Saints 3 Forest 2 - Reaction

[Barry the Badger]

I really like Morgan as a player but he was not at the races at fault for the 1st goal off the pace all game we have to have Cork in centre midfield & Hammond is in the form of his lifes

 

To be fair, we thought he spent most of the game doing a man marking job on Greening, leaving Hammond free to boss the midfield. I think he took one for the team in this respect.

 

He does need to cut out the occasional sloppy passing in the centre of the pitch though.

[Greenridge]

Sorry if already posted but there are a couple of minutes highlights on SSN

 

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,26691,16428,00.html

 

Nice first goal from Rickie Newman....when did we sign him? And a second from someone who looked just like him but called Lambert and at the 'near post'? It must have been dark in the editing room.

[Frank's cousin]

Guess how you view the more tricky fixtures and maybe 'less dominating' results depend son how you have recalibrated your expectations for this season. Most at the start of the season would have been more than happy with a top 10 pushing for playoffs year, given where we were this time last season. IN that context the results have been far better, the performances strong, but maybe suggesting we still have a bit to do defensively (and baring in mind teh 'new' back four for this game) if we are to maintain this momentum, but overall a VERY positive start and on track... If however, you have considered that based on teh start we should be looking at auto promotion, then naturally the critisism of the MIllwall, and Forest games is pretty valid.

 

I would say this. It is perhaps harsh (overly negative?) to critique performances on the expectation we should be 'walking this league' - just promoted and in a very tough league, with even tougher games to come for sure, but considering who we have played (certainly when considering Brightons opposition in teh first 6 games) and the adjustment necessary when you go up a level, surely we should be feckin' please with our best points tally in 76 years from teh first six games? Even if you consider that based on performance a point yesterday would have been a fairer reflection, but if you take that then 3 at Leicester would not have been unfair...

 

IMHO, criticism is fair enoough, but please place it in some sort of context with respect to your expectations and then perhaps there will be less negative respponse to some of those considered the constant moaners. For a newly promoted side, I think 15/18 points and the type of football we are playing is pretty amazing myself. Yes we have frailties and improvement will be necessary if we want to be there or there abouts, but surely everyone knows that, especially those at the club.

 

Next up a good test against Brum, who may think they have turned a corner with their 3-0 v Millwall. I suspect we will have learned a bit from Saturday and will expect a pretty good result. Enjoy the ride, things Saints are good right now!

[Kingsland Codger]

Blatant cheating such as Derbyshire's dive is blighting football and it needs action by refs, such as yesterday, to try to deal with it, but its a bigger crime when managers such as MaClaren stand in front of a TV camara telling lies to the watching public. He's not only condoning cheating, he's actively encouraging his players to do it. The sooner people like him are out of the game the better.

 

McClaren's TV interview comment wasn't helpful. A more sensible response (the sort of reply Roy Hodgson, for example, might have given) could have been something like ... "From the dugout I didn't have the best of views of the incident. The linesman was in the best position and the referee also had a clearer view than I did and I gladly accept their decision. I'm disappointed my player dived but he was booked for it and hopefully he has learned his lesson."

[doddisalegend]

McClaren's TV interview comment wasn't helpful. A more sensible response (the sort of reply Roy Hodgson, for example, might have given) could have been something like ... "From the dugout I didn't have the best of views of the incident. The linesman was in the best position and the referee also had a clearer view than I did and I gladly accept their decision. I'm disappointed my player dived but he was booked for it and hopefully he has learned his lesson."

 

Thing is though all the forest fans on their forum reckon it was a stonewall peno (which they would) according to the forest fans at SMS kelvin took their players ankles out. The Wally with Brolly is just telling his fans what they want to here ,that they were robbed, better than saying my choice of subs screwed us.

Edited 12 September, 2011 by doddisalegend

[West End Saint]

To be fair, we thought he spent most of the game doing a man marking job on Greening, leaving Hammond free to boss the midfield. I think he took one for the team in this respect.

 

He does need to cut out the occasional sloppy passing in the centre of the pitch though.

 

As I said I think Morgan is quality & I think that longer term he & Cork will be our centre midfield but he didnt do a man marking job on Greening imo as Greening bossed midfield 2nd half.Morgan went missing due to lack of concentration & thought he had more time than he had

 

I think it was just one of those games for him & am sure that he will be back to his best but for the moment on form we need Cork & Hammond Cork has been immense in there was very surprised to see him start at right back

[Wurzel]

The pictures on the OS show clear daylight (? 6 inches ?)between Kelvin and the derbyshire (pic No 15) (The Tv pictures from the other angle show that KD did not move his legs ).

