Boston Game To Be Replayed

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

comeondarlo
Posts: 2691
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:54 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: A Swimming Pool (usually).

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by comeondarlo » Tue Dec 15, 2020 5:42 pm

LoidLucan wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 5:38 pm
The ruling doesn't surprise me given that the game hadn't finished and that no-one was to blame for the extremely rare incident that meant the game had to be abandoned. Would deciding the result of an unfinished game on the balance of probability really be the right thing to do?
Yes!

LoidLucan
Posts: 3423
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by LoidLucan » Tue Dec 15, 2020 5:45 pm

Clearly the independent panel who had all the evidence, arguments and laws in front of them didn't agree with you.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6337
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by loan_star » Tue Dec 15, 2020 5:54 pm

Boston are hardly in a position to call foul on the game being replayed anyway. After all they got promoted at the expense of Dagenham a few years back despite making illegal payments to players.

tdk1
Posts: 2135
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:21 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by tdk1 » Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:17 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 5:25 pm
Fuck them.

At first I would have had no problem with them being awarded the points.

But after the behaviour of their keeper, crying on twitter that it may have to be replayed, while driving his car, and just being a wanker in general, then fuck them.

Fuck them.

Would I be happy if it was the other way around? No, of course not. But it isn't the other way around, their keeper is a wanker, they are a dirty cynical team, so fuck them.

Fuck them.

It could also be argued, albeit tenuously, that on 86 minutes with the score being 0-1 that play should have been stopped for a serious injury and the 2nd goal would not have happened and therefore the game would not have been put to bed at that point.

0-1 rather than 0-2 with 4 minutes time and 4 or so minutes of injury time to play - that's not a certain away win.

You not watched our home games this season?

Darlogramps
Posts: 5359
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:18 pm

bga wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 2:04 pm
HarryCharltonsCat wrote:Daft decision. There was no way in the time it took them to score that they would have realised how serious the injury was. Up to the ref to stop play anyway.
That’s not the point. The point is the idea Boston should get the win because of sportsmanship is massively undermined by the fact they weren’t particularly sporting.

But by your same logic it’s up to the league to decide what happens after an abandoned match. The ref interprets the rules and makes a decision, and so do the league.

You can’t have it both ways.

Oh and they could easily have realised it was a head injury. It was obvious it was a head injury to two players. Plenty of players around and they could have called for their teammates to stop play, in the interests of welfare and sportsmanship. You’re plain wrong on that point.
For someone who previously quoted "The League will decide and I'll have no qualms either way" your views now seem very extreme. Wonder how you would have reacted had the result stood?
I would have accepted the judgement had the result stood, but the more I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve come to the view that 87 mins isn’t a complete match. Particularly as Boston were happy to keep playing on despite two of our defenders obviously suffering head injuries (and if anyone cares to watch the footage, it’s clear as day that’s what they’d suffered).

That’s not an extreme view at all, and I’d be intrigued to know why you think it is. In fact, it’s pretty laughable you think that is “extreme”.

Moreover, I’d be fascinated to know what your view is too.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

darlo_baron
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:28 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by darlo_baron » Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:21 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 5:25 pm
Fuck them.

At first I would have had no problem with them being awarded the points.

But after the behaviour of their keeper, crying on twitter that it may have to be replayed, while driving his car, and just being a wanker in general, then fuck them.

Fuck them.

Would I be happy if it was the other way around? No, of course not. But it isn't the other way around, their keeper is a wanker, they are a dirty cynical team, so fuck them.

Fuck them.

It could also be argued, albeit tenuously, that on 86 minutes with the score being 0-1 that play should have been stopped for a serious injury and the 2nd goal would not have happened and therefore the game would not have been put to bed at that point.

0-1 rather than 0-2 with 4 minutes time and 4 or so minutes of injury time to play - that's not a certain away win.
This.
Craig Liddle is God!!

