Blades fan here lads - just wanted to say well done after a great week for you lot. Thoroughly enjoyed the match, thought both sides played some great stuff. Where we went wrong is in not allowing our wider players to get forward enough. We really didn't work the flanks at all which is unusual for us this season, and that explains why we let Hamer off the hook, because he looks dodgy on crosses but we weren't putting any in! The ref did his best to spoil things, and how he disallowed our goal when Hamer dropped it into his own net unchallenged is beyond belief. Anyway, great game, great result for you, had a top laugh with some of your fans in the pubs before the match and although I heard of a bit of handbags after the game I hope it was nothing major. I hope we can hang onto your shirt-tails and get that 2nd spot because we don't do playoffs(!). All the best!
I have to admit I think the timing of the sending offs (?) actually worked in our favour, Utd were really building up a head of steam, brought on a striker etc, they were looking like they could get a goal to me. Then the incident in question forced them to rejig formation again, lost Beattie and all momentum.
A great win but a draw would hardly have been unfair, two good teams, and one shocking team (the officials.)
Where we went wrong is in not allowing our wider players to get forward enough. We really didn't work the flanks at all which is unusual for us this season, and that explains why we let Hamer off the hook, because he looks dodgy on crosses but we weren't putting any in!
Lingsbord - I think you got it wide quite often, but we have the best full-backs in the division and they weren't letting you get the crosses over so you had to go back. Blades never moved it quickly enough to upset our shape. We weren't our expansive selves due to you being a decent side, but we did enough. Hope you get the other auto slot.
good day in all, got in the lib nice and early spent some good time with my old man. nice bit of banter with some fellow lifers... few knob head blades looking for a bit of trouble on the way to the ground but nowt kicked off. got in before kick off which was nice. tense game.. me mog and few others swore kermy was gona hit the free kick had a great view of the goal, the wall was perfect and the goalie was in the right place just no one and i mean no one could have saved that.. ref did his best to ruin it but didnt feel so bad after beattie had been sent off also. Hamer worries me he really needs to command his area and work on his catching it was awful the way he faffs about. sheer delight at the end, powelly looked liked he was gona cartwheel out of the tunnel and the 2 encore oooooooo's were fantastic. back in the lib after more ribbing from the lads, great day and i finally belevie we have a team that can achieve greatness, given a fair wind and a few summer signings we could easily do a norwich if we keep up the good work. Great day to be an addick and getting the pride back!! up the addicks.. Tom x gits!! ;-)
Interesting discussions on here. I wasn't at the game so can only comment on the little I've seen on BBC. Beattie deserved to go - putting hands round an opponent's neck is violent conduct and a red card. Russell's tackle and subsequent red although many see as harsh in this modern game it was always likely to be a red. The one/two footed thing people are making out doesn't exist. I.e. if it's one footed it's yellow, if it's two footed it's red etc... The law about series foul play is:
'A player is guilty of SFP if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as SFP. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play'.
So I interpret this to be about the excessive force of the challenge and endangering safety and not one or two footed challenges as one footed challenges can be interpreted as SFP.
The law does clarify things, but doesn't seem to match what officials are giving.
From my reading of the rule the tackle must meet all the criteria, i.e. be: A Lunge Use Excessive Force Endanger Safety
So using the example of the Kompany tackle, it, at most, only satisfies 2 of the 3 (it was definitely a lunging tackle, but the other 2 are very debatable). Russells tackle was definitely a lunge, and probably endangered safety (as his trailing leg did catch the player) but again it didn't look excessive in force.
The other problem, as I've mentioned before, is that every tackle endangers safety. I'm sure we've all seen completely innocuous tackles that have ended in horrific injuries.
I'm still of the opinion that these sort of tackles should be judged on intent and result, not on ifs and buts. If a player is clearly going for the ball and wins the ball cleanly then it shouldn't be a foul. It's when players are trying to take man and ball or mostly man that things become dangerous and/or reckless and need to be stamped out.