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/Gallery/0,,10280~2447072,00.html

 

I have never seen Kelvin react like that (No 22), imo he KNEW there was no contact.

Also should the cheat have been send off (No 19 & 20) for raising his hand and slapping Kelvin around the face ?

 

 

Photo 15 is the give-away. If you are tripped the natural instinct would be to get your hands to the ground asap to prevent your face smashing into the ground. Anyone who "falls" with hands in the air and looking for the referee is in control of their body and faking it.

[Whitey Grandad]

Thing is though all the forest fans on their forum reckon it was a stonewall peno (which they would) according to the forest fans at SMS kelvin took their players ankles out. The Wally with Brolly is just telling his fans what they want to here ,that they were robbed, better than saying my choice of subs screwed us.

 

The assisant referee on the line was waving his flag for a foul by Derbyshire and tugging his shirt to show why he was giving it. So there is the definitive answer: a free-kick to us for shirt-pulling by Derbyshire. The rest is academic.

[Marino]

Seeing Jack doing his best, but struggling, at RB, and then watching Aaron Martin warming up

made me wonder if Martin perhaps could have 'done a Smalling' and slotted in at RB, being a

natural defender rather than a midfielder etc.

 

Andy Reid's 'shorts' were hilarious, never seen any wider/bigger - half the Forest team could have

got in there with him.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Fantastic game of football - very entertaining. NA got the tactics just right. Excellent to see Lambert cement himself as a Championship player while at Saints. Connolly is excelling in relation to our expectations - he is very fit, of that there can be no doubt. Defence needs work - especially with the new lad - their 2nd goal particularly was gifted to them. I want to see Cork at CM again, although clearly NA had selection problems. We deserved to win that game.

[Legod Third Coming]

Fantastic game of football - very entertaining. NA got the tactics just right. Excellent to see Lambert cement himself as a Championship player while at Saints. Connolly is excelling in relation to our expectations - he is very fit, of that there can be no doubt. Defence needs work - especially with the new lad - their 2nd goal particularly was gifted to them. I want to see Cork at CM again, although clearly NA had selection problems. We deserved to win that game.

 

I would say on the first half performance we did deserve it, but I was shocked at our start to the second half.

I expected us to come out and be a hell of a lot tighter. Instead we came our and rode our luck like a Texan cowboy for ten minutes before getting a foothold back in the game.

Thankfully SKD pulled off a wonder save during this period from their sloppily given away free kick.

If that had gone in, it might have been a different story.

 

The positives are that the back four was makeshift and that our ball control is at times really Barca-esque.

[SouthportSaint]

'All Angles Covered' highlights on Saints Player show beyond doubt that Derbyshire took a dive in the incident with Davis.

[for_heaven's_Saint]

'All Angles Covered' highlights on Saints Player show beyond doubt that Derbyshire took a dive in the incident with Davis.

 

Yup was a definite dive, well done linesman.

[Nexstar]

Great highlights as ever. Embarrassing from Derbyshire.

[SuperMikey]

'All Angles Covered' highlights on Saints Player show beyond doubt that Derbyshire took a dive in the incident with Davis.

 

I have to admit when I saw the short highlights on The Football League Show, I thought there was a trip. After seeing the highlights on SaintsPlayer, it's clear that Davis had his leg out, but not to trip him. Derbyshire trailed his leg over Kelvin's and then went down like he'd been shot! Appalling dive tbh.

[The Kraken]

'All Angles Covered' highlights on Saints Player show beyond doubt that Derbyshire took a dive in the incident with Davis.

 

I thought the regular TV pictures were pretty conclusive that it was a dive; Kelvin was hardly moving fast, barely touched Derbyshire yet he just threw his arms forward, lifted his legs in the air and fell to the ground. The TV pictures were a bit obscured by davies, thankfully the lino would have had a perfectly clear view of it and made the correct call.

 

I'd still prefer to see a much harder punishment for stuff like this; a booking for Derbyshire is well worth the risk to Forest for the potential gain of conning the ref and getting a penalty. Chuck in a retrospective one or two game ban and we might actually see some results. But so long as there are managers like McClaren who claim its a definite penalty because "there was contact" (despite any contact being utterly minimal and insufficient to cause the reaction from the striker that it did) then we'll always have a diving problem in English football.

