Most annoying thing was we caused it ourselves.

1. The quick throw to Hedley (which you could argue wasn't anything bad)
2. He panicked a bit and passed it straight back
3. It bobbles up and Connell instinctively puts his hand up
4. They they put it in, so I'd have been fuming if I was them
5. The defending from the free kick. Connell's fault IMO. The wall is meant to watch one side and he watches the other. It went in the corner that he was meant to be watching. If it went over or under the wall, then that's not he keepers fault, but if it goes in the side that the keeper is covering then it's the keepers fault. He went across when should have stayed

The penalty was inside the box (not like someone I'd read on twitter that claimed it was 2 yards outside the box). I can understand why it was given. I thought we could have had one.

Most concerning is the contract rumours. Hopefully this doesn't extend to someone like Hatfield, who we should be nailing down now, along with others like Donawa and Storey (even if they get sold)
Just to repeat what I was stating above, the sequence you have for the goal is rather different to what I see on the match highlights. Connell only put his hand up to parry a shot by the Guiseley forward, which is after it bounced off his foot. I don't see it positively hit his hand before this. Do you see something different? And if this was the handling of the back pass I am still dubious as to why the merest touch on his glove violates the intention of the back pass rule. Can someone clarify as I still think that this puts a keeper in a crazy position and does not allow him to make a save. What if a player passes a ball back and gets his foot under the ball so that it comes to the keeper at shoulder height and is heading for the goal. In parrying the shot, thus saving the goal, does he give away a free kick for back pass. I don't think I have ever seen a kick awarded for this, but I wondered if this was really what happened on Saturday and that it should be happening more often.
A shot by the Guiseley player? No, Hedley passes it directly back to Connell after it had been thrown to him, it bobbles and hits his foot, Connell moves his hand and the ball strikes it. No other players intervened at this point. I believe this is therefore classed as a passback. It's irrelevant that it touched his foot first, otherwise what would stop a defender playing it back to the keeper who could chip it up into his hands.

All in all it was a bunch of errors on our part
Whoever quoted the rule up above covers this. If the keeper is attempting to deal with it with his feet and it hits his hand, it's not a backpass.

To be honest, I'm not sure at which point it changed from catching the damned thing. That should be the difference. As usual, someone will have changed the rules, and not for the better. Just like the offside rule is perennially changing and confusing in its fine detail.

None of this excuses Connell though. No idea what on earth he was doing. He looked poor with the ball at his feet all game, and his kicking was bad as well.

User avatar
Quaker85
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:38 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by Quaker85 » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:10 pm

Going back to the state of the pitch again. You should see the state of Prenton Park, Tranmere. Total cabbage patch in league 1!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

H1987
Posts: 1545
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by H1987 » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:34 pm

There's more grass on Blackwell than on this Oxford pitch as well.

The grass is cut a bit shorter, but there's loads of sand all over it, and a muddy mess in the goalmouth.

Darlo2807
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:46 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by Darlo2807 » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:47 pm

H1987 wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:32 pm
D_F_C wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:59 pm
en passant wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:25 pm
D_F_C wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:12 pm
1st goal, ref was correct other than the yellow card. Most annoying thing was we caused it ourselves.

1. The quick throw to Hedley (which you could argue wasn't anything bad)
2. He panicked a bit and passed it straight back
3. It bobbles up and Connell instinctively puts his hand up
4. They they put it in, so I'd have been fuming if I was them
5. The defending from the free kick. Connell's fault IMO. The wall is meant to watch one side and he watches the other. It went in the corner that he was meant to be watching. If it went over or under the wall, then that's not he keepers fault, but if it goes in the side that the keeper is covering then it's the keepers fault. He went across when should have stayed

The penalty was inside the box (not like someone I'd read on twitter that claimed it was 2 yards outside the box). I can understand why it was given. I thought we could have had one.

Most concerning is the contract rumours. Hopefully this doesn't extend to someone like Hatfield, who we should be nailing down now, along with others like Donawa and Storey (even if they get sold)
Just to repeat what I was stating above, the sequence you have for the goal is rather different to what I see on the match highlights. Connell only put his hand up to parry a shot by the Guiseley forward, which is after it bounced off his foot. I don't see it positively hit his hand before this. Do you see something different? And if this was the handling of the back pass I am still dubious as to why the merest touch on his glove violates the intention of the back pass rule. Can someone clarify as I still think that this puts a keeper in a crazy position and does not allow him to make a save. What if a player passes a ball back and gets his foot under the ball so that it comes to the keeper at shoulder height and is heading for the goal. In parrying the shot, thus saving the goal, does he give away a free kick for back pass. I don't think I have ever seen a kick awarded for this, but I wondered if this was really what happened on Saturday and that it should be happening more often.
A shot by the Guiseley player? No, Hedley passes it directly back to Connell after it had been thrown to him, it bobbles and hits his foot, Connell moves his hand and the ball strikes it. No other players intervened at this point. I believe this is therefore classed as a passback. It's irrelevant that it touched his foot first, otherwise what would stop a defender playing it back to the keeper who could chip it up into his hands.

All in all it was a bunch of errors on our part
Whoever quoted the rule up above covers this. If the keeper is attempting to deal with it with his feet and it hits his hand, it's not a backpass.

To be honest, I'm not sure at which point it changed from catching the damned thing. That should be the difference. As usual, someone will have changed the rules, and not for the better. Just like the offside rule is perennially changing and confusing in its fine detail.

None of this excuses Connell though. No idea what on earth he was doing. He looked poor with the ball at his feet all game, and his kicking was bad as well.
IFAB, changing football for the worse, just to look like they’re actually doing something.

al_quaker
Posts: 5570
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by al_quaker » Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:23 pm

H1987 wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:34 pm
There's more grass on Blackwell than on this Oxford pitch as well.

The grass is cut a bit shorter, but there's loads of sand all over it, and a muddy mess in the goalmouth.
Grass on a pitch doesn't make it good. The Blackwell Meadows pitch may have grass on it, but I've seen flatter farmers fields.

Emdubya
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:31 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Guiseley

Post by Emdubya » Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:34 pm

al_quaker wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:23 pm
H1987 wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:34 pm
There's more grass on Blackwell than on this Oxford pitch as well.

The grass is cut a bit shorter, but there's loads of sand all over it, and a muddy mess in the goalmouth.
Grass on a pitch doesn't make it good. The Blackwell Meadows pitch may have grass on it, but I've seen flatter farmers fields.
Well if you think BM is like a farmers field,Christ knows what you would have made
of Farsley’s at the start of the season.
And Guiseley didn’t do too badly on it on Saturday.

Post Reply