Post Match Views: Charlton v Accrington: 19 January 2019.
Comments
-
Terrible team. Really hope number 14 Finley and number 15 Sykes gets what they deserve. And the red cards for Taylor (and Maxted) are overturned.
Their number 3 Hughes is no genius either, is he? Dont know the rules. Surely Grant would have got another try if he hadn’t put away the penalty. Hughes standing a couple of yards inside the circle.
Only seen the highlights, but seems like our lads showed excellent discipline. Extra credit to Sarr, Solly & Bauer.0 -
Also, the Accrington coach showed himself up in that interview. He should have waited an hour before blowing. I can't believe that the ref told him he didn't think it was a penalty. Of course he did, he gave it! Also, all this first name terms stuff seemed a bit contrived.2
-
I think that the fact the stamps were missed will help get the red overturned. Are AS appealing the keeper's? That may also help.0
-
What an absolute plum.paulie8290 said:1 -
That is a fecking disgrace. Hope he gets a retrospective ban.NorthheathAddick said:
Dirty scummy northernBeardface said:1 -
Re Taylors sending off.............
is it a case that he is guilty until proved innocent, ie we have to show clear & obvious reason why he shouldn't have been shown a red card rather than the ref/lino/EFL show why he should. A bit like in cricket with DRS, the team trying to overturn the decision have to "prove" the umpire was wrong.
In this case, unless the club show all the angles from behind the goal that we haven't seen, I cant see how the club can say Taylor didn't do anything. From what we have seen from Sky & Quest there is such a melee you just cant see anything clearly.
I'm expecting the lino (who on whose "opinion" the ref went by) will just say " I saw red no. 9 do such & such" and that will be that.
0 -
And if you wait another 2 years, he may play that well againLeuth said:Reeves naysayers btw: that was how good he can be
5 -
thanks @clive , I completely missed that bitclive said:
Exceptions to the requirement to leave the field of play are only when:rina said:
where have you got that from? this is still in the 2018/19 laws of the game 'An injured player may not be treated on the field of play and may only re-enter after play has restarted' http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-5---the-refereeWeegie Addick said:Learn the (newish) rules @golfaddick- if a player requires treatment after a FOUL, he no longer has to leave the pitch.
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
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-5---the-referee0 -
I haven't watched the Quest footage as yet but from the Sky footage it looked to me that when Bielik steamed in to protect Taylor that it was him who knocked in to the AS defender who then fell backwards towards the goalie.DA9 said:This will be unpopular, wasn’t at the game, but watching quest this morning, Taylor does appear to kick out and send an AS player flying right at the end of the melee before the scene changes to the keepers red card
0 -
That is quite deliberate and deserves a massive ban - the longest the FA/EFL (who's actually in charge of this stuff?) can hand out.Vincenzo said:
That is a fecking disgrace. Hope he gets a retrospective ban.NorthheathAddick said:
Dirty scummy northernBeardface said:2 -
Sponsored links:
-
I can understand he was frustrated, but he demonstrated typical blinkered bias. Firstly, speaking as somebody who was in the East stand, the referee's assistant was in the best place to see it - he was probably in the worst. He said there was a deflection onto the arm which confirms that he didn't see it well at all.Rob said:Also, the Accrington coach showed himself up in that interview. He should have waited an hour before blowing. I can't believe that the ref told him he didn't think it was a penalty. Of course he did, he gave it! Also, all this first name terms stuff seemed a bit contrived.
Football can be a cruel game, and I wouldn't argue that it was cruel on them yesterday, but it was kismet rather than an outrageous decision that did for them. He might have been better off apologising for the behaviour of some of his players, as if he wants to condone what went on, it sums up why they might think it is ok to behave as they did.5 -
Correct...robinofottershaw said:
I haven't watched the Quest footage as yet but from the Sky footage it looked to me that when Bielik steamed in to protect Taylor that it was him who knocked in to the AS defender who then fell backwards towards the goalie.DA9 said:This will be unpopular, wasn’t at the game, but watching quest this morning, Taylor does appear to kick out and send an AS player flying right at the end of the melee before the scene changes to the keepers red card
0 -
He had his arm out above 90 degrees. It was a penalty 100%.cafcnick1992 said:Just watched it back. Never a penalty! Shocking decision tbf.
I can't believe how many people on here think it was obvious. It was obviously not. How can you take your arm away from the ball when it is smacked at you from 4 yards away?
