FL2: Accrington Stanley v Torquay 26 Feb 2011

Must admit my first impressions of the Ellis sending off was that he was a little unlucky. It was one of those that could have been construed as an accidental trip when he ran across Ellis in that swamp of a pitch and glanced one of his trailing ankles. Their player was always going to make the most of it. What a load of cobblers is written on here about him not being chosen for the rest of the season. The very nature of the game is that occasionally players make errors even Potter who I also thought should have got something on the effort should be given some slack. So the right thing to do then is to bollock them for a footballing error stand them in a corner with dunce cap on and completely f*ck their confidence is it?
Drop the bloody lot then they all were piss poor bring in the youth team. I really thought I had left some of these dumb arsed comments behind on another forum.
We are a mid table side in poor conditions and a play off side on a bowling green we are not struggling along like Stockport Barnet and even Burton who are on a very poor run and must be worried with their congested fixture list. Another two tough games this week we could quite easily get nothing from with our precarious home from anything could happen so just try and prepare yourself for the worse and if we do happen to get a result think of it as a bonus.

I'm throwing the metaphorical book around today. This relates to a while ago but is still on the FA site: www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/media/65A89D453622418FBF789D48751FCC05.ashx/DisciplinaryProcess_2006.pdf

This makes a distinction between:

• Claims for Wrongful Dismissal/Mistaken Identity
• Incidents not seen by the match officials but caught on video
• Incidents outside the referee’s jurisdiction

The whole disciplinary works for our level of football are contained at www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/media/48069C5515B944F29C1FC1F9E4138728.ashx/SectionsABC_FAHandbook.pdf (2009/10 being the most current on the FA's site).

Not spotted this before but there is news about suspensions and pending suspensions (subject to the site being updated) at:

www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/link.aspx?_id=D6CA03B6740C4E78A1E74E2493E9199B&_z=z

www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/link.aspx?_id=8B47CB40728B4EAC98BDBDD02F8473A6&_z=z



After the apparent foul on Rowe-Turner at Cheltenham on Tuesday night - in front of the assistant referee - I was minded to check the Laws of the Game on this:

"Two assistant referees may be appointed whose duties, subject to the decision of the referee, are to indicate:

• when the whole of the ball leaves the field of play
• which team is entitled to a corner kick, goal kick or throw-in
• when a player may be penalised for being in an offside position
• when a substitution is requested
• when misconduct or any other incident occurs out of the view of the referee
• when offences have been committed whenever the assistant referees have a better view than the referee (this includes, in certain circumstances, offences committed in the penalty area)
• whether, at penalty kicks, the goalkeeper moves off the goal line before the ball is kicked and if the ball crosses the line."

Thereafter the interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees says:

"The assistant referee must raise his flag when a foul or misconduct is committed in his immediate vicinity or out of the referee’s vision. In all other situations, he must wait and offer his opinion if it is required. If this is the case, the assistant referee must report what he has seen and heard and which players are involved to the referee.

Before signalling for an offence, the assistant referee must determine that:

• the offence was out of the view of the referee or the referee’s view was obstructed
• the referee would not have applied the advantage if he had seen the offence

When a foul or misconduct is committed, the assistant referee must:

• raise his flag with the same hand that will also be used for the remainder of the signal- this gives the referee a clear indication as to who was fouled
• make eye contact with the referee
• give his flag a slight wave back and forth (avoiding any excessive or aggressive movement)
• use the electronic beep signal, if necessary

The assistant referee must use the “wait and see technique” in order to allow play to continue and not raise his flag when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from the advantage. In this case, it is very important for the assistant referee to make eye contact with the referee."

This introduces the concept of the assistant referee's immediate vicinity. I keep re-reading this and I'm still not sure what happens if an incident is in the assistant referee's immediate vicinity and the clear view of the referee. Is this one of the things referees and assistants seek to clarify before each game - particularly if they've not have worked together before - or are issues such as this automatically taken for granted? What, indeed (if any), are the variations between how "teams" of officials operate? I can see there would be allowances at lower levels - where some assistants are either inexperienced or club-appointed - but would anticipate a more uniform arrangement at professional level.

Of course we mustn't expect assistant referees to take responsibility above their duties - they are assistants after all - yet, at Cheltenham the other night, I was struggling for an explanation (other than, as I invariably seek to be charitable, incompetence or reluctance) as to why the assistant didn't flag for the tackle on Rowe-Turner and one or two other things. After all, we don't know what is said by the mike, but it was almost as if the referee had established particularly strict demarcation lines as to responsibilities. Surely not?