H1987
Posts: 1751
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by H1987 » Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:39 pm

Is it a little odd that the club announced the game will take place at Blackwell Meadows?

Have we shelved Arena contingency plans? Does the replayed game have to be held at the same venue? Odd one. It doesn’t say the date and ‘at home’, it specifically says Blackwell. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it?

jjljks
Posts: 2111
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by jjljks » Tue Dec 15, 2020 7:03 pm

Not taking any bets on this, but will be surprised if we can fit all the games in to complete the season. Nice to have another chance to play for the 3 pts, but even better to have Nicky Hunt fit & well enough to play again.

Old Git
Posts: 827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:09 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by Old Git » Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:31 pm

If we get a period of severe weather in the New Year or more shutdowns due to Covid-19 outbreaks this will become a real headache. The season is due to finish late May and I imagine the League will stick to this to ensure the playoffs can be completed before a short break and the next season begins. Even if next season did not begin until late August/ early September time is quite tight.
We will just have to do our best to fit the games in but it will make a playoff challenge difficult even if we are good enough. If we have a good run in the Trophy, which I hope we do,the games really will pile up.

bga
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by bga » Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:10 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:18 pm
bga wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 2:04 pm
HarryCharltonsCat wrote:Daft decision. There was no way in the time it took them to score that they would have realised how serious the injury was. Up to the ref to stop play anyway.
That’s not the point. The point is the idea Boston should get the win because of sportsmanship is massively undermined by the fact they weren’t particularly sporting.

But by your same logic it’s up to the league to decide what happens after an abandoned match. The ref interprets the rules and makes a decision, and so do the league.

You can’t have it both ways.

Oh and they could easily have realised it was a head injury. It was obvious it was a head injury to two players. Plenty of players around and they could have called for their teammates to stop play, in the interests of welfare and sportsmanship. You’re plain wrong on that point.
For someone who previously quoted "The League will decide and I'll have no qualms either way" your views now seem very extreme. Wonder how you would have reacted had the result stood?
I would have accepted the judgement had the result stood, but the more I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve come to the view that 87 mins isn’t a complete match. Particularly as Boston were happy to keep playing on despite two of our defenders obviously suffering head injuries (and if anyone cares to watch the footage, it’s clear as day that’s what they’d suffered).

That’s not an extreme view at all, and I’d be intrigued to know why you think it is. In fact, it’s pretty laughable you think that is “extreme”.

Moreover, I’d be fascinated to know what your view is too.
I believe in normal circumstances the match should last for 90 minutes, these were not normal circumstances. Would you suggest that any match where the referee either plays 3 minutes short of 90 mins and any injury time, or plays on for longer than the allocated time should also be replayed? You referred to Boston playing on despite the injuries. The responsibility to stop play rests with the officials, ultimately the referee, not the opposition. The fact the opposition played on which they were entitled to do so is not a reason to replay the match. You refer to watching the footage where "it's obvious that 2 of our Defenders suffered head injuries." It is easy to look at the footage time and time again now and draw that conclusion. But watching the match live and in real-time, my initial reaction was s*** we have two defenders injured in this attack, and then like many others I followed the ball like the referee did. We had a panoramic view of the incident, at pitch level you see things differently. I didn't immediately (in the few seconds it took for them to score) think serious head injuries. Neither did some others watching, including our own physiotherapist. So my view is that in the circumstances (87 mins completed), opposition 2 nil up it would have been fair to award the match to Boston.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5359
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:34 pm

bga wrote: I believe in normal circumstances the match should last for 90 minutes, these were not normal circumstances. Would you suggest that any match where the referee either plays 3 minutes short of 90 mins and any injury time, or plays on for longer than the allocated time should also be replayed?
Bizarre question. Why would a referee in ordinary circumstances stop a match at 87 minutes? If a match doesn’t complete a minimum of 90 minutes, it cannot be regarded as completed. That’s not a difficult argument to comprehend.
bga wrote: You referred to Boston playing on despite the injuries. The responsibility to stop play rests with the officials, ultimately the referee, not the opposition. The fact the opposition played on which they were entitled to do so is not a reason to replay the match.
Again, absolutely no one has said that was the reason to replay. The reason to replay was because the match wasn’t completed, for reasons out of either sides’ control.

