Doncaster match thread sponsored by Rugby on in the pub!

[Ark Royal]

Right, keep "Back from the Game" off the sponsored Match Thread and all that, but anyway...

Don't fancy my chances of seeing the game in a pub given Spurs vs Villa is on at the same time. Let alone any egg chasing.

I've never seen it so crowded in there at teatime, and never mind the fact that it was voted the top football pub in the country in '07 and '08

The egg chasing accounted for half of the back room, and most of the rest were Tottenham dopes there for the Villa game; I got the owner, a Celtic guy, to give us one big screen in a corner, but it was right next to an amp blaring commentary from the Lane (and the guys sat at the table next to us were Liverpool boys who were there for some ongoing Jamie Carragher charity raffle --that game started at a quarter of seven in the morning )

Anyway, Howard was of course immense, Fed to the rescue in the end, a pen was necessary, and a simple booking for inadvertently handling a goal-bound shot would've been the judicious thing for all concerned IMO, but whatever, who the f*ck really cares

As the clock went past 90 minutes, they were showing a replay from eighty-six different angles and never showed how much time had been added on --I figured 4 was about right with the five substitutions made during normal time and the better part of two minutes spent getting Shelton ("Praying") Martis outta there; absolute panicked ignorance for six and a half agonising minutes and no audio to guide

Huge win, nice to make a noticeable bit of noise in a small corner of a crowded back room, yada yada, and now to do the janners on Tueserz

Fcuk off Hayter

James ("Don't Be A") Hayter

Nice reportage, Chi.

[RoyalChicagoFC]

STH and infrequent poster was my companion, Arky (and in case my neckwear hadn't given it away, he let the aforementioned redshirt brigade know just who we were, heh)

He's here thru next weekend, and while both Setanta and FSC are claiming to be showing the Derby-Brum game, that can't be right, and that one and ours are the only two going at that hour (and Setanta becomes FSC+ the first of next month, if you hadn't heard)

Anyway, once the TV matter gets sorted for Saturday, if you get a yen to head south on I-94 and if the weather holds --odds are you're acquainted with the man

We may do a place in Evanston instead of The Globe if it's on FSC, as that's more convenient to both of us (although The Globe does, as you know, rawk)

In any case, PM if the general concept holds any appeal, and we can arrange

[Ark Royal]

STH and infrequent poster was my companion, Arky (and in case my neckwear hadn't given it away, he let the aforementioned redshirt brigade know just who we were, heh)

He's here thru next weekend, and while both Setanta and FSC are claiming to be showing the Derby-Brum game, that can't be right, and that one and ours are the only two going at that hour (and Setanta becomes FSC+ the first of next month, if you hadn't heard)

Anyway, once the TV matter gets sorted for Saturday, if you get a yen to head south on I-94 and if the weather holds --odds are you're acquainted with the man

We may do a place in Evanston instead of The Globe if it's on FSC, as that's more convenient to both of us (although The Globe does, as you know, rawk)

In any case, PM if the general concept holds any appeal, and we can arrange

Thanks Chi. I will keep an eye out and an ear to the ground and let you know.

[rhroyal]

I remember a few years back in 01/02 it was 0-0, and somebody for Port Vale handballed on the line by accident. The ref gave the penalty and no card.

[Platypuss]

Then it's not handball.

But that doesn't stop it being frequently given as a penalty (so given refing is a hard job I'm not complaining about that), I've already seen one other handball in the box that granted a penalty but not a red card today. You seem them far more often than penalty AND a red.

But seen them given or not given and in whatever sequence, the fact is tonight he got it right!!

I thought you were waiting to see it again. Because I've seen it about 5 times and there is no way it was deliberate. Mills was doing everything he could to head or chest it. He gained zero advantage by it hitting his arm, in fact in nearly caused him to score an own goal.

In the circumstances (goalbound shot), the only options open to the ref for the handball are:

Not deliberate: no penalty, no red card.
Deliberate: penalty, red card.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Correct Sebs, one denies a goal opportunity, the other does not.

[Snowball]

Federici - 9. Almost a ten. Great game. Looked like a top Premiership keeper. Can't remember a mistake
Griffin - 8 Almost a 9. Good talker, very sensible. Cool. A fe important covering tackles. SIGN HIM UP!
Bertrand 7 Can't remember him much but the defence did well as a unit against good players
Ingi 7 Solid, arguably 8. They took a while to get control of good attack but did v well overall
Mills 8 Was excellent IMO and he looked to be trying to let the ball go under his arm. Not a red.
McAnuff 7 Attacking, not so good and wasted chances. Tacking back was OK
Karacan 7 Got through a lot of work, esp second half
Gunnar 7 Unspectacular, hard-working but all the midfield were fighting against a slick 5
Howard 9 Thought he was excellent and really up for it. Excellent assist and good goal
Kebe 8 Was on fire for the first thirty minutes and an excellent outlet. Great run and cross that McAnuff blew
Long 9 Very, very good game, nice goal, one great shot, twice involved in the move and excellent assist for Howard

Church 7 Worked well with Longy. One miss. If he could get goals should play, but...
Zurab 8 Not on for long but looked solid class

Howard, Feds, Long all vying for MoM. Not much in it, but just about Fed I think

[Snowball]

Oh yeah Feds pushed one shot into the path of a Donny striker
when he either should catch it or push it round...

So "only" a 9

[Barry the bird boggler]

Its the Duck for me, at last some sight of what he can contribute to a game - perhaps he's one of those that works better in a 3-5-2, 4-5-1 or 5-3-2 formation than what we'd normally play though.

