BFTG-Bristol city.

[Nameless]

With regard to the penalty. Even if the trip was accidental by the laws of the game it is still a penalty. A foul is a foul whether accidental or not.

Not sure that's entirely accurate.
what about the 'careless, reckless, excessive' test ?
Agree that the consideration of intent has been removed from the law but not every bit of contact is now a foul, which is kind of what you are suggesting. If the Bristol defender is just running normally in a straight line and Samuel cuts across him and tangles with his foot then Samuel has been 'tripped' but I would not consider it a foul using the criteria in the laws.

[TFF]

Both players were running in straight lines.

[NewCorkSeth]

With regard to the penalty. Even if the trip was accidental by the laws of the game it is still a penalty. A foul is a foul whether accidental or not.

Not sure that's entirely accurate.
what about the 'careless, reckless, excessive' test ?
Agree that the consideration of intent has been removed from the law but not every bit of contact is now a foul, which is kind of what you are suggesting. If the Bristol defender is just running normally in a straight line and Samuel cuts across him and tangles with his foot then Samuel has been 'tripped' but I would not consider it a foul using the criteria in the laws.

An interesting interpretation. Do the laws of obstruction not come in to play in that scenario? (genuine question)

[ladida_gunner_graham]

Seriously, were you actually there? Won the penalty, provided an outlet, did everything that could be asked of him except score

Yes, I was there and 4/10 is probably about right. Won virtually nothing in the air (1 out of 8 aerial challenges, and that one went directly to the opposition) and all this outlet providing you mentioned simply never happened. He had 16 touches in the entire game, which half were missed shots (2), giving possession away, and poor touches. Yes he did win the penalty, but along with rescuing possession on the centre line after his own bad control, that's his 4 marks. I have to ask you, were you actually there?

Did we win?
Did his positioning create goal opportunities for other players?
How many games has he started?
Is your claim to fame that you can count.
Are you a Reading Supporter?

What's your stats for Yann then?

Did we win? Totally irrelevant. Do you think that when we win every player has to have played well?
Did his positioning create goal opportunities for other players? Nicely done, the old "he did a lot of good work off the ball...you know, closing down and stuff". Didn't really notice that he did. Not standing still is not the same as "creating goal opportunities" for others. He won a penalty, already acknowledged.
How many games has he started? What has this got to do with his performance on Saturday? Does he get extra marks for a low number of starts?
Is your claim to fame that you can count. Now you really are getting desperate.
Are you a Reading Supporter? Yes, but does that mean I have to be blind to what actually happens on the pitch?
What's your stats for Yann then? What has this got to do with anything? Yann's performance, good or bad, has nothing to do with whether Samuels played well or not.

His performance against Burton was encouraging, no question, but the OP's point was that a week is a long time in football, and I'm agreeing with that. Not saying he's a total dud, just that Saturday's performance was a 4/10.

[NewCorkSeth]

Yes, I was there and 4/10 is probably about right. Won virtually nothing in the air (1 out of 8 aerial challenges, and that one went directly to the opposition) and all this outlet providing you mentioned simply never happened. He had 16 touches in the entire game, which half were missed shots (2), giving possession away, and poor touches. Yes he did win the penalty, but along with rescuing possession on the centre line after his own bad control, that's his 4 marks. I have to ask you, were you actually there?

Did we win?
Did his positioning create goal opportunities for other players?
How many games has he started?
Is your claim to fame that you can count.
Are you a Reading Supporter?

What's your stats for Yann then?

Did we win? Totally irrelevant. Do you think that when we win every player has to have played well?
Did his positioning create goal opportunities for other players? Nicely done, the old "he did a lot of good work off the ball...you know, closing down and stuff". Didn't really notice that he did. Not standing still is not the same as "creating goal opportunities" for others. He won a penalty, already acknowledged.
How many games has he started? What has this got to do with his performance on Saturday? Does he get extra marks for a low number of starts?
Is your claim to fame that you can count. Now you really are getting desperate.
Are you a Reading Supporter? Yes, but does that mean I have to be blind to what actually happens on the pitch?
What's your stats for Yann then? What has this got to do with anything? Yann's performance, good or bad, has nothing to do with whether Samuels played well or not.

His performance against Burton was encouraging, no question, but the OP's point was that a week is a long time in football, and I'm agreeing with that. Not saying he's a total dud, just that Saturday's performance was a 4/10.