[Professor]

In the regular TV pictures, Derbyshire is beyond Davies, who is on the ground and its not possible to see the lack of contact. But the All Angles Covered pictures from behind the goal line show very clearly that there was no contact between the players and no foul by Davies. Davies knocked the ball away with his hand before Derbyshire could kick it and as soon as he did, the Forest player threw himself to the ground. The camera from this angle shows without any doubt at all that this was a blatant attempt at cheating and show Derbyshire's dive. These pictures also show that the assistant referee was on the right side to have a clear view of the dive.

It is interesting that Maclaren claimed to have seen the TV pictures and said they showed contact by the goalkeeper. Obviously he was not telling the truth because there was no contact to see, but he probably had not seen the all angles pictures and was saying what he thought was in his own interest because he thought the TV pictures were inconclusive. What is then more interesting is that according to the Forest Forum, the Forest Player Video has not shown the all angles pictures. Now why should that be? Answers on a post card to..............

 

But just one final thought. The Assistant Ref flagged for the dive instantly it happened. Not for shirt pulling or anything else that the commentator, who could not see the dive, thought at the time but for the simulation. The Referee then booked Derbyshire but only gave him a warning and yellow card. Cheating in any sport or game is unacceptable and in most sports results in disqualification. The failure of the referee to send Derbyshire off the field will do nothing to stop this sickness in the game, and I don't pretend that players in a Saints' shirt are any less prone to it than others but as the old saying goes, "something must be done". This referee had a clear opportunity and he failed.

[Window Cleaner]

Seeing Jack doing his best, but struggling, at RB, and then watching Aaron Martin warming up

made me wonder if Martin perhaps could have 'done a Smalling' and slotted in at RB, being a

natural defender rather than a midfielder etc.

 

Andy Reid's 'shorts' were hilarious, never seen any wider/bigger - half the Forest team could have

got in there with him.

 

 

Cork looked totally out of sorts,except when he was going down the right wing.Not sure that he would have been any better in midfield.That said Miller and Derbyshire looked really handy (and so they should) and Majewski looked very quick and very sharp.MaClaren may moan but they've got good players at Forest and they've been in the play-offs these past two seasons.

 

I consider our win on saturday as a great result,no matter how it was obtained,who starred and who looked ordinary.This was about a win from a team above all else.

[The Kraken]

But just one final thought. The Assistant Ref flagged for the dive instantly it happened. Not for shirt pulling or anything else that the commentator, who could not see the dive, thought at the time but for the simulation. The Referee then booked Derbyshire but only gave him a warning and yellow card. Cheating in any sport or game is unacceptable and in most sports results in disqualification. The failure of the referee to send Derbyshire off the field will do nothing to stop this sickness in the game, and I don't pretend that players in a Saints' shirt are any less prone to it than others but as the old saying goes, "something must be done". This referee had a clear opportunity and he failed.

 

I think you miss the point a bit with this part, though you'll obviously have seen from my post above your one that I agree with the sentiment. Referees are entirely restricted in the action they can take to simulation by the letter of the law; it is a yellow card offence. So the referee did not "fail" in the slightest; he applied the law to the very letter.

 

What needs to change is the culture of cheating in football; of trying to cheat and deceive the officials. Other sports such as golf and snooker see the participants actually call a foul on themselves; that'll of course never happen in football, but in football the punishment must become much harsher so that the first instinct of the player is no longer to try and cheat rather than stay on their feet. And the only way to do that is two-fold; firstly, make the punishment much harder, a one or two game ban (multiply it for further offences); and secondly, introduce retrospective video analysis and punish all acts of simulation according to those guidelines. It's far from an ideal solution, but IMO it's the only way to fix such a prevalent problem in the game.

[Legod Third Coming]

I think you miss the point a bit with this part, though you'll obviously have seen from my post above your one that I agree with the sentiment. Referees are entirely restricted in the action they can take to simulation by the letter of the law; it is a yellow card offence. So the referee did not "fail" in the slightest; he applied the law to the very letter.

 

What needs to change is the culture of cheating in football; of trying to cheat and deceive the officials. Other sports such as golf and snooker see the participants actually call a foul on themselves; that'll of course never happen in football, but in football the punishment must become much harsher so that the first instinct of the player is no longer to try and cheat rather than stay on their feet. And the only way to do that is two-fold; firstly, make the punishment much harder, a one or two game ban (multiply it for further offences); and secondly, introduce retrospective video analysis and punish all acts of simulation according to those guidelines. It's far from an ideal solution, but IMO it's the only way to fix such a prevalent problem in the game.