[Snowball]

In a 4-5-1 away with two fairly defensive midfielders (eg Karacan, Gunnar)

[ZacNaloen]

In the circumstances (goalbound shot), the only options open to the ref for the handball are:

Not deliberate: no penalty, no red card.
Deliberate: penalty, red card.

I've never looked so closely at the laws of this game recently but I've just recently come to the conclusion that they are nothing if not broken.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

In the circumstances (goalbound shot), the only options open to the ref for the handball are:

Not deliberate: no penalty, no red card.
Deliberate: penalty, red card.

I've never looked so closely at the laws of this game recently but I've just recently come to the conclusion that they are nothing if not broken.

Actually, that ruling makes perfect sense. If the handball was accidental, then why award a penalty? If it wasn't wasn't accidental, then guy deserves to be sent off.

If a players was clean through on goal, but is brought down by a defender mistiming a tackle, people don't say it shouldn't be a red. It's the same thing. The defender in that case made a deliberate action (trying to make a tackle) that resulted in a foul, that prevented a goalscoring opportunity, even though there was no intent to foul.

[Terminal Boardom]

Sadly, the authorities have fiddled and tinkered with the rules for so many years is it any surprise that people get confused? Does the word "Intent" still appear? I dooubt it. We know that if the ball strikes the hand or arm and neither are in a "natural" position, then the referee will award a direct free kick. Last night's showing, the shot was goal bound. I can see no other option for the referee than to award a pen and send the player off. There will have been an FA Assessor in the stands marking his performance.

If only the officials were allowed to use common sense.

[Platypuss]

People have no excuse for being confused in this circumstance, however - the rules are clear cut.

IMO handballs are given far too readily by refs - but that's another story.

[Franchise FC]

Oh yeah Feds pushed one shot into the path of a Donny striker
when he either should catch it or push it round...

So "only" a 9

The Donny striker was offside, so your criticism is unfounded.

[Franchise FC]

Sadly, the authorities have fiddled and tinkered with the rules for so many years is it any surprise that people get confused? Does the word "Intent" still appear? I dooubt it. We know that if the ball strikes the hand or arm and neither are in a "natural" position, then the referee will award a direct free kick. Last night's showing, the shot was goal bound. I can see no other option for the referee than to award a pen and send the player off. There will have been an FA Assessor in the stands marking his performance.

If only the officials were allowed to use common sense.

Law states 'deliberate'

Hanging your arms out to make your block bigger is deliberate.

Mills was unlucky in the way that the ball moved after hitting his chest/side, but he started with arms out so was 'asking for trouble'.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Sadly, the authorities have fiddled and tinkered with the rules for so many years is it any surprise that people get confused? Does the word "Intent" still appear? I dooubt it. We know that if the ball strikes the hand or arm and neither are in a "natural" position, then the referee will award a direct free kick. Last night's showing, the shot was goal bound. I can see no other option for the referee than to award a pen and send the player off. There will have been an FA Assessor in the stands marking his performance.

If only the officials were allowed to use common sense.

I think the public gets confused because they here so much crap talked by pundits and managers. I remember David Moyes saying a shot that hit someone's arm "had to be a penalty as it prevented a goal" even though that doesn't exist in the rules.

There's no reason at all to say it has to be a handball if a shot is goal bound. Handball is handball, regardless of where the offence takes place on the pitch. How can it be "common sense" to determine a foul by a defender on the direction the ball is travelling?

It's more about refs being brave and not giving fouls where they look like fouls, but probably aren't under the laws of the game. Last night's would come into that category. Mills' arm was where you'd expect it to be, and the ball just hit it, and then got dragged as he turned his body. It was pretty much unavoidable, but there was so much contact that he probably felt he had no choice. It would have been more controversial not to have given it.

[Dirk Gently]

Sadly, the authorities have fiddled and tinkered with the rules for so many years is it any surprise that people get confused? Does the word "Intent" still appear? I dooubt it. We know that if the ball strikes the hand or arm and neither are in a "natural" position, then the referee will award a direct free kick. Last night's showing, the shot was goal bound. I can see no other option for the referee than to award a pen and send the player off. There will have been an FA Assessor in the stands marking his performance.

If only the officials were allowed to use common sense.

I think the public gets confused because they here so much crap talked by pundits and managers. I remember David Moyes saying a shot that hit someone's arm "had to be a penalty as it prevented a goal" even though that doesn't exist in the rules.

There's no reason at all to say it has to be a handball if a shot is goal bound. Handball is handball, regardless of where the offence takes place on the pitch. How can it be "common sense" to determine a foul by a defender on the direction the ball is travelling?

It's more about refs being brave and not giving fouls where they look like fouls, but probably aren't under the laws of the game. Last night's would come into that category. Mills' arm was where you'd expect it to be, and the ball just hit it, and then got dragged as he turned his body. It was pretty much unavoidable, but there was so much contact that he probably felt he had no choice. It would have been more controversial not to have given it.

indeed. Refs seems to give handball anywhere on the pitch on the basis of whether the "offender" gains an advantage, not whether it was deliberate or not.

[rabidbee]

My memory must be extremely crap. The game's only been over about an hour or so and I don't remember Kebe being involved in either goal.

My mistake, I misremembered him crossing for Long's goal, not Howard.

[RoyalBlue]

. But you have to be absolutely 100% positive it was a deliberate attempt to prevent a goal for it to be a red card. And there is no way the ref should have been.

No you don't. Any foul that prevents a clear goalscoring opportunity is a mandatory red card. Intent to prevent a goal doesn't come into it.

"denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball"

"denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick"

And that's where the ref and his assistant got it completely wrong. It was Mills' chest that denied Doncaster an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. By the time the ball deflected onto his arm, it was barely a goalscoring opportunity, let alone an obvious goal-scoring opportunity!