The point I’m making is that people are arguing it would be good sportsmanship for Boston to be given the win. However that argument is undermined by them playing on despite obvious head injuries to two of our defenders. You can’t call for good sportsmanship on one instance but ignore bad sportsmanship in another.

I remember Paulo Di Canio catching the ball with an open goal ahead of him, despite the opposition goalkeeper being prone on the ground. That is unquestionably good sportsmanship.
bga wrote: You refer to watching the footage where "it's obvious that 2 of our Defenders suffered head injuries." It is easy to look at the footage time and time again now and draw that conclusion. But watching the match live and in real-time, my initial reaction was s*** we have two defenders injured in this attack, and then like many others I followed the ball like the referee did. We had a panoramic view of the incident, at pitch level you see things differently. I didn't immediately (in the few seconds it took for them to score) think serious head injuries. Neither did some others watching, including our own physiotherapist.
The “serious” is a red herring. No one knows immediately if any injury is serious. However it was obvious these were head injuries. Both players are down clutching their heads. The referee should in that instance immediately have stopped the game. Those are the rules. And if the referee didn’t realise they were head injuries, his competence is called into question as his first priority is player welfare.

Darlington and Boston players were next to the incident, yet Boston carried on. Of course they’re not obliged to stop, but don’t argue it’s good sportsmanship to give them the game if they’re not prepared to prioritise the welfare of our players above their need to attack.

I don’t buy that none of them realised. They were stood right next to the incident.

You’ve also yet to explain why you think my view that the match should be replayed is “very extreme”. Dodging the question suggests you don’t believe it’s “very extreme” at all.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

lo36789
Posts: 9080
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by lo36789 » Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:00 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:34 pm
The “serious” is a red herring. No one knows immediately if any injury is serious. However it was obvious these were head injuries. Both players are down clutching their heads. The referee should in that instance immediately have stopped the game. Those are the rules. And if the referee didn’t realise they were head injuries, his competence is called into question as his first priority is player welfare.
It's not that much of a red herring as per law it is the only time when play should be stopped for injuries.

Per IFAB...

"Injuries
- allows play to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is only slightly injured
- stops play if a player is seriously injured and ensures that the player is
removed from the field of play. An injured player may not be treated on the
field of play and may only re-enter after play has restarted; if the ball is in
play, re-entry must be from the touchline but if the ball is out of play, it may
be from any boundary line. Exceptions to the requirement to leave the field
of play are only when:
• a goalkeeper is injured
• a goalkeeper and an outfield player have collided and need attention
• players from the same team have collided and need attention
• a severe injury has occurred
• a player is injured as the result of a physical offence for which
the opponent is cautioned or sent off (e.g. reckless or serious foul
challenge), if the assessment/treatment is completed quickly
• a penalty kick has been awarded and the injured player will be the kicker"

It's also not true that both players were clutching their heads.

McMahon is clutching his shin, because that is where Hunt stood on him and Hunt has his hand on the base of his back. Watch it again.

McMahon momentarily after the ball is in the back of the net puts his left hand on his head and then immediately goes back to his shin. Hunt is hitting the ground with his right arm after initially putting it on his hip/back. The BL is in the net before a hand goes on a head.

https://youtu.be/PfXzoF7W1P8

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4708
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:15 pm

I can't understand all this concern for Boston. We'll be having a fundraiser for them next, raising money for their team bus :shock:

They played dirty, their management team throughout the match acted badly, and then there's the social media stuff that went on after the game.

If this had played out the other way I'm betting they wouldn't give a damn.

