v Ipswich Town (h) - 02/12/25

[RTM08]

4 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Was the penalty incident the one in the first half where we got a free kick on the edge of the box? It looked outside the area from where I was. Haven’t seen a replay though.

I assume it was the bodycheck on Ohashi but for me he'd already lost control of the ball. Seen them given, seen them not.

[Miller11]

11 minutes ago, Ghost7 said:

It has to be the denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity. So if they are far out wide, with a lot to do still no.

Morishita is in behind the last man with the keeper not far away. it was the clear denying of an obvious goalscoring opportunity for that reason, particularly given Walton's position. He was in no man's land back peddling bracing for a 1 on 1.

I'd say it still was a denial of a goalscoring opportunity even if Davis was closer to him. He was the last man and in behind. Matusiwa knew he was off, the Ipswich team knew he was off.

It's one of the worst refereeing decisions I've seen, a bias disgrace.

It’s a definite goal scoring opportunity given how shit of a goalkeeper Walton is. It’s a shame we didn’t capitalise on the couple of idiotic errors he made playing it out really poorly. We really ought to have tested him more.

On that, I wish we’d be a bit braver when Alebiosu picks the ball up. He literally ALWAYS manages to get a cross over. When we see that is happening Hedges should be steaming in at the far post and one of the midfielders should bust a gut to get in the box. Really frustrating how we don’t commit more men forward.

[RevidgeBlue]

16 minutes ago, Penwortham Blue said:

Miller is playing pretty well but in truth, the QPR goal and yesterday’s late goal both came from him conceding possession very cheaply, when under no real pressure.

I think Miller's an absolutely shocking player. Cant defend to save his life. One of the worst of the summer signings.

Compare him with Pratt and it's like night and day. Right under our nose and wouldn't have cost a fee. Could either of our other youngsters have done a job as well?

[arbitro]

8 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Was the penalty incident the one in the first half where we got a free kick on the edge of the box? It looked outside the area from where I was. Haven’t seen a replay though.

The referee gave nothing.

Personally I didn't think it was a foul and it wasn't dissimilar to the Hedges challenge on Saturday.

[Lancaster Rover]

I think we need to turn it in with the refs are corrupt, EFL hates us. Plays right into the owners/VI’s victim narrative.

The ref made a howler, no doubt over the season we will get howlers go in our favour. There will be countless other teams in the end of equally bad decisions on a weekly basis, but we don’t pore over their games with a fine tooth comb like we do ours mistakes in our games feel much more pronounced.

The fact remains that we made numerous errors that contributed to them equalising. From substitutions giving them momentum to Miller giving the ball away needlessly to De Neve not being where he should. 
 

Referees neither score nor concede goals. Players do 

 

[arbitro]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I think Miller's an absolutely shocking player. Cant defend to save his life. One of the worst of the summer signings.

Compare him with Pratt and it's like night and day. Right under our nose and wouldn't have cost a fee. Could either of our other youngsters have done a job as well?

Another Tronstad then. 😉

[KidderStreetNoise]

20 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I honestly don't know how anyone can say that isn't a DOGSO.

4 pieces of criteria for it to be DOGSO & 2 of them aren't met

[arbitro]

4 minutes ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

4 pieces of criteria for it to be DOGSO & 2 of them aren't met

Enlighten me.

Which two?

• Distance to goal: The distance between the foul and the goal.
• General direction of play: The attacker's direction and position relative to the goal.
• Likelihood of keeping or gaining control: Whether the attacker would have been able to control the ball.
• Location and number of defenders: The positions and number of defenders between the attacker and the goal. 

Edited 22 minutes ago by arbitro

[Lancaster Rover]

3 minutes ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

4 pieces of criteria for it to be DOGSO & 2 of them aren't met

I think distance to goal is the main contributing factor in the refs decision

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, Lancaster Rover said:

I think distance to goal is the main contributing factor in the refs decision

He said he thought Davies would have got to the ball.

[J*B]

40 minutes ago, Ghost7 said:

It has to be the denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity. So if they are far out wide, with a lot to do still no.

Morishita is in behind the last man with the keeper not far away. it was the clear denying of an obvious goalscoring opportunity for that reason, particularly given Walton's position. He was in no man's land back peddling bracing for a 1 on 1.

I'd say it still was a denial of a goalscoring opportunity even if Davis was closer to him. He was the last man and in behind. Matusiwa knew he was off, the Ipswich team knew he was off.

It's one of the worst refereeing decisions I've seen, a bias disgrace.

Whilst I agree, the screenshot is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant once Morishita has the ball under control. 

[...]

3 minutes ago, arbitro said:

He said he thought Davies would have got to the ball.

The fact is no one knows. He could of taken a touch inside and cut off the defender that chance was taken away. Personally a red though on the wire 

Edited 15 minutes ago by ...

[arbitro]

2 minutes ago, ... said:

The fact is no one knows. He could of taken a touch inside and off the defender that chance was taken away. Personally a red though on the wire 

I do know because I have been told by someone still involved.

The key word is denial and I don't think anyone can say he wasn't denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Edited 12 minutes ago by arbitro

[J*B]

1 minute ago, ... said:

The fact is no one knows. He could have taken a touch inside and cut off the defender that chance was taken away. Personally a red though on the wire 

Which is why it can’t be a red. Morishita never had the ball under control, so anything could have happened, therefore it wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity. 

[arbitro]

6 minutes ago, J*B said:

Which is why it can’t be a red. Morishita never had the ball under control, so anything could have happened, therefore it wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity. 

He is going to get to the ball first and the likelihood of him controlling the ball was high.

• Likelihood of keeping or gaining control: Whether the attacker would have been able to control the ball.

Edited 7 minutes ago by arbitro

[rigger]

Let's just get over it, concentrate on Saturdays game and win it. 

[RevidgeBlue]

13 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Enlighten me.

Which two?

• Distance to goal: The distance between the foul and the goal.
• General direction of play: The attacker's direction and position relative to the goal.
• Likelihood of keeping or gaining control: Whether the attacker would have been able to control the ball.
• Location and number of defenders: The positions and number of defenders between the attacker and the goal. 

You've cited a load of criteria there and none of them really support your case for it being a red, it was a long way out, Moreshita was out to the side and not clean through centrally on goal, neither did he have the ball properly under control, and Davis was in the vicinity, might or might not have got back.

I thought it was probably just about a red but it wasn't as clear cut as many are making out. You've done the ref's job for him there illustrating reasons why it was legitimate NOT to give a red.

[...]

11 minutes ago, J*B said:

Which is why it can’t be a red. Morishita never had the ball under control, so anything could have happened, therefore it wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity. 

Fair point 👍🏻

[...]

3 minutes ago, rigger said:

Let's just get over it, concentrate on Saturdays game and win it. 

Enough in that last game and previous matches to go out and win a game now.

[AllRoversGirl_]

I hope Ipswich miss out on the play-offs by 2 points

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You've cited a load of criteria there and none of them really support your case for it being a red, it was a long way out, Moreshita was out to the side and not clean through centrally on goal, neither did he have the ball properly under control, and Davis was in the vicinity, might or might not have got back.

I thought it was probably just about a red but it wasn't as clear cut as many are making out. You've done the ref's job for him there illustrating reasons why it was legitimate NOT to give a red.

You cite several reasons for it not to be a sending off and then say 'just about a red'.

For it to be 'just about a red' the criteria you mention has to be fulfilled.

I'm confused by your rationale.