We're heading in a very dangerous direction with the way the game is being officiated. We're rapidly approaching a stage were tackling is virtually outlawed. Defending is an art and a talent, I don't want to see games of attack v keeper, I want to see games that are keenly contested, and that means tackles as well as passes and shots.
Re:the sending off. From my seat I knew he was walking from the second he took off and it looked the right decision to me (other angles may give you a different opinion of course). Woudl we be saying the same if it were the other way around?
You can argue about the laws of the game till the cows come home but in the current climate he was always going to walk regardless of who was the ref' or what sort of game he was having...and at that stage the ref was losing it a bit.
Thank gawd for Beatties stupidity through as I'm 100% certain they were heading for an equaliser with 10 v 11.
Reading all the comments, I think it's right to praise BWP for working hard, but that is not his game which essentially is working across the front line, playing off the shoulder and waiting for the right through balls. That is where we need Stephens back to produce those passes that hurt the defence. I agree that we might have to rotate the squad to help some players, but we need to note that Exeter are unbeaten over four games, with three clean sheets. Regarding Hamer, I respect that he and Sullivan are two good lads who will become much better with coaching and experience. My point made earlier was that if we could take on loan a Seaman/Shilton etc at the end of his career just for the rest of this season, I think that would be the final piece of the puzzle where promotion is concerned.
And there, Bournemouth, you highlight the biggest problem with the refereeing of games. Every challenge should be judged on it's own merits, not the "current climate" or if the ref is losing the game and feels he needs to clamp down in some way.
All I know is that tackles that in previous seasons would be applauded are now ending in red cards, whether there is contact or not, based on far too many subjective calls the referee is being forced to make in a split second.
A very tough game and one moment of quality separated the teams. The back four were outstanding, Morrison gets better and better and Solly has been a revelation. However it was a very poor goalkeeping performance, his failure to catch even routine crosses gives cause for concern. Up front Yann and BWP seemed to lack understanding, maybe Haynes, who looked lively, deserves a chance.Overall the work rate is fantastic and the team spirit looks good. All credit to the manager
There was a perfectly timed and safe challenge from behind on Saturday- can't remember who made it- could have been Hollands - He got the ball cleanly without touching the opposing player, but the ref gave a foul. I knew he would give a foul as basically it is a tackle refs have decided to stamp out.
The same goes for the 2 footed lunge. There are dangerous ones and not dangerous ones, sometimes (quite often) they are innocent but mistimed. I think refs would rather these tackles didn't occur so if you send everybody off who makes them, even if they execute them perfectly, you will remove them from the game. possibly using a sledge hammer to crack a nut but players can have their already short careers ended from these so maybe we shouldn't be looking nostalgically at the past and see it as a positive.
Russell didn't touch their player and it was a honest rather than a cynical attempt for the ball, but had he mistimed it could have been nasty. Refs are trying to be consistent and I don't think we can complain too much.
It is very difficult and I try to judge every challenge on its merit. I had a game 3 weeks ago on a Sunday morning and a player went in with two feet, they were low certainly not above the ball and he cleanly won the ball, the ball making slight contact with the opponent - no more than that. I did think about a red but ended up giving a yellow as I thought a red would be harsh considering the lack of harm done and he was just about in control of his lunge. He did exactly the same in the second half so sent him off. If it had been a Kent League game and I was being assessed I would have been expected to send him off. A fellow referee did the same - a two footed lunge with no contact on player and he gave a yellow and got slaughtered in his assessment...I think it's an FA driven thing to drive out potentially dangerous tackles but in doing that, as Randy has alluded to, we're in danger of outlawing all types of tackling and making football a non-contact sport....
He certainly didn't learn but for a Sunday morning game I thought a yellow and a telling off better for match control (As in his team wouldn't be on my back for the best part of an hour) but he didn't learn...Sunday morning footballers for you I suppose!!! That's nothing on yesterday's game though...