I'm obviously delighted that we won, but you would be absolutely fuming if you were you a Stanley fan.6 -
If not a single other poster agrees with you perhaps you're wrong.cafcnick1992 said:Just watched it back. Never a penalty! Shocking decision tbf.
I can't believe how many people on here think it was obvious.12 -
First real time I have been on here since the game yesterday and that was a conscious decision as I wanted to post sensibly rather than letting all of my emotions get the better of me.
It was scrappy game throughout, made worse by the constant stop-start nature the game took, mainly down to the referee looking to give free-kicks at every opportunity. In a way, I feel he was doing this because he knows he is a weak official that can't control the game, so he needs to try and stamp his authority by giving free-kicks far more than he ought to. Instead of controlling the game, he made the players and the supporters frustrated which in my opinion contributed to the game boiling over nearer the end.
We didn’t play too well but we created enough opportunities to win the game so it was a fair result. The midfield three of Bielik, Cullen, and Pratley were unfortunately too similar for a home game, which I feared would happen but it was what I could see us going with. The difference for me yesterday was when Reeves came on. He was sharp, clever, skilful, energetic, and overall he was very good on the ball. Won the penalty and that is the change for me that won us the game.
Regarding the penalty, I’d love to know the reasons as to why people believe it was not. Distance between the ball and the player is irrelevant. The players arms are in an unnatural position, it clearly strikes him on the arm, and it massively changes the trajectory of where the ball was going, it’s a clear penalty.
Regarding the fights/melee/brawl, I don’t know how Taylor got sent off, I don’t know how the goalkeeper got sent off, and I don’t know how their number 14 and number 15 did not get sent off. I really hope that the league and authorities look at the incident and do the right thing, rescind the red cards and retrospectively ban the two Stanley players.
I haven’t got much to actually comment on the game itself this week, other than the fact that I absolutely loved it at the end. Haven’t celebrated like that for a long time and lost my voice by the time the final whistle was blown.
On the pitch we got our Charlton back. And I can’t wait for Peterborough away next weekend.
Allez, allez, allez!18 -
The other is the Albert Hall, as for his mother .....AddicksAddict said:
Is he saying Krystian has only one?Rossman92 said:Lmao Bauer
1 -
I'd suggest you learn the lawscafcnick1992 said:This forum would be in absolute meltdown if such a soft decision had been given against us. There is no way the accy player deliberately handled the ball.
1 -
He wasn't protecting the linesman. He was stopping the AS players getting the lino to change his decision !killerandflash said:
Personally I didn't think it was his job to get involved and protect the lino, as that risks getting yourself involved when it had nothing to do with us. Indeed LET the Stanley players overstep the markJaShea99 said:Solly deserves a lot of credit for sprinting over and shielding the lino after their players absolutely went for him. Surprised it hasn’t been mentioned.
10 -
I posted a photo of it earlier today. A disgrace. Their number 14 needs banning but more of a hit would be a massive fine. He has done that to a bloke who does the same job as him. Imagine a work colleague doing that to you? He would be sacked and maybe more.Chunes said:That stamp on Taylor's head has got to be one of the nastiest things I've seen on a football pitch.
Deliberately stamping on a player's head!? This bloke should be banned for months
Can't believe the media haven't caught onto it
7 -
High marks for Purrington on the player marks thread; I thought he looked like a cross between Danny Seabourne and Carl Tiler. Other than being left footed, no better than the Dijksteel-Solly combination3
-
Sponsored links:
-
We haven't conceded since he has joined us.4
-
Oggy Red said:MuttleyCAFC said:
That will be the defence I imagine if that was the reason for the sending off.Oggy Red said:
And if you're lying on your back, getting a kicking - then you're going to raise your arms and legs to protect yourself?ForeverAddickted said:
As @RedChaser says its more of a David Beckham '98 kick but he did lash out after being thrown to the floorPragueAddick said:
What kick??? The "kick" you told us to look out for in the Sky vid?ForeverAddickted said:
Probably why they're both sent off then rather than just Taylor for the kickOggy Red said:
In the sending off incident, watch their keeper again.ForeverAddickted said:
From the corner, Taylor makes a back for the keeper .... but straightaway you can hear the ref blow for a foul.
Taylor falls to the ground, with the keeper falling on top of him.
The game has been stopped before the keeper picks himself up, and as Taylor is getting up, the keeper steps back towards Taylor and pushes him to the ground.
The ruck starts after that.