We never made this decision so what's the problem?
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

Darlogramps
Posts: 5359
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:30 am

lo36789 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:34 pm
The “serious” is a red herring. No one knows immediately if any injury is serious. However it was obvious these were head injuries. Both players are down clutching their heads. The referee should in that instance immediately have stopped the game. Those are the rules. And if the referee didn’t realise they were head injuries, his competence is called into question as his first priority is player welfare.
It's not that much of a red herring as per law it is the only time when play should be stopped for injuries.

Per IFAB...

"Injuries
- allows play to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is only slightly injured
- stops play if a player is seriously injured and ensures that the player is
removed from the field of play. An injured player may not be treated on the
field of play and may only re-enter after play has restarted; if the ball is in
play, re-entry must be from the touchline but if the ball is out of play, it may
be from any boundary line. Exceptions to the requirement to leave the field
of play are only when:
• a goalkeeper is injured
• a goalkeeper and an outfield player have collided and need attention
• players from the same team have collided and need attention
• a severe injury has occurred
• a player is injured as the result of a physical offence for which
the opponent is cautioned or sent off (e.g. reckless or serious foul
challenge), if the assessment/treatment is completed quickly
• a penalty kick has been awarded and the injured player will be the kicker"

It's also not true that both players were clutching their heads.

McMahon is clutching his shin, because that is where Hunt stood on him and Hunt has his hand on the base of his back. Watch it again.

McMahon momentarily after the ball is in the back of the net puts his left hand on his head and then immediately goes back to his shin. Hunt is hitting the ground with his right arm after initially putting it on his hip/back. The BL is in the net before a hand goes on a head.

https://youtu.be/PfXzoF7W1P8
Are you blind? Watch it again yourself. Hunt’s left arm goes up to his head straight away and McMahon’s arm is on his head as soon as he hits the ground. It’s also pretty clear Hunt smacks his head off the floor and the ref has a clear view of the incident.

At best you’re blind, at worst you’re being disingenuous. The referee also runs straight past two injured players. There are definite questions about his competence. You’ll defend the referee but you always do, so your defence is irrelevant.

You’re also taking my “serious” comments out of context. They’re in relation to BGA’s point, not a discussion of the laws of the game.

Don’t take my words out of context again.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

lo36789
Posts: 9080
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by lo36789 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:59 am

In what sense you just said a referee was incompetent for not stopping for a head injury which is in the rule (it isn't). I'm sorry that you saying it was a rule wasn't a discussion about the rules and that I have taken that out of context.

We obviously see very different things. You keep saying it was two head injuries from a collision. It wasn't. It was a collision of feet more than anything. Hunt landed on McMahons legs and then fell backwards and his head was injured from contact with the ground.

I've been through and by my reckoning the first point that McMahon touches his head is on 7:07 on the highlights at which point the ball is in the net. He then immediately switches and puts his hands on his legs as that is what was hurt in the collision.

I challenge you to find me a single still image of the incident where the players are both clutching their heads before the ball is in the back of the net. I've just taken 10 stills between collisions and ball in goal but message got deleted because you can't attach more than 3.

wizardofos
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:14 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by wizardofos » Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:27 am

Although Boston may count themselves unlucky, it's the correct decision. As Gramps said, where do you draw the line otherwise?
To be fair, the goal came very quickly after the injury so I wouldn't accuse their players of unsporting behaviour regarding this particular incident. Normally, when there is a serious injury, it feels like it takes a little longer for the ref / other players to react and stop play. However, their players were unsporting (as mentioned elsewhere) at other times and it seems the legacy of Steve Evans lives on.

On a seperate note, does anyone know where the control box for the floodlights is?

lo36789
Posts: 9080
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by lo36789 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:53 am

It's always been the default to be honest. Unless it's FA Comp when the FA risk their revenue if the show doesn't carry on.

I know Alfreton and Bedford have been told if they don't play their fixture in the next 5 days, following a positive covid case yesterday, then they are both removed from the FA Trophy.

