???????? How does that work ?
Quote from: bobbo on November 03, 2017, 09:50:18 PM
???????? How does that work ?
A couple of our yellows wee unlucky as they were for first fouls (Johansson/Sessegnon) when similar fouls rom Wolves went unpunished. However, it's a trend evident in the last couple of seasons...our cards to fouls ratio is much higher than other teams which means that a/ we are unlucky and are unfairly penalised by the officials (but why would they have it in for us? or b/ we are not streetwise as, like it or not, there are ways in which you can commit fouls in the interests of managing the game without picking up cards.
Quote from: bobbo on November 03, 2017, 09:50:18 PM
???????? How does that work ?
More importantly though was their 15-20 attempts on our goal, with plenty on target & the 2 goals scored, (probably should have been more as well), compared with our 1-2 attempts on target & no goals.
We're completey ineffective this season, hardly any threat at all.
Much more worrying stats than constantly trying to pin the blame on officials after EVERY match we play.
Trying to put aside any bias towards my team, there does appear to be a problem with our players unable to match other teams cynical/"professional" fouling.
We may not like to see it but its now part of the game and its another thing we aren't good at.
It doesn't turn an average team into a good one but its a small part of creating "today's" winning mentality!
The reason is Wolves where more then likely on the attack and our fouls would have been seen as disrupting the attacking movement in the final third, there's where probably more cynical in dead area of the pitch around the half way line where we where just passing the ball sideward and backwards no forward moment.
There a lot to be said about attacking in football.
Quote from: Nero on November 04, 2017, 11:16:31 AM
The reason is Wolves where more then likely on the attack and our fouls would have been seen as disrupting the attacking movement in the final third, there's where probably more cynical in dead area of the pitch around the half way line where we where just passing the ball sideward and backwards no forward moment.
There a lot to be said about attacking in football.
Agree where the fouls were made but surely a foul in the middle of the park is more about stopping play than one in opposition half and should carry an equal punishment. Also Sais was dishing it out the entire game, got a card eventually and then went on to commit a foul a few seconds after. Also Douglas when he fouled Fredericks, which the ref ignored, had he given it on your logic it was another yellow and early bath for him. Also before anyone says it was soft, yes it appeared as much but TV cameras clearly showed Douglas had his hand on RF's arm and therefore impeded him. What with RF's speed would have left him clear of the defender in a strong attacking position, so there was no incentive for him to dive. It was a foul as much as being an inch offside is offside and only brushing the ball with your hand is still handball. The law does not say how soft the foul is, it only needs to be a foul.
Also what did Norwood get a card for?
Quote from: Fulham76 on November 04, 2017, 10:04:31 AM
Quote from: bobbo on November 03, 2017, 09:50:18 PM
???????? How does that work ?
More importantly though was their 15-20 attempts on our goal, with plenty on target & the 2 goals scored, (probably should have been more as well), compared with our 1-2 attempts on target & no goals.
We're completey ineffective this season, hardly any threat at all.
Much more worrying stats than constantly trying to pin the blame on officials after EVERY match we play.
We are quite entitled to question the performance of officials, and I think we all know that they are NOT the reason we are losing to teams like Wolves. I suggest if this is irksome, simply don't read threads with that subject matter.
One of the reasons we are seeing so many cards for innocuous challenges is simulation, and we aren't as good as other teams. Fonte tries occasionally, mind you. Take KMac's card. He didn't actually touch the opponent but it looked as though he had broken the Wolves player's leg from his dramatic dive and roll. That made the decision for the ref.
And then ref's bottle decisions. The second bad tackle by the Wolves player who had just been booked (Sais was it?) was every bit as bad as Sessegnon's, (I thought worse as Sess's was just bad timing and this one intentional) and was in an important part of the pitch, but no card because he know he had just booked him. He bottled it.
We wouldn't have won against ten men over 90 minutes yesterday. I am not blaming the ref for the defeat. But I just want to see consistent and appropriate decisions from officials, but they are incompetent, and I don't know what if anything is happening behind the scenes to improve their performances.
Refs and Lino's do bottle decisions, and that is cheating, because the other team are cheated.
Can someone please explain what Norwood got a card for yesterday on the17th minute? Sky said he was and the stats show he was but I don't see what for. I have just watched the full 90, but only up to about 25 minutes and cannot see any card being waved in his direction.
Can a ref book a player without showing a card?
Johansen booked in 3rd minute when there player went down squealing like a pig near the touchline. Replay showed he barely touched him. That must affect you for the next 87 plus minutes...
Quote from: vagrant on November 04, 2017, 06:26:53 PM
Johansen booked in 3rd minute when there player went down squealing like a pig near the touchline. Replay showed he barely touched him. That must affect you for the next 87 plus minutes...
With useless ref booking any Fulham player for any sort of tackle he effectively stopped any defending,especially those on a yellow. Looking at the replay it was in the first minuts and you are right he never touched jota.