If a score of 5 is an average performance then it follows that a score of 4 is below average but not awful. Did he make enough mistakes in the game to warrant a 4? (I wasnt there so have no valid opinion on performance)
If winning a penalty at a minimum adds +1 to your score then he must have made enough mistakes to take 2 points off his final score right? What were those mistakes in your view?

[Maneki Neko]

theres no reasoning with people about ratings systems.

for most people a 6 or 7 out of 10 is an average game.
because theyre mental idiots

[NewCorkSeth]

theres no reasoning with people about ratings systems.

for most people a 6 or 7 out of 10 is an average game.
because theyre mental idiots

Agreed.

[Stranded]

Can we please get this right now. The guys name is Dominic Samuel not Samuels.

[muirinho]

Can we please get this right now. The guys name is Dominic Samuel not Samuels.

* guy's

[ladida_gunner_graham]

theres no reasoning with people about ratings systems.

for most people a 6 or 7 out of 10 is an average game.
because theyre mental idiots

Agreed.

Also agreed, hence the 4 for a marginally less than average game.

[NewCorkSeth]

Can we please get this right now. The guys name is Dominic Samuel not Samuels.

* guy's

Are you suggesting he's plural or am I an idiot? (or both?)

[ladida_gunner_graham]

Did we win?
Did his positioning create goal opportunities for other players?
How many games has he started?
Is your claim to fame that you can count.
Are you a Reading Supporter?

What's your stats for Yann then?

Did we win? Totally irrelevant. Do you think that when we win every player has to have played well?
Did his positioning create goal opportunities for other players? Nicely done, the old "he did a lot of good work off the ball...you know, closing down and stuff". Didn't really notice that he did. Not standing still is not the same as "creating goal opportunities" for others. He won a penalty, already acknowledged.
How many games has he started? What has this got to do with his performance on Saturday? Does he get extra marks for a low number of starts?
Is your claim to fame that you can count. Now you really are getting desperate.
Are you a Reading Supporter? Yes, but does that mean I have to be blind to what actually happens on the pitch?
What's your stats for Yann then? What has this got to do with anything? Yann's performance, good or bad, has nothing to do with whether Samuels played well or not.

His performance against Burton was encouraging, no question, but the OP's point was that a week is a long time in football, and I'm agreeing with that. Not saying he's a total dud, just that Saturday's performance was a 4/10.

If a score of 5 is an average performance then it follows that a score of 4 is below average but not awful. Did he make enough mistakes in the game to warrant a 4? (I wasn't there so have no valid opinion on performance)
If winning a penalty at a minimum adds +1 to your score then he must have made enough mistakes to take 2 points off his final score right? What were in your approach, those mistakes in your view?

Surely a player does not start at 5 and then go up or down (this seems to be what you are suggesting). You have to earn a 5 by doing enough to be average, and I don't believe Samuel did. Yes, he won the penalty, but it's really hard to see what else he did. He won a tackle and laid the ball off, but only after he'd mis-controlled the ball to a Brizzle. After that, I'm really struggling to think of anything much, so maybe a four is generous. Maybe a 3.....

[LWJ]

theres no reasoning with people about ratings systems.

for most people a 6 or 7 out of 10 is an average game.
because theyre mental idiots

Agreed.

Also agreed, hence the 4 for a marginally less than average game.

So it was a 5 then? As previously suggested winning a penalty should add +1 so would be on 6 before your 'marginally' less than average -1 took him to 5.

Anyhow I think you are wrong. How you can expect him to win every ball in the air against one of the tallest CBs in the league is ridiculous.

[LWJ]

Surely a player does not start at 5 and then go up or down (this seems to be what you are suggesting). You have to earn a 5 by doing enough to be average, and I don't believe Samuel did. Yes, he won the penalty, but it's really hard to see what else he did. He won a tackle and laid the ball off, but only after he'd mis-controlled the ball to a Brizzle. After that, I'm really struggling to think of anything much, so maybe a four is generous. Maybe a 3.....

You can't start as good or bad, you start as average and move up and down from there.

[muirinho]

Can we please get this right now. The guys name is Dominic Samuel not Samuels.

* guy's

Are you suggesting he's plural or am I an idiot? (or both?)

I couldn't possibly comment.

Singular possessive, therefore requires an apostrophe.

Peter's
the cat's
guy's

If it was plural (as in the names belonging to the guys) - then it would be guys' names

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/apostrophe

[NewCorkSeth]

* guy's

Are you suggesting he's plural or am I an idiot? (or both?)