 

The better comparison is surely cricket?

 

Here, the line between sportsmanship, cheating and simple deception are much greyer than golf and snooker which have obvious fouls and sports with less room for doubt.

 

If a batsman knowingly edges but does not walk, is that cheating?

 

Likewise, if a player feels contact and goes down knowing the rules, is that cheating? What about the following week when he is felled but unseen and no penalty is given?

 

I think it's very easy to suggest that players dive or attempt to con the ref, but then when referees so often miss blatant fouls what are they supposed to do? What is the difference between a genuine and ungenuine trailing leg??

 

If you ask all the players to be honest but then the officials compound this by making honest mistakes, there are bound to be grey areas forever and a day.

The simplest solution is to do what cricket and rugby have done and introduce video technology which can at least legislate for the most obvious erroneous decisions.

The ability to replay an incident might also stop some players from attempting simulation...

[The Kraken]

The better comparison is surely cricket?

 

Here, the line between sportsmanship, cheating and simple deception are much greyer than golf and snooker which have obvious fouls and sports with less room for doubt.

 

If a batsman knowingly edges but does not walk, is that cheating?

 

Likewise, if a player feels contact and goes down knowing the rules, is that cheating? What about the following week when he is felled but unseen and no penalty is given?

 

I think it's very easy to suggest that players dive or attempt to con the ref, but then when referees so often miss blatant fouls what are they supposed to do? What is the difference between a genuine and ungenuine trailing leg??

 

If you ask all the players to be honest but then the officials compound this by making honest mistakes, there are bound to be grey areas forever and a day.

The simplest solution is to do what cricket and rugby have done and introduce video technology which can at least legislate for the most obvious erroneous decisions.

The ability to replay an incident might also stop some players from attempting simulation...

 

Please God, no. The last thing I would want introduced to football is video technology for playback of incidents during the game. The only exception to this I would make would be for goal-line technology, which I think is a must and can be achieved without calling for a significant break in play. Anything else would IMO completely ruin the game as a spectacle.

 

As I said, my proposal for retrospective analysis is far from ideal but I just don't see a better option. You make valid points about what is a foul and what isn't, again I've briefly referred to it but pundits and managers really need to be driven away from the notion that "contact", no matter how slight, is justifable to send a player crashing to his knees to claim a foul. That is as much the fault of current referees for being too leniant than anything else, and we've allowed "exagerration" to be an acceptable part of the game now.

 

There will always be some element of human error in refereeing; that should in no way be used as an excuse for players to think that simulation is acceptable. And I think a retrospective video panel should be able to judge what is in actual fact a foul and what isn't. And if you introduce this system you (theoretically) should be encouraging players not to go to ground unnecessarily, therefore there will be less potential for referees to make major mistakes.

 

As for your cricket analogy; my opinion is that if a batsman edges it and doesn't walk, yes, he is cheating. But cricket (and tennis) are sports which have natural breaks in play and therefore afford the perfect opportunity to have a video review. Football by its very nature doesn't have that, which is why I think the next best thing is to review it all retrospectively with harsher penalties than we have now.

Edited 14 September, 2011 by The Kraken

[farawaysaint]

The better comparison is surely cricket?

 

Here, the line between sportsmanship, cheating and simple deception are much greyer than golf and snooker which have obvious fouls and sports with less room for doubt.

 

If a batsman knowingly edges but does not walk, is that cheating?

 

Likewise, if a player feels contact and goes down knowing the rules, is that cheating? What about the following week when he is felled but unseen and no penalty is given?

 

I think it's very easy to suggest that players dive or attempt to con the ref, but then when referees so often miss blatant fouls what are they supposed to do? What is the difference between a genuine and ungenuine trailing leg??

 

If you ask all the players to be honest but then the officials compound this by making honest mistakes, there are bound to be grey areas forever and a day.

The simplest solution is to do what cricket and rugby have done and introduce video technology which can at least legislate for the most obvious erroneous decisions.

The ability to replay an incident might also stop some players from attempting simulation...

 

Cricket has numerous stops and starts as does rugby where in fact video technology is only used to check if a try is to be given I believe. Similarly football should have goal-line technology but anything else would just ruin the game with 22 players demanding that every decision be checked.