I terms of Stanley, they worked incredibly hard to frustrate us which probably contributed to their behaviour. But they were lucky not to have four or five sent off on the day to be fair.
4 or 5 players sent off?
You can't play a League match with a team of less than 7 players.
Which means the game would have been abandoned.
Nice to see a sportsman with some personality - the throw in and protecting little Jonny at the end showed a fine sense of humour, and just how many 6 foot 5 centre backs do Cruyff turns.JamesSeed said:
That’s what you call damned with faint praise.Henry Irving said:I thought Bowyer was playing games saying neither player should have gone. Basically sending a I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine to Stanley.
Taylor blocks their keeper, it's a foul.
Sarr is so much better "used to shite, now he's alright" is about right. He isn't the disaster waiting to happen (when some were still blind to his many errors and labelled any criticism racism) but he still shanks clearances and he got caught a couple of times yesterday trying to turn out of trouble. Once the guy was on the ground and still got up and ran away from Sarr. And for his height he sometimes doesn't time his jumps well and so doesn't get much distance on headed clearances.
But he's doing well as a ok third level centre back do good luck to him.
Accept a hero when one comes along Henners!6 -
Taylor stands in front of, behind and circles the goalkeeper at corners.Briston_Addick said:
If Taylor moves around to stay in the 'keeper's way then that would be obstruction and a free-kick against him would be justified.stevexreeve said:Surely deliberately standing in someone's way while not attempting to play the ball is almost the definition of "obstruction".
If the offender is not even looking at towards the corner flag and cannot therefore be attempting to play the ball, an offence is already being committed.
In this case I think the ref is correct to blow his whistle as soon as the corner is taken no matter what happens afterwards.
Just because the 'keeper decides to move doesn't mean that Taylor has to be a gentleman and make way for him. He commits no offence by taking up his preferred position before the ball is played in and then he does nothing. It's the 'keeper's problem if he doesn't have a clear path to the ball.
When I say this I mean touching and not close by.
He does move around to obstruct the keeper.
I love Taylor but these actions are fookin ridiculous and he could have cost us points yesterday.
Who knows how many points his foolish big headedness will cost us if the ban is not rescinded.
He may have just cost us promotion ?
As for those saying these cretinous games are necessary for him to perform at the same level, then I 100% disagree.
Grow up Taylor and stop being an arse. (Still love him though).5 -
Purrington has had an average start to his Charlton career nothing spectacular but steady which is what Bowyer was told he was getting. Last week he came 9th out of 12 in the players marks on his debut at Shrewsbury with 6.92. Very early days for people to be forming an opinion, writing him off or lining him up to be their next scapegoat
. 8 -
How many agree or disagree doesn't make him wrong.Dazzler21 said:
If not a single other poster agrees with you perhaps you're wrong.cafcnick1992 said:Just watched it back. Never a penalty! Shocking decision tbf.
I can't believe how many people on here think it was obvious.
2 -
No the fact he is wrong makes him wrong... But perhaps the number of posters will help him review the incident and in turn his position...Henry Irving said:
How many again or disagree doesn't make him wrong.Dazzler21 said:
If not a single other poster agrees with you perhaps you're wrong.cafcnick1992 said:Just watched it back. Never a penalty! Shocking decision tbf.
I can't believe how many people on here think it was obvious.
Player moves arm towards ball = hand ball offence, intentional or otherwise.
1 -
if not intentional, it isn't handball2
-
BollocksMuttleyCAFC said:if not intentional, it isn't handball
0 -
It isn't bollocks -
“Handling the ball involves a DELIBERATE act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm."
The point about yesterday is that it was a decision that had to be made and I think the fact the hand moved to the ball and was in a blocking position did for the player, but it is a decision that could have gone either way IMO.2 -
Yes, so argue why he's wrong in fact.Dazzler21 said:
No the fact he is wrong makes him wrong... But perhaps the number of posters will help him review the incident and in turn his position...Henry Irving said:
How many again or disagree doesn't make him wrong.Dazzler21 said:
If not a single other poster agrees with you perhaps you're wrong.cafcnick1992 said:Just watched it back. Never a penalty! Shocking decision tbf.
I can't believe how many people on here think it was obvious.
Player moves arm towards ball = hand ball offence, intentional or otherwise.
As Ibsen says in Enemy of the People "the majority is always wrong.
For the record I think it was a penalty although if it had be given against us I and many others would be arguing it was harsh.1
