v Norwich City (a) - 5/11/23

[47er]

4 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I think ex players would look at the challenge and say it was a good tackle and that gives me hope. The referee is allowed to admit he was wrong but that hasn't happened for years as the arrogance of most of them won't allow them to admit it. 

If he sent Wharton off for illegally preventing a goal opportunity , doesn't the the fact that he made contact with the ball first render that decision incorrect? Because he touched the ball away, it wasn't a scoring opportunity anymore. Your view Arbitro?

If the ref is saying that Wharton's left leg was the culprit and the tackle was reckless and dangerous and therefore worthy of a red card, then 1) it didn't seem that bad to me and 2) there were several such tackles in the game that were as bad or worse and the result was 2 yellows for Norwich. 

[Tugayisgod]

JRC looking like he's facing a lengthy lay off with hamstring injury.

Fuck knows what the team will be on Friday.

It's not a case of whether to appeal Whartons red card, think they have no choice

[chaddyrovers]

30 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Definitely. The contact on the Norwich player was as a consequence of Scott sliding in to win the ball. If he caught the man first I would accept the decision but he didn't. The contact is inevitable but contact alone doesn't make it a foul.

I made some enquiries on the way home !set night and Rovers have to have the appeal in today by noon and pay a deposit to do so (I really hope our financial situation doesn't preclude this). The appeal goes to three members of a panel of ex players and managers. There is a pool of these people and three are selected secretly and randomly. If the vote is 2:1 in the players favour the sending off is rescinded and no suspension to be served. Likewise 2:1 against and Scott will get a one match ban.

If Rovers don't want to pay it, I would imagine JDT or Wharton would pay it themselves 

[wilsdenrover]

6 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Whilst I was active it was a written report and had to be sent within a couple of days. A few years before I retired the caution and send off details had to be telephoned through to PA Copy within a few hours. It became more difficult then to admit any wrongdoings before the report went in. I think that's why they have improved the appeals process and reduced the timelines. If we do appeal the result should be known by Wednesday at the latest.

Thank you again

Final question (we’ll no promises!)

I know the rule doesn’t say you should but with regard to clear goalscoring opportunities did you consider the ‘quality’ of the player who was fouled?

ie. Would you have sent off a player for fouling Alan Shearer but not for fouling Chris Brown

edited to add - maybe we need an ask Arbo thread 😀

Edited November 6, 2023 by wilsdenrover

[47er]

6 hours ago, ageoftherover said:

Just watched the highlights on Norwichs channel.

You miss a lot of a keepers performance with just highlights, but of the 3 moments I saw I though Leo did fine in all of them. One good save from a header from 6 yards out. The goal was unlucky, you're always going to struggle to hold a shot like that and it just happened to fall to the wrong player. The shot he "spilled" was very tough, with an opposition player blocking his sight and potentially deflecting it. He's made some howlers but none of those incidents fall into that category for me.

 

In the first half Leo dropped a simple overhead lob that a 6 year old would have swallowed and he had no pressure on him at all. Couldn't believe it. There was no attacker near. Therefore he recovered easily.

That really worried me, you can't help thinking there is always a bad mistake in him. Gives me the jitters. Can't be good for our defenders.

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, 47er said:

If he sent Wharton off for illegally preventing a goal opportunity , doesn't the the fact that he made contact with the ball first render that decision incorrect? Because he touched the ball away, it wasn't a scoring opportunity anymore. Your view Arbitro?

If the ref is saying that Wharton's left leg was the culprit and the tackle was reckless and dangerous and therefore worthy of a red card, then 1) it didn't seem that bad to me and 2) there were several such tackles in the game that were as bad or worse and the result was 2 yellows for Norwich. 

It's the denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity Scott was sent off for. In that situation it just has to be a foul irrespective of the force of level of contact used. I don't believe the referee saw Scott's first touch was clearly on the ball. Once the referee determined that he really had no choice. From that perspective the referee was right. Hopefully Rovers submitted statement and video evidence will be based on Scott clearly winning the ball and contact being the inevitable consequence of this. My real hope is that anybody who knows the game sees this and with ex players hopefully that will be the case.

[arbitro]

5 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Thank you again

Final question (we’ll no promises!)

I know the rule doesn’t say you should but with regard to clear goalscoring opportunities did you consider the ‘quality’ of the player who was fouled?

ie. Would you have sent off a player for fouling Alan Shearer but not for fouling Chris Brown

edited to add - maybe we need an ask Arbo thread 😀

Personally I wouldn't factor anything like that into decision process and would be surprised if any referee did.

