Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: donnyguy61 on March 01, 2017, 11:24:42 am
-
http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/competitions/league-two/10786074/cambridge-2-3-doncaster (http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/competitions/league-two/10786074/cambridge-2-3-doncaster)
-
The missed penalty by them was not a highlight then?
-
Maybe a sign they don't want to show a clear bad referee's decision?
-
These clips only ever show the goals. You have to wait for the club themselves to upload the full highlights, but I think they're restricted in how soon after a game they can do that.
-
I saw the penalty against us on SSN this morning. Dreadful decision. Lawlor clearly wins the ball.
Re the challenge on Marquis. Was that really an attempt to play the ball. DOGSO for me although I can perhaps understand the yellow. Can't forgive the first one though.
-
epic first goal for them, most of them fly over, but boy when they go in, especially on the underside of the bar do they look sweet!!!
-
https://youtu.be/MX1gPZfmlFg (https://youtu.be/MX1gPZfmlFg)
Clubs upload highlights on YouTube from noon the following day. In no universe should they have had a penalty.
-
Baudry running up to their missed penalty taker is out of order.
Can't have double standards can we.
-
if you watch the you tube clip stop it on 0.09 (screen shots tend to be beyond me) clearly shows the Cambridge player still on his feet with the ball disappearing off the other way after Lawlor had pushed it out of the way
-
Never ever a penalty in a million years, a clear case of where a video ref could give an instant decision
-
Does Baudry score that? Looks like an own goal to me
-
NEver a penalty. Their other two goals were very good though.
-
What was their keeper doing for our first goal. Must have had a fiver on Rowe as first goalscorer, or summat.
-
The penalty decision was a terrible one. I'm not one to usually have a go at refs because it's a pointless exercise but what was he thinking?
-
Baudry running up to their missed penalty taker is out of order.
Can't have double standards can we.
Totally agree and this was my first thought when I saw it.
-
Does Baudry score that? Looks like an own goal to me
Looks like it goes in off Baudry to me.
-
Look in the paper it says Baudry
COYR
-
Baudry running up to their missed penalty taker is out of order.
Can't have double standards can we.
Couldn't agree more, not particularly happy with that.
-
Has to be one of the worst decisions ever by a very poor referee. We all stood up behind the goal to applaud a great piece of goal keeping. The player who brought down Marquis should have got a straight red, but even worse was the foul on May. He just picked him up and chucking him on the floor.
-
Baudry running up to their missed penalty taker is out of order.
Can't have double standards can we.
Couldn't agree more, not particularly happy with that.
I'd like to think he was applauding the Corinthian spirit shown by Luke Berry. ;)
http://www.corinthian-casuals.com/the-corinthian-spirit.html
-
The 2 penalty decisions are so bad the powers that be need to "rest" the referee and send him on a course.
The Cambridge pen is so obviously wrong I am surprised they agreed to have it. Maybe they put it wide as a "Dickov gesture", embarrassed by the award.
Clear Dogso on ours, no argument.
Both goals we conceded were very poor from the defensive aspect.
No-one closes the lad down for the first. Holding midfielder should be doing the ball before he gets his good shot away.
Second is a centre halfs ball all day long. Small fella on the run does us on the jump...not good enough!
-
Has to be one of the worst decisions ever by a very poor referee. We all stood up behind the goal to applaud a great piece of goal keeping. The player who brought down Marquis should have got a straight red, but even worse was the foul on May. He just picked him up and chucking him on the floor.
Did the "double jeopardy" rule not come into play??
-
Depends how the ref saw it. Firstly he has to see it as denial of a goal scoring opportunity.
You'd have to assume he did, although given his decision for them who knows.
But anyway, he then needs to decide if it was an 'accidental' foul. If it was, then just a pen. Otherwise, he should see red.
-
The 2 penalty decisions are so bad the powers that be need to "rest" the referee and send him on a course.
The Cambridge pen is so obviously wrong I am surprised they agreed to have it. Maybe they put it wide as a "Dickov gesture", embarrassed by the award.
Clear Dogso on ours, no argument.
Both goals we conceded were very poor from the defensive aspect.
No-one closes the lad down for the first. Holding midfielder should be doing the ball before he gets his good shot away.
Second is a centre halfs ball all day long. Small fella on the run does us on the jump...not good enough!
Alcock was tracking the small player for the second goal so no blame can be put on Butler or Baudry.
The lad who scored the first ran in from the left wing and there was no way a holding midfielder could have closed him down.
From Cambridges point of view all our goals were bad defensively too.
Keeper badly at fault with a poor attempt to save a scuffed shot.
Poor marking at a corner left Baudry with a tap in and the pen came about after a defender dallied on the ball allowing Marquis to nick the ball off him.
All goals are preventable if you look deeply enough.
-
every goals preventable
-
Correct so it is very easy afterwards to point the finger of blame at our players but conveniently not look at opponents mistakes which let us score.
-
Both good goals for them a cracking strike for the first and the second the player stretched to some height to power the header in. Our goals were good build up but looked a touch scrappy but they all count.