On noise generated - when Sheff U started singing about our support my immediate thought was "where were you at Brammal Lane?" - hardly a cauldron that day. I reckon our home support was much louder than any noise they created up there
Hollands tackle was right in front of me and it was a good clean tackle. He didn't go through the player but came from his outside. I think that the division in views on Russel's tackle demonstrates why we will not appeal. His stumble meant he was a fraction later than he wanted to be and was unbalanced. No malice but I thought it was a red at the time. Bearing in mind that the ref was very close and had a split second to make a decision I can't criticise him for that card. Unlike the ones for Wiggins or Hamer. Fortunately Beattie thought Russell's red was unfair and decided to join him to ensure that the balance was maintained. What a top bloke he is!
They have to be very careful with clamping down on these tackles, a perfectly execured aggressive tackle - think Stuart Pearce - is one of the most thrilling sights in football and yet many of them, simply because of their 'aggressive' nature are now resulting in red cards.
I have not seen the stats but it seems that there are an awful lot of players getting sent off for tackle related offences at the moment (fnarrrrr!) and the referees cannot be getting them all right.
It seems that players have a real problem in actually going in for 50/50's because if they arrive even a fraction late and make contact they are viewed as having made an aggressive tackle and get a red card.
It's almost as if the Refs are trying to get players to stay on their feet at all times and never leave the ground for a tackle, thereby reducing the 'contest' for the ball.
Message to Sheffield United fans No1 - moan all you like but Hamer was pulled backwards for the corner you think was so unjust. I had a perfect view - I know not clear from the tv but I saw it as clear as day and so did the ref unfiortunately for you.
Message to Sheffield United fans No2 - 99.9% of refs would have given a free kick for foul on Hollands that led to our goal.
Message to Sheffield United fans No3 - Beattie was an idiot - kermogant was pulling a shirt - a booking -ok fair enough - Beattie raised his hands to strangle -red card.
You played well and I wish you well and I accept you deserved a point on the play although you didn't create too much, but the ref actually got the key decisions right. that also included Russell seeing red. It's football but don't get yourself in a state that you have been hard done by or cheated when the decisons were right.
I'm glad we won that, although I thought that Sheff U had far more possession, and made good use of it until they got in the final third. Remember that they had scored at least 2 goals in each of their previous 7 (or so) games, and we restricted them to just 1 shot on target, (although we were lucky to get away with it when Hamer dropped the ball over the line). This emphasises where our strength lies - we have conceded only 1 goal in our last 4 games, and that was when we played with 10 men. However, in those games we've only scored one from open play, which is a bit of a worry. For too much of the time on Saturday we passed the ball backwards and sideways well enough at the back, but ignored players who were further forward and in space, and then lumped it forward as if we were fed up with passing it. There's definitely scope for improvement there, as the strikers end up chasing for scraps. The other main area for improvement is communication between Yann and BWP, as they kept moving in the opposite direction to where the other one sent the ball. Still, onwards and upwards.
Comments
You would never have got your maaaassssive neighbours being as respectful to the result fair play
A great win but a draw would hardly have been unfair, two good teams, and one shocking team (the officials.)
Lingsbord - I think you got it wide quite often, but we have the best full-backs in the division and they weren't letting you get the crosses over so you had to go back. Blades never moved it quickly enough to upset our shape. We weren't our expansive selves due to you being a decent side, but we did enough. Hope you get the other auto slot.
'A player is guilty of SFP if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as SFP. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play'.
So I interpret this to be about the excessive force of the challenge and endangering safety and not one or two footed challenges as one footed challenges can be interpreted as SFP.
Come on now mate, don't start bringing the actual Laws of the Game into it......:)
From my reading of the rule the tackle must meet all the criteria, i.e. be:
A Lunge
Use Excessive Force
Endanger Safety
So using the example of the Kompany tackle, it, at most, only satisfies 2 of the 3 (it was definitely a lunging tackle, but the other 2 are very debatable). Russells tackle was definitely a lunge, and probably endangered safety (as his trailing leg did catch the player) but again it didn't look excessive in force.