[47er]

19 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

Long day yesterday with a 4am start, but a fantastic performance and result.  A real gave of two halves in terms of performance.  First half we played some wonderful football and in the second, when we went down to ten men we showed grit and character.  Everything you want from a team.

I thought Szmodics, Dolan and Moran were superb as an attacking three in terms of their movement and eye for the pass - not to mention the finishing of Szmodics and Dolan.

My only concern remains the goalkeeping position.  Leo looks a bundle of nerves on crosses and too many of his saves bounce off him into dangerous areas.  I think this is going to become an increasingly problematic position for Rovers unless we can bring in a relatively cheap and experienced 'keeper.  At the moment, neither of our senior 'keepers looks the part for me. 

He's also played a big part in these cockups at the heart of defence when we play it about within a few yards of our goal.

We could have conceded 2 from this early in the first half. Can we not?

[Parsonblue]

7 minutes ago, 47er said:

He's also played a big part in these cockups at the heart of defence when we play it about within a few yards of our goal.

We could have conceded 2 from this early in the first half. Can we not?

Agree. At the moment he doesn't convince as a player ready for the Championship.  He's young and has time to learn but for me looks like another development project rather than a senior 'keeper.

[ruggles1995]

im pretty sure a red card takes 7 days to take effect. So we played on a sunday, his suspension kicks in the followjng sunday onwards for all games then onwards. So I think wharton will be available for the friday night game. 

[Mattyblue]

Don’t think that’s the case anymore, now always the next game.

[arbitro]

6 minutes ago, ruggles1995 said:

im pretty sure a red card takes 7 days to take effect. So we played on a sunday, his suspension kicks in the followjng sunday onwards for all games then onwards. So I think wharton will be available for the friday night game. 

If we appeal and it is unsuccessful then Scott will miss the Nobbers game.

[Hasta]

8 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Yes. They are PL club and had money to spend and he wanted PL football. Just took ages to agree a fee

Kaminsky was available because he hadn't regained his spot from Pears despite clearly being the better goalkeeper. Why that is nobody really knows, but I suspect the decision to try and 'cash in' was made back in March / April.

Had he been number 1 when he came back last season he clearly wouldn't have been as 'available'.

We have history of turning bids down for players whether they want to leave or not. We could have turned the bid down and I suspect TK's attitude would have remained spot on.

The club (we are unsure exactly who) felt that the money received for Kaminsky less the moment paid for Leo was worth downgrading our goalkeeper for. But lets not pretend that we had no choice other than to let Kaminsky leave. 

 

 

[Sweaty Gussets]

9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Twice a game is regularly.

Ok George Orwell 🙄

[ruggles1995]

47 minutes ago, arbitro said:

If we appeal and it is unsuccessful then Scott will miss the Nobbers game.

really? I thought it would just add extra games on top of the current suspension? I don't think it brings the suspension forward ?

[jim mk2]

1 hour ago, Tugayisgod said:

JRC looking like he's facing a lengthy lay off with hamstring injury.

 

Bad news that - he holds the team together

[yellowsubmarine]

JRC's injury is worringly. probably the only few creative players in this team. Lacks pace but he does have a football brain and some skills. Not sure who's gonna come in for him - most likely Travis.

[Atko's Engine]

11 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I agree. I think it was a harsh decision but that doesn’t seem to cut any ice these days. They’ll back the ref. I thought their guy made a meal of it but Wharton gave him the chance. Not a great decision by Wharton to be honest. He should have let the guy go, we’re 3-0 up, cruising, and there’s nothing say their guy would have scored anyway.

Judging by what many people think of Leo's goalkeeping qualities, Wharton's challenge stopped a certain goal, so arguably it was a great take for the team!

Overall I think I'd rather my defender make a genuine challenge for the ball in that scenario when outside of the penalty area, than allow a 1 on 1 to develop.  Different if it's in the area as there's then a real risk of a red AND conceding a goal.

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, Tom said:

To lay any blame on Leo for the goal is harsh, there’s players literally anywhere he parries that and it’s tough to hold and near impossible to turn out for a corner 

As an integral part of a defence in a 3-1 win with 10 men he’s done his job; the question marks today were two crosses one he didn’t claim and got flattened the other when he came when he shouldn’t have

The one he fumbled minutes after the goal he conceded was worse, he spilt it unnecessarily but thankfully Norwich's misfiring attack couldnt capitalise. But like with the crosses it seems to not be a one off.