[Whitey Grandad]

In the regular TV pictures, Derbyshire is beyond Davies, who is on the ground and its not possible to see the lack of contact. But the All Angles Covered pictures from behind the goal line show very clearly that there was no contact between the players and no foul by Davies. Davies knocked the ball away with his hand before Derbyshire could kick it and as soon as he did, the Forest player threw himself to the ground. The camera from this angle shows without any doubt at all that this was a blatant attempt at cheating and show Derbyshire's dive. These pictures also show that the assistant referee was on the right side to have a clear view of the dive.

It is interesting that Maclaren claimed to have seen the TV pictures and said they showed contact by the goalkeeper. Obviously he was not telling the truth because there was no contact to see, but he probably had not seen the all angles pictures and was saying what he thought was in his own interest because he thought the TV pictures were inconclusive. What is then more interesting is that according to the Forest Forum, the Forest Player Video has not shown the all angles pictures. Now why should that be? Answers on a post card to..............

 

But just one final thought. The Assistant Ref flagged for the dive instantly it happened. Not for shirt pulling or anything else that the commentator, who could not see the dive, thought at the time but for the simulation. The Referee then booked Derbyshire but only gave him a warning and yellow card. Cheating in any sport or game is unacceptable and in most sports results in disqualification. The failure of the referee to send Derbyshire off the field will do nothing to stop this sickness in the game, and I don't pretend that players in a Saints' shirt are any less prone to it than others but as the old saying goes, "something must be done". This referee had a clear opportunity and he failed.

 

He was flagging with his left hand and with his right he was pulling his shirt in a clear indication as to why he was flagging. Shirt-tugging is also a bookable offence.

[Legod Third Coming]

Cricket has numerous stops and starts as does rugby where in fact video technology is only used to check if a try is to be given I believe. Similarly football should have goal-line technology but anything else would just ruin the game with 22 players demanding that every decision be checked.

 

To answer this and the point above, surely there is a halfway house?

 

Let's take the case of Derbyshire's dive...

 

Let's say a penalty was given. There is now going to be a stoppage. So how much time extra (if any) does it take for a fourth official to review this?

 

You say Tennis and Crickets have numerous stoppages but the referral system in both simply uses stoppages that already existed (as they do in football) to analyse the decision an ensure it is the right one.

 

Football has countless stoppages for free-kicks, fouls, penalties, corners, throw-ins. To allow a team to refer a decision would add precious little additional time. After all, it's hardly likely someone is going to appeal an off-side if they are, say, given three appeals per game?

 

And while Kraken might think a batsman edging and not walking is cheating, what if he edges it into his pads and is given LBW, should he stand his ground and refuse to accept the decision??

 

The choice for me is twofold:

 

1) The referee's decision stands come what may and all live by it (which wouldn't preclude people from trying to con the ref)

 

2) Some form of better analysis (video or additional refereeing) is required to improve the decision making. Video replays are nigh-on instant - there seems to be some misconception that Sky have not analysed every corner before it's actually taken!! Or they are restricted to key decisions - free-kicks within 30 yards of goal, for example.

[The Kraken]

He was flagging with his left hand and with his right he was pulling his shirt in a clear indication as to why he was flagging. Shirt-tugging is also a bookable offence.

 

I had to go and have another look at that; here's the video:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14872249.stm, from 1m 20s onwards.

 

I'm not exactly sure what the linesman is signalling for; he seems to pat his chest a few times with his right hand. But he's not quite indicating a shirt pull IMO.

[Whitey Grandad]

I had to go and have another look at that; here's the video:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14872249.stm, from 1m 20s onwards.

 

I'm not exactly sure what the linesman is signalling for; he seems to pat his chest a few times with his right hand. But he's not quite indicating a shirt pull IMO.

 

Ah, my memory was from late Saturday night after a couple of celebratory beers. Having watched that I agree with you. He is patting his pocket which means that he thinks it should be a booking (it's where they usually keep their yellow cards). Of course, he may just be checking that he hasn't dropped his wallet. Red cards are often kept in a back pocket so if he pats that it shows that he thinks it should be a red card. Or that he has an itchy bottom.

[Whitey Grandad]

That raises another question. Are the officials in wireless contact in this League?

[NickG]

I thought on the day, although fairly close to me, was a penalty.

 

Just watched the clip several times and happy it was a dive.

 

If you watch it, then click back to keep repeating and following in turn Kelvin's each arm then each leg it is clear that none of his limbs would have been at forward's feet.