The option remains for a league to decide whatever they want as the outcome. As you rightly say all floodlight outages have been replayed the difference with our Warrington game was one clubs refusal to play.

The current fixture congestion would have been a reasonable justification (I think) to apply that discretion and not add in another game but clearly it is just BAU and just try and play when you can.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5359
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:09 am

lo36789 wrote:In what sense you just said a referee was incompetent for not stopping for a head injury which is in the rule (it isn't). I'm sorry that you saying it was a rule wasn't a discussion about the rules and that I have taken that out of context. .
Crikey, you really are a dimwit. I wasn’t discussing the rules of the game with BGA. He said he didn’t instinctively realise it was a serious injury, therefore the referee was justified in not stopping the game.

My point to him was that a head injury as a matter of course is treated seriously. Referees always stop the game immediately if they believe it’s a serious head injury. In this instance, that’s what should have happened as there were not one, but two injuries.

You quote IFAB, but have left out the FA’s protocols specifically to head injuries.

From a friend who is an FA referee, a head injury would be classed as a serious injury and therefore the referee can stop play at their interpretation . That’s the point. The referee has to interpret the laws of the game and apply the rules accordingly. On this occasion, with two head injuries, the game should have been stopped immediately.

And I trust the referees I have spoken to over a dimwit like you. And it clearly was a serious head injury, given Hunt twice stopped breathing.
lo36789 wrote: We obviously see very different things. You keep saying it was two head injuries from a collision. It wasn't. It was a collision of feet more than anything. Hunt landed on McMahons legs and then fell backwards and his head was injured from contact with the ground.
I never said the heads collided in mid-air. You do have trouble with comprehending points don’t you?
I quite clearly say Hunt bangs his head on the ground, so why are you lying, other than to be deliberately disingenuous?

Hunt’s arm clearly goes to his head straightaway but the referee runs right past him. On the ground, McMahon clearly touches his head while Boston are attacking. It’s there, it happens.

You’re seeing what you want to see because you always defend referees. It’s bizarre but you never criticise referees or officials at all. On this occasion the referee was incompetent and borderline negligent in not stopping the game immediately.
lo36789 wrote: I've been through and by my reckoning the first point that McMahon touches his head is on 7:07 on the highlights at which point the ball is in the net. He then immediately switches and puts his hands on his legs as that is what was hurt in the collision.

I challenge you to find me a single still image of the incident where the players are both clutching their heads before the ball is in the back of the net. I've just taken 10 stills between collisions and ball in goal but message got deleted because you can't attach more than 3.
Watch the footage properly and you’ll see it. I’m not spending time screenshotting each microframe just to win an argument on the internet, when you’ll just deny it anyway. Hunt’s arm goes up to his head immediately and McMahon touches his head too when on the floor. The referee runs right past them doing it.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

lo36789
Posts: 9080
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by lo36789 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:25 am

Whatever. Deny the footage as you please. Neither player touches their head until the ball is in the back of the net even then it's only McMahon.

Our physio confirmed Hunt was completely conscious when he got to him and he actually didn't even sprint on as thought that it was gamesmanship? It was minutes later before he showed signs of deterioriation.

Personally think throwing an accusation of negligence is quite severe actually and completely unfounded in this case. If you are then you would surely have to throw the same accusation at our medical staff who admit they didn't see a need to respond quickly.

It took 4 seconds between collision and the ball being shot to goal. 6 seconds in total between collision and the game being stopped that is not negligence. It is not even incorrect application of law.

You are in my view applying a completely unreasonable level of expectation on an official given what actually transpires. Not the imaginary version in your head where both players clutch their heads.

There is no point though because you will deny it even in the face of video evidence and frankly as all I've asked for is one single still image of two players clutching their heads which you said was immediate and obvious it really wouldn't take that long to do.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5359
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:14 am

lo36789 wrote:Whatever. Deny the footage as you please. Neither player touches their head until the ball is in the back of the net even then it's only McMahon.