You throw in the crosses in which it isnt an occasional issue and surely you would not like to be a defender in front of someone who appears a bag of nerves.

[arbitro]

31 minutes ago, ruggles1995 said:

really? I thought it would just add extra games on top of the current suspension? I don't think it brings the suspension forward ?

The extra game suspension was brought in to deter 'frivolous' appeals. I can't remember the last time this was enforced. Scott will miss the Nobbers game only if the appeal fails.

[ruggles1995]

8 minutes ago, yellowsubmarine said:

JRC's injury is worringly. probably the only few creative players in this team. Lacks pace but he does have a football brain and some skills. Not sure who's gonna come in for him - most likely Travis.

I imagine Britain just goes back to right back. We have enough other players that play in the 3 behind the striker. So makes sense to just slot him back. Even though hes playing well forward we simply have nobody else. And we can use others going forward. 

[ruggles1995]

1 minute ago, arbitro said:

The extra game suspension was brought in to deter 'frivolous' appeals. I can't remember the last time this was enforced. Scott will miss the Nobbers game only if the appeal fails.

I get the extra game bit, but I am saying I 'think' the suspension does not come into affect for 7 days till after the offence. Even if we failed an appeal the extra game suspension just gets added on top. It doesnt mean the they bring the suspension forward. So his suspension I 'think' will not start till the stoke game and beyond as its after 7 days. This is the rule in semi professional football, so I am guessing this is the same for professional. I may be wrong. 

What im trying to say:

Norwich - sunday, sent off

Preston - Friday - within 7 days of the norwich game so suspension has not started. So I think he can play.

Stoke - after the 7 days, his suspension begins. 

[arbitro]

Just now, ruggles1995 said:

I get the extra game bit, but I am saying I 'think' the suspension does not come into affect for 7 days till after the offence. Even if we failed an appeal the extra game suspension just gets added on top. It doesnt mean the they bring the suspension forward. So his suspension I 'think' will not start till the stoke game and beyond as its after 7 days. This is the rule in semi professional football, so I am guessing this is the same for professional. I may be wrong. 

What im trying to say:

Norwich - sunday, sent off

Preston - Friday - within 7 days of the norwich game so suspension has not started. So I think he can play.

Stoke - after the 7 days, his suspension begins. 

To simplify it's the next league match he will miss.

[M_B]

12 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

He does, and we went from being in a play off position to a winless run leaving us outside.

Why is it difficult to accept on a messageboard that I might have my own opinion rather than just saying "it doesnt matter, this is what happened."

The problem is, you can say any player has strengths and weaknesses but when a weakness is such a weakness that it potentially undermines the rest of your performance, that is when it becomes a real issue. It isnt just not as good as other areas, its a regular more than once a game issue. It cost us a goal midweek, today crosses didnt lead to a goal but obviously more than once he dropped crosses that thankfully didnt lead to goals due to poor Norwich attacking and last ditch defending.

I also havent seen that he is a "very good shot stopper." All keepers will obviously save shots, in his appearances he hasnt actually faced that many shots due to some excellent defending. To give him his credit, he made a really good save against Cardiff, he made a good one from a header today and he made a decent one early in the second half v Swansea. But he also regularly saves shots back into dangerous areas, we saw that more than once today including for a goal and again its not only from today. You also look at the goal v Millwall, that wasnt cross related, it was a tame header that he failed to save. So there is a mix of decent saves and handling errors either leading to goals or secondary chances.

Im clearly not on my own in finding him to be a total bombscare at the moment. His weaknesses massively outweigh his strengths and I would hate to be playing in front of him. Hopefully he can improve massively very quickly because I appreciate the difficulties of moving countries etc but we cant afford for him to keep doing what he is doing because we have actually been quite lucky that his poor goalkeeping has only led to 3 goals conceded and that 2 were in games we won.

We can all have any opinion we want, it's the taking as fact that Kaminski would have gained us more points that's the problem. We'll never know, however much people convince themselves. 

[smiller14]

We look so much better now than earlier in the season. We are much more pragmatic and less kamikaze than before - we seem to have a steel about us defensively that we didn't before. Hill has played a major part in this, but so has Tronstad sitting in front of the defence. Previously we had Wharton roaming a bit and Travis bombing in, whereas now we have someone sitting, allowing JRC to play box-to-box (in his own fluid way from right back when in possession). 

I thought Dolan was absolutely superb. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by smiller14