Mind you, I'm a dreadful judge of many things on the football field having such poor peripheral vision (if that's the correct description) so much so that trips to the optician often become a nightmare as I struggle with some of those tests. Apparently aspects of my sight are just the normal side of the ”abnormality” divide and – allied to my Liberalish tendency towards fair-mindedness – I invariably struggle with those post-match discussions where I'm pressurised to agree that the “referee was a ****” (if only I could view life in a more black-and-white fashion). But that’s a relatively minor cross to bear and, on Tuesday, I was tempted to concur with Mr Meerkat in saying that the referee “had turned” when the Rowe-Turner incident occurred. But, maybe, that was my imagination based on thinking what may have happened. Either way never, ever ask me to run the line. In fact, I’m yet to recover from my experience of doing so for the Exeter University 3rd XI v Torquay GS fixture in 1973/74. I can still hear Steve Aggett bellowing “Get your ****ing flag up!”

said incident was on Stanleys right wing and it was indeed number 24 (Gornell). The incident started when your defender 'allowed' himself to become more tangled than he needed to be with flailing feet. As Gornell walked away the defender tried to headbutt him in the ribs (honest) which resulted in Gornell carrying on walking with said defender in a headlock. It was more like comedy hour tbh which is probably why nowt happened.

It was certainly no worse than an incident with Zebroski mid-way through the first half where he raised his arms at least twice to a stanley player.

The sending-off. I dont think there was an intent on Ellis' behalf - but he had been done for pace by Gornell and was the last man. Whenever you are being chased the best thing to do is to run across the chasers path, making the defender then run further to try to get around you. Its a standard practice and unfortunately Ellis couldnt get his legs out of the way and brought Gornell down. Just one of those things unfortunately but a red card had to come out as it denied Gornell a clear scoring chance - one on one with a 30 yard run. My gut reaction is that Gornell is one of those that would rather have the chance than not and is scoring goals at the moment. I dont think he'd have gone down 'at the slightest touch'

Some kind comments on here, and some unkind comments but all in all I couldnt complain at any of 'em! See you all again next year maybe

Well after watching the goal on the TV, I did feel myself that maybe Danny Potter could have saved it. I'm not saying it was an easy save, or even that Scott Bevan would have saved it, but I think he might have.

A lot will depend of Bucks view of the goal and if he thought it was savable, but even if that was the view he ended up with, will be put Scott back in goal on Tuesday?

I don't think we can really tell just how much it swerved, dipped and moved in the air without one of those super slo-mo shots. Ben Foster looked like he made a meal out of one shot but the super slo-mo revealed that it had moved a shitload in the air and he had to adjust very quickly to get anything on it. I sure would not like to be a goalkeeper these days. Those new balls fly around like you've just toe punted an old Frido ball on a gusty day at Slapton Sands.

Personally if we're looking at the shot again. I think there are four factors. a) was he unsighted b) did the ball move in the air c) was his position bad or d) was he beaten by the power of the shot or e) a combination of all four.

If you look at the first shot.



At the time of the shot there isn't a Torquay player within 3 yards of him but just after he shoots one Torquay player does make it to Craney. Whether it confuses Potter rather than unsighting I don't know but as the picture show's he's already going to his left.

Now fast forward to the next photo.

It looks like the ball's flight might actually kid Potter into to thinking that it's going over or wider. Notice his position. Pretty static but knees bent in case he has to spring.



Now the final Photo. Still about 4 or 5 yards off his line. But note how the ball as moved to the left (Potter's right) and dipped. When it beats him it looks like it's gone over the top and to the right of his right hand even though he's dived to the left.



In conclusion I reckon he's been done by a bit of very late movement. Standing a yard further back might've saved him but more questions for me go on the fact that Craney was allowed to turn in so much space direct from a throw. Mansell went spare after it went in.

having seen the replay he definitely could of saved it,bevan almost certainly would of saved it,but what confidence has bevan got left? two penalty saves in one match and an overall pretty good season peppered with mom awards,then dropped.I just feel it wasnt the right choice to make,but for now whoever is between the posts 6 points from the next two games is vital,but very unlikely in our present defensive charity mood though

Could he have saved it? Should he have saved it? Would Bevan have saved it? These are questions I don’t think we will ever really know the answers to. Paul Buckle called it a wonder goal, Dave Thomas said it was moment or real quality and both never mentioned Danny Potter.

I think we were all surprised to see Scott Bevan dropped to the bench; he was in my view in the best form he has ever been in since he came to our club. Did Danny Potter ask to go on the transfer list? If so is that why he was given the goalkeepers shirt? Once again questions I know I don’t know the answers too myself.

I do happen to believe that Scott is the better keeper out of the two of them and really should be starting games for us as long as he is 100%. I also believe Danny Potter is a great back up keeper to have and should never end up being subjected to what Martin Rice had to endure when he was here.

Danny is a far better keeper in my view than Rice and I hope he does stay around a good while, even if he does not make the first team that much. I’m not so sure Bucks will drop him for tomorrow nights game by the way; we all know Bucks is his own man and won’t worry about what fans are saying or might want.

Having read Dave Thomas’s report on the game, it’s clear the sending off of Mark Ellis was a turning point in the game. Most managers when their side goes down to ten men will take off a striker and bring on a midfielder to try and make up for the lost man.

I do question if it was right to end up taking off both strikers and playing Rowe-Turner in the midfield just to try and hold on to a point. When they scored and we needed to try and get a goal back, we ended up sending Branston up front, a player who has come close to scoring for us, but as not done so to date.

Bucks is saying as we might expect that pitch took a lot out of our players and it might have an effect on their performance tomorrow night. I think that’s not an unreasonable statement to make, but I hope it does not end up just an excuse should we lose the game in a poor fashion.