Our physio confirmed Hunt was completely conscious when he got to him and he actually didn't even sprint on as thought that it was gamesmanship? It was minutes later before he showed signs of deterioriation.

Personally think throwing an accusation of negligence is quite severe actually and completely unfounded in this case. If you are then you would surely have to throw the same accusation at our medical staff who admit they didn't see a need to respond quickly.

It took 4 seconds between collision and the ball being shot to goal. 6 seconds in total between collision and the game being stopped that is not negligence. It is not even incorrect application of law.

You are in my view applying a completely unreasonable level of expectation on an official given what actually transpires. Not the imaginary version in your head where both players clutch their heads.

There is no point though because you will deny it even in the face of video evidence and frankly as all I've asked for is one single still image of two players clutching their heads which you said was immediate and obvious it really wouldn't take that long to do.
How many more times? Hunt’s left arm immediately goes to his head. 7:00 on the footage.
I can’t be blamed if you’re unwilling to see what is obvious. I don’t need to spend time getting a screenshot when it’s there for anyone to see. As soon as Hunt hits the ground he moves his left arm towards his head.

Also, why are you saying it has to be of two players? If one player has a head injury, the game gets stopped. More bad faith on your part.

The referee’s first job is to protect the players. If there is any doubt, you stop the game and get the medical teams on. The referee runs right past Hunt whose left arm is holding his head.

Hunt had a clear head injury and I would argue McMahon has too. The game should’ve been stopped. End of. Failing to stop the game is incompetence on the part of the referee.

It’s not imaginary, it’s there in the video footage. Watch it properly instead of trying to shove your tongue up the referee’s backside like you always do.

You have a love-in with officials and defend every referee on this board so it’s no surprise you’ve invented another fantasy to defend the officials.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

banktopp
Posts: 715
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:59 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Hereford

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by banktopp » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:30 am

There is a small possibility that this strange season could be decided on average points per game.
As well as further lockdowns after Christmas, players testing positive, and possibility of games postponed because of bad weather,
the chances of us completing our fixtures by whatever date the league set must be of concern.
By having to replay the game against Boston will in a small amount work in our favour if PPG were to be implemented. To have awarded
the game to Boston because they were the better team would lower our average PPG. Yes they were the better team up to the 87th
minute but it only takes a second to score a goal and with 4 minutes of added time who is to say. Unlikely I admit but possible, and that is why
the league have made the correct decision.

lo36789
Posts: 9080
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by lo36789 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:07 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:34 pm
Also, why are you saying it has to be of two players?
I didn't
lo36789 wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:25 am
all I've asked for is one single still image of two players clutching their heads
I asked for evidence of two players down clutching their heads. I said not one thing about it needing to be two players to stop the game.

I only asked because someone else said that is what happened, when it didn't.
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:34 pm
However it was obvious these were head injuries. Both players are down clutching their heads.

onewayup
Posts: 2045
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by onewayup » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:58 am

The crux of this is the referee failed in his duties by not stopping the game after a serious head injury, Boston carried on and scored, that goal SHOULDN'T have stood, meaning the score would have been 1-1 the powers that be took that and the seriousness of what happened and the way Boston acted immediately aafter the incident into their judgement and of course the game was not completed. All in all they got the decision right on this occasion.
Replay was only sensible conclusion .so be it.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4708
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:13 am

ER onewayup - I can't remember Darlo scoring to get their "1"

I've just watched the 10 minute highlights of this game to refresh my memory and it's not quite the whitewash that some are making it out to be.

Up to 87 minutes Boston were winning 1 nil, and we had had chances too, but bad finishing on numerous occasions cost us.

Re the game stopping injury I can understand Boston playing on, their players were "in the zone" and attacking - they were playing to the whistle, which is okay, but the Ref?