The other problem, as I've mentioned before, is that every tackle endangers safety. I'm sure we've all seen completely innocuous tackles that have ended in horrific injuries.
I'm still of the opinion that these sort of tackles should be judged on intent and result, not on ifs and buts. If a player is clearly going for the ball and wins the ball cleanly then it shouldn't be a foul. It's when players are trying to take man and ball or mostly man that things become dangerous and/or reckless and need to be stamped out.
We're heading in a very dangerous direction with the way the game is being officiated. We're rapidly approaching a stage were tackling is virtually outlawed. Defending is an art and a talent, I don't want to see games of attack v keeper, I want to see games that are keenly contested, and that means tackles as well as passes and shots.
You can argue about the laws of the game till the cows come home but in the current climate he was always going to walk regardless of who was the ref' or what sort of game he was having...and at that stage the ref was losing it a bit.
Thank gawd for Beatties stupidity through as I'm 100% certain they were heading for an equaliser with 10 v 11.
I agree that we might have to rotate the squad to help some players, but we need to note that Exeter are unbeaten over four games, with three clean sheets.
Regarding Hamer, I respect that he and Sullivan are two good lads who will become much better with coaching and experience. My point made earlier was that if we could take on loan a Seaman/Shilton etc at the end of his career just for the rest of this season, I think that would be the final piece of the puzzle where promotion is concerned.
All I know is that tackles that in previous seasons would be applauded are now ending in red cards, whether there is contact or not, based on far too many subjective calls the referee is being forced to make in a split second.
The same goes for the 2 footed lunge. There are dangerous ones and not dangerous ones, sometimes (quite often) they are innocent but mistimed. I think refs would rather these tackles didn't occur so if you send everybody off who makes them, even if they execute them perfectly, you will remove them from the game. possibly using a sledge hammer to crack a nut but players can have their already short careers ended from these so maybe we shouldn't be looking nostalgically at the past and see it as a positive.
Russell didn't touch their player and it was a honest rather than a cynical attempt for the ball, but had he mistimed it could have been nasty. Refs are trying to be consistent and I don't think we can complain too much.
Only timew I've heard the whole West stand singing along as well.
I have not seen the stats but it seems that there are an awful lot of players getting sent off for tackle related offences at the moment (fnarrrrr!) and the referees cannot be getting them all right.
It seems that players have a real problem in actually going in for 50/50's because if they arrive even a fraction late and make contact they are viewed as having made an aggressive tackle and get a red card.
It's almost as if the Refs are trying to get players to stay on their feet at all times and never leave the ground for a tackle, thereby reducing the 'contest' for the ball.
Message to Sheffield United fans No2 - 99.9% of refs would have given a free kick for foul on Hollands that led to our goal.
Message to Sheffield United fans No3 - Beattie was an idiot - kermogant was pulling a shirt - a booking -ok fair enough - Beattie raised his hands to strangle -red card.
You played well and I wish you well and I accept you deserved a point on the play although you didn't create too much, but the ref actually got the key decisions right. that also included Russell seeing red. It's football but don't get yourself in a state that you have been hard done by or cheated when the decisons were right.
Remember that they had scored at least 2 goals in each of their previous 7 (or so) games, and we restricted them to just 1 shot on target, (although we were lucky to get away with it when Hamer dropped the ball over the line). This emphasises where our strength lies - we have conceded only 1 goal in our last 4 games, and that was when we played with 10 men. However, in those games we've only scored one from open play, which is a bit of a worry.
For too much of the time on Saturday we passed the ball backwards and sideways well enough at the back, but ignored players who were further forward and in space, and then lumped it forward as if we were fed up with passing it. There's definitely scope for improvement there, as the strikers end up chasing for scraps. The other main area for improvement is communication between Yann and BWP, as they kept moving in the opposite direction to where the other one sent the ball.
Still, onwards and upwards.