I couldn't possibly comment.

Singular possessive, therefore requires an apostrophe.

Peter's
the cat's
guy's

If it was plural (as in the names belonging to the guys) - then it would be guys' names

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/apostrophe

Sorry! I read it as "guys's" which I presumed was the plural of "guys"

[NewCorkSeth]

Surely a player does not start at 5 and then go up or down (this seems to be what you are suggesting). You have to earn a 5 by doing enough to be average, and I don't believe Samuel did. Yes, he won the penalty, but it's really hard to see what else he did. He won a tackle and laid the ball off, but only after he'd mis-controlled the ball to a Brizzle. After that, I'm really struggling to think of anything much, so maybe a four is generous. Maybe a 3.....

In my head it makes sense to have everyone start at 5, other wise a player who was sent off in the first minute would get a negative score which is impossible on a scale from 1 to 10. If we have players start at average(5) and go down and up depending on performance it gives a pretty accurate picture of how they did.

IMO a score of 4 indicates a player made various small mistakes or struggled to make any real contribution which appears to be what you are suggesting. Fair enough. But the mere fact he won a penalty which led to a goal (does it count as an assist?) means he made some impact in the game so at a minimum I would have presumed he would get a 5/10.

If you think without the penalty win he deserved a 3/10 (which, to me, would suggest he made mistakes which led to goals or goal scoring opportunities directly) then I think its fair to ask for more evidence of bad play then a few mis-controlled passes in the opposition half. Making a mistake and then recovering from it to me cancels the mistake out.

Having said all that I dont see anything wrong with calling a horse a horse. If a playing doesnt play well then giving him a 6/10 is ridiculous.

[BR2]

With regard to the penalty. Even if the trip was accidental by the laws of the game it is still a penalty. A foul is a foul whether accidental or not.

But my main reason for writing is to comment about some of our pathetic fans. I was in East Stand and a guy near me would just not stop berating Gunter. He constantly screamed at Gunter all match saying how crap he was. But it really got almost hilarious when in the second half Gunter was totally upended by a Bristol player and the ref gave a foul. At which the "fan" screamed. "Gunter you really are shit - any decent player would have got out of the way of that." At that point I felt like thumping him, but restrained myself and just gave him an icy glare. Really..... I thought Gunter was pretty decent myself.

On a positive note - 5 on the bounce. Come on URZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Although I didn't berate Gunter all through the game like this person seems to have done I did find myself shouting "coward" when he completely bottled a 50/50 in front of us in the second half.

As for Samuel this discussion of numbers' ratings is just nonsense-he didn't play brilliantly and was a bit lucky to get the penalty but I feel the attacking side of the team is overall better with him in the side because of the pace of him, McCleary and Beerens.
If we are to play the incredibly slow game at the back we do have to have a significant change of pace when we attack-it doesn't happen when Kermorgant plays so I for one am glad to see the boy in the line-up as he has a future whereas Yann hasn't.

[Snowball]

As for Samuel this discussion of numbers' ratings is just nonsense-he didn't play brilliantly and was a bit lucky to get the penalty but I feel the attacking side of the team is overall better with him in the side because of the pace of him, McCleary and Beerens.
If we are to play the incredibly slow game at the back we do have to have a significant change of pace when we attack-it doesn't happen when Kermorgant plays so I for one am glad to see the boy in the line-up as he has a future whereas Yann hasn't.

Agreed

[Nameless]

With regard to the penalty. Even if the trip was accidental by the laws of the game it is still a penalty. A foul is a foul whether accidental or not.

Not sure that's entirely accurate.
what about the 'careless, reckless, excessive' test ?
Agree that the consideration of intent has been removed from the law but not every bit of contact is now a foul, which is kind of what you are suggesting. If the Bristol defender is just running normally in a straight line and Samuel cuts across him and tangles with his foot then Samuel has been 'tripped' but I would not consider it a foul using the criteria in the laws.

An interesting interpretation. Do the laws of obstruction not come in to play in that scenario? (genuine question)

No, for two reasons.
1. There is no such offence, the nearest in the current laws is 'impeding an opponent'
2. You have to be between the player and the ball to impede them and that wasn't the case here
The only two possible offences here are holding or tripping. If the defender used his arm to pull Samuel back it was holding, if he used his leg it was tripping. If Samuel just caught his foot on the defender there was no offence IMHO.
HOWEVER this happened 4 days ago and I can't see the ref changing his mind now !