theessexfox Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 - Birmingham are 2-1 up in the dying minutes of normal time. - They kick the ball out (without the ref telling them to) for a player who is down, who ends up getting no treatment. - Yeovil are told by Gary Johnson to play on, the Birmingham players wait for the ball to be given back to them and the guy scores from 30 odd yards. - Birmingham are furious, they expect to be able to score a free goal but Yeovil and Johnson don't let them. - Yeovil go 3-2 up in extra time, THEN they allow Brum to score the free goal. - Brum win on penalties. - Hughton is still furious about it. Thoughts?
AKCJ Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Hughton? I personally think it's ridiculous. They should have given them the goal there and then and let them go through. Not decide to be 'humble' when you've got another goal.
theessexfox Posted 28 August 2013 Author Posted 28 August 2013 Lee Clark, my mistake. I agree, though if he thought he was doing the right thing, which he may have been (after all, the Brum player didn't even go off or receive treatment) then he has to stick with that decision the whole way through.
Super_horns Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 From what I heard it does seem Yeovil felt the Birmingham player was faking an injury but I do agree it seem strange to give Brum a goal once Yeovil went ahead. Probably just as well Birmingham won. What probably isn't helping the mood of Lee Clarke is that against us on the opening day they took a quick throw in but the ref stopped their player and told them to give the ball back to us as we'd kicked it out for an injury.
Guest MattP Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 What Yeovil did was pathetic and disgraceful. Any other time of the game they give that back.
AdamN Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 It's a difficult one when you consider that feigning an injury to waste time could be considered just as unsporting as not returning the ball after a legitimate one. It does seem a bit weird to give them a goal after you've gone and taken the lead though...
Bryn Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 I have limited sympathy. The rules were changed to return greater control of whether or not play stops to the referee. It is for the referee to decide whether or not play should be halted to allow a player to receive treatment. This is to stop situations like this, where a side is seeking to waste time and may exaggerate injuries. If I were a manager, I would be instructing my players not to kick the ball out of play, to permit the referee to take responsibilty for that situation, and if the opposition does kick the ball out of play in a situation where there is a good chance they are wasting time, not to return the ball.
Fox92 Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Was it a Birmingham player who was down, or a Yeovil player? I have mixed views on this. I always say whenever a opposition player is down, just play on. You don't have to kick the ball out, and more likely than not, the opposition player is back up and playing in seconds. In this case though, if it was a Yeovil player down, then they should have given the ball back to Birmingham. As a sporting gesture. I'm suprised the referee didn't force it anyway?
Leicesterpool Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 It was really unsporting of Yeovil to score while a player needed serious treatment, but I'm afraid you play to the whistle. Really Birmingham should have had a go at the Ref rather than Yeovil.
theessexfox Posted 28 August 2013 Author Posted 28 August 2013 Some misunderstandings here. It was a Brum player down, so Brum kicked the ball out for their guy to receive treatment, expecting it back. The guy had no treatment, so Yeovil took the throw, everyone thought they'd give it back to Brum so they scored.
Super_horns Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Was it a Birmingham player who was down, Dan Burn (ironically a former Yeovil loanee) The Yeovil fans were clamming the physio didn't even come on to treat him and then Johnson suggested it was an act of time wasting but didn't tell the Yeovil to "score" I do agree with Adam and Matt about timing and I am not surprised Birmingham were upset because as told above they had a similar sort of situation against us near the end when we were 1 up. Paul Robinson threw the ball on and Novak was clean through but the ref pulled them back and told Birmingham to give us the ball back as we'd kicked out for an "injury" (I personally wasn't there so it might have been time wasting - it might have not been!)
DennisNedry Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Sometimes you do want your team to play on when it is obvious that the opposition has feigned an injury to waste time - which is just as unsporting as not returning the ball. If the Birmingham player was actually hurt then yes Yeovil were cvntish.
Harry - LCFC Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Lost a lot of respect for Yeovil and Gary Johnson. Less sympathy for them when they don't get the decisions in future.
Captain... Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 I have limited sympathy. The rules were changed to return greater control of whether or not play stops to the referee. It is for the referee to decide whether or not play should be halted to allow a player to receive treatment. This is to stop situations like this, where a side is seeking to waste time and may exaggerate injuries. If I were a manager, I would be instructing my players not to kick the ball out of play, to permit the referee to take responsibilty for that situation, and if the opposition does kick the ball out of play in a situation where there is a good chance they are wasting time, not to return the ball. Agree with this, it is not and never should be up to players to stop the game, if they think they will be at a disadvantage because someone on their team is down injured and kick the ball out of play, then they don't deserve it back, if they genuinely think he is badly injured then the ref should be able to see it too. I would much rather see what happened in normal time yesterday than have players faking injuries and wasting time and kicking the ball out of play and expecting it back under no pressure. What then happened in extra time was farcical.
foxfanazer Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 If the player is clearly feigning injury then its a great punishment to not give the ball back so I don't blame them for that, BUT after that Yeovil have to stick with their decision and not change there morals when they are winning. I think they would have been criticised far less if they hadn't given brum a goal back at all. By the way I am going on the description from here as I haven't seen it personally
Dan Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Embarrassing stuff from Yeovil and I'm glad it's bitten them on the arse.
Kitchandro Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 This is simple for me. The goalkeeper shouldn't have kicked it out of play. That's his mistake, he did to time waste obviously. Yeovil of course are going to want to score in the last minute. Birmingham can be furious all they want but it's their own fault for trying to dick Yeovil around in the first place. It's completely ridiculous to let them equalise after going 3-2 up. Johnson has made himself look very silly.
theessexfox Posted 28 August 2013 Author Posted 28 August 2013 This is simple for me. The goalkeeper shouldn't have kicked it out of play. That's his mistake, he did to time waste obviously. Yeovil of course are going to want to score in the last minute. Birmingham can be furious all they want but it's their own fault for trying to dick Yeovil around in the first place. It's completely ridiculous to let them equalise after going 3-2 up. Johnson has made himself look very silly. Especially as the player didn't go off or receive treatment. Yeovil were probably in the right up until they went back on themselves and let Brum equalise. If you're going to make that decision originally then you have to follow it through.
Finnegan Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Yeovil shouldn't have given the goal back. Should have taken the win and let it be a lesson to pathetic, time wasting, cheating *****. Brum have blagged their way through and have no right to be angry. We complain all the time about footballers diving, faking injury, time wasting and generally being puffs yet people want to be outraged at Yeovil here? Fvck off. If the Brum player was properly hurt and had to go off? Fair play. Otherwise sod em.
Simmo86 Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Being fair to Yeovil the Brum player has gone down like a sack of shit simply to time waste! Brum got what they deserved for cheating!
Corky Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 If it's not a serious injury, and certainly doesn't require treatment, they should play on. It seems like an obvious time-wasting tactic and Yeovil, at the time, refused to play along. If it has been a serious injury then it's different, but I'm fed up of players in the last few minutes going down with "injuries", often cramp, or mysterious knocks.
OriginalRobboFOX Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 No sympathy if the player was feigning injury or buying time. Furthermore if that was the case I'd have not given them a goal back at any stage.
Guest MattP Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 If a players goes down injured it's the refs jobs to make sure time is added on. Yeolvil knew they had done wrong hence the goal in ET. Justice was done. The one tiny bit of sportsmanship left in the game and people want to remove it?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.