He has a great view of this incident. When the collision happens he is perfectly placed to see it, yet he seems unconcerned. Hunt is motionless straight away yet the Ref follows the goal action and even after the ball is in the net, turns around casually the wrong way, as if the injured players weren't in the forefront of his mind.

I've seen games stopped countless times in situations like this and to me (for what it's worth) I think the Ref cocked up, and I thought this at the time too when I was watching the live stream.
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

norwich darlo
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:19 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by norwich darlo » Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:18 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:34 pm
MKDarlo wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:31 pm
MKDarlo wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:25 pm
Correct decision. A match wasn’t completed and this follows precedent.
Correct as per the rules. Natural justice suggests otherwise . I have no sympathy for Boston but we were well beaten in that game and were heading ,with 2 minutes (?) left, for what we richly deserved out of it: Nowt.


We all know Boston won that game.
No they didn’t. The league has literally just ruled otherwise.
Whatever. I know what the rules say. I also know this doesn't sit well with me. You are welcome to disagree.
You don’t need to invite me to disagree, everyone should know that by now. Image

We don’t conclude matches at 87 minutes. That’s all there is to it. Otherwise where do you draw the line?
Tottenham were winning 3-0 against west ham after 87 minutes and look what happened. Not to say Darlo would have done a West Ham but who knows.?

Old Git
Posts: 827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:09 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by Old Git » Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:28 pm

Lets face we have had a right slice of luck with the ruling that the game has to be replayed. I know some disagree which is their prerogative but what really matters now is that we take advantage of the situation and get the three points when the game is replayed.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6337
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by loan_star » Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:49 pm

Hunts left hand goes straight to his head as he falls, in clear view of the referee. Lo is wrong, Gramps is correct.

lo36789
Posts: 9080
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by lo36789 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:58 pm

loan_star wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:49 pm
Lo is wrong, Gramps is correct.
Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:14 am
Both players are down clutching their heads.
This is all I want a still image of. The point where both players are clutching their heads. Ideally the full frame so the position of the ball can be seen at this point.

lo36789
Posts: 9080
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by lo36789 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:08 pm

FWIW the reason it is listed as serious injury in the laws is because it is absolutely not expected that every time a player is down and suggest that their head is injured that the game is stopped.

The referee is required to actually see the head injury - and since our own medical team didn't spot a head injury happening then it doesn't feel like a bit of an unfair level of expectation.

The expectation is that a match official attempts to assess severity of the injury prior to stopping the game. That means assessing the nature of a collision, and the nature of the action afterwards and also taking into account impact on the game of stopping at that moment.

I've stopped games for knee injuries. Two have been cruciate injuries simple from landing on the ground after jumping for a header. On both occasions the ball was in a neutral area on the halfway line. As such as the benefit of being able to see the movement of the knee on the landing justified stopping the game.

I've equally played on where a player has gone down and held his head after a corner. The ball fell to an opponent who then scored. By the time I got to him 3 seconds later he was up and rubbing the top of his head - he didn't even need treatment and there was not a single suggestion the goal should have been disallowed.

In hindsight it was a serious injury. It took a few minutes for Hunt to deteriorate to the point of that mind and did so fully under supervision of medical staff who had been brought on.

I think football would make for an interesting spectacle if everytime a player indicates that their head is hurt we immediately stop the game wherever it is. Players already attempt to game this usually when CBs lose the ball and leave strikers one on one they go down hold their head in hope. It's the gamesmanship that was mentioned by Danny O'Connor and what he thought Hunt was doing initially.

onewayup
Posts: 2045
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Boston Game To Be Replayed

Post by onewayup » Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:31 pm

the originalfacat, :thumbup: ER onewayup - I can't remember Darlo scoring to get their "1"
Of course you are right I have had a memory lapse, don't know why I said 1-1 finger slip
Thanks for putting that right. :oops:
Last edited by onewayup on Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply