UPTHEPORT wrote:A well trained ballboy by the sounds

As a ball boy you are supposed to give the ball back .... I know all too well the scull duggery and dark arts .. was at Stevenage last season when they pulled every one of them off straight after they’d scored .... but this kid had the ball in his hands and twice refused to hand it to an opposition player - very poor show.

DeePeeNCAFC wrote:I think Frank is right. I know for a fact (because my son is an occasional ball boy) that we tell ours to slow down returning the ball to opponents when we're ahead.

All the 92 do this. However 91 clubs are cheating whilst Newport County are being sensible. At least if you read some of the comments on here that's the way of it.

If you watch our ball boys (not sure if you do), not many of them actually move at all ?

I actually like the dark arts of the game, the slow down etc etc ..... but this kid refused to hand the ball to our player (twice) ... that’s not right surely?? ... what else is he there for ?

and no I would not be happy if ours resorted to that.

Justanordinaryfan wrote:If you watch our ball boys (not sure if you do), not many of them actually move at all ?

I actually like the dark arts of the game, the slow down etc etc ..... but this kid refused to hand the ball to our player (twice) ... that’s not right surely?? ... what else is he there for ?

and no I would not be happy if ours resorted to that.

Which I suppose means that you decide on where the line should be drawn. If it's okay with you it's enjoyable dark arts if it isn't okay with you then it's cheating.

I didn't see exactly what this ball boy did as I wasn't there. However if there is to be criticism then surely it should be of the referee who could have simply did what I recall a ref at Ebbsfleet doing in the National Conference to us.

County leading 1-0 as the game went in to overtime, the ball goes into the County supporters behind the goal. A young lad with blond hair, egged on it must said, by a fair few older people, kept the ball for over a minute.

The referee made it very clear that the game wouldn't finish until Ebbsfleet equalized.

Which they did.

I agree the that all the officials were poor in this instance.

I think the example you give is totally different to the one of yesterday ?

Justanordinaryfan wrote:I agree the that all the officials were poor in this instance.

I think the example you give is totally different to the one of yesterday ?

Tell me why you think that.

Cos, and only my opinion, the example you gave, was that the blonde lad was in the crowd, he didn’t have any match day duties, although imo he was wrong to hold of the ball for the minute.

This kid yesterday was actually a ball boy with match day duties, was pitch side with ball in hand and he refused to hand it, on two occasions to the opposition player stood next to him .... yes I agree he was probably acting to orders, and yes the officials were poor in policing this .... but imo I believe it’s a different situation.

Justanordinaryfan wrote:Cos, and only my opinion, the example you gave, was that the blonde lad was in the crowd, he didn’t have any match day duties, although imo he was wrong to hold of the ball for the minute.

This kid yesterday was actually a ball boy with match day duties, was pitch side with ball in hand and he refused to hand it, on two occasions to the opposition player stood next to him .... yes I agree he was probably acting to orders, and yes the officials were poor in policing this .... but imo I believe it’s a different situation.

But if the referee could sanction County for a supporter cheating, why could not the referee sanction Plymouth for cheating?

Did he officially sanction the kid ?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Justanordinaryfan wrote:I agree the that all the officials were poor in this instance.

I think the example you give is totally different to the one of yesterday ?

Tell me why you think that.

The ball boy was, although in a minor capacity, part of the matchday team provided by Plymouth. The first incident took place right under the nose of the linesman who took no action. That bears no comparison to a member of the crowd holding on to the ball.

excessbee wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Justanordinaryfan wrote:I agree the that all the officials were poor in this instance.

I think the example you give is totally different to the one of yesterday ?

Tell me why you think that.

The ball boy was, although in a minor capacity, part of the matchday team provided by Plymouth. The first incident took place right under the nose of the linesman who took no action. That bears no comparison to a member of the crowd holding on to the ball.

You are missing the point.

All clubs cheat.

The referee is there to prevent this.

If the ball boy was cheating and the referee saw this. Which by all accounts as everyone else saw it he should have done. So it was incumbent on the referee to have applied a sanction. If he did not then the referee can be criticised.

Of course you can criticize Plymouth. But come on, the argument that when County cheat it's taking one for the team but somehow becomes unacceptable when the opposition do it better is nonsense.

Justanordinaryfan wrote:Did he officially sanction the kid ?

???

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

excessbee wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Justanordinaryfan wrote:I agree the that all the officials were poor in this instance.

I think the example you give is totally different to the one of yesterday ?

Tell me why you think that.

The ball boy was, although in a minor capacity, part of the matchday team provided by Plymouth. The first incident took place right under the nose of the linesman who took no action. That bears no comparison to a member of the crowd holding on to the ball.

You are missing the point.

All clubs cheat.

The referee is there to prevent this.

If the ball boy was cheating and the referee saw this. Which by all accounts as everyone else saw it he should have done. So it was incumbent on the referee to have applied a sanction. If he did not then the referee can be criticised.

Of course you can criticize Plymouth. But come on, the argument that when County cheat it's taking one for the team but somehow becomes unacceptable when the opposition do it better is nonsense.

Or are you missing the point? My response was how ridiculous it is to compare a supporter in the crowd not returning the ball, with a ball boy, whose job description/duties probably starts with..... Retrieve and return the ball to players. In your last paragraph does 'County cheating' also refer to the alleged incident at Ebbsfleet?

excessbee wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

excessbee wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Justanordinaryfan wrote:I agree the that all the officials were poor in this instance.

I think the example you give is totally different to the one of yesterday ?

Tell me why you think that.

The ball boy was, although in a minor capacity, part of the matchday team provided by Plymouth. The first incident took place right under the nose of the linesman who took no action. That bears no comparison to a member of the crowd holding on to the ball.

You are missing the point.

All clubs cheat.

The referee is there to prevent this.

If the ball boy was cheating and the referee saw this. Which by all accounts as everyone else saw it he should have done. So it was incumbent on the referee to have applied a sanction. If he did not then the referee can be criticised.

Of course you can criticize Plymouth. But come on, the argument that when County cheat it's taking one for the team but somehow becomes unacceptable when the opposition do it better is nonsense.

Or are you missing the point? My response was how ridiculous it is to compare a supporter in the crowd not returning the ball, with a ball boy, whose job description/duties probably starts with..... Retrieve and return the ball to players. In your last paragraph does 'County cheating' also refer to the alleged incident at Ebbsfleet?

When County instruct ball boys to return the ball more slowly to the opposition when County are winning it is exactly the same thing as Plymouth did to us yesterday. We can hardly complain to Plymouth if they do it better. Once you cheat/employ gamesmanship, there can be no moral high ground.

However as all teams do it we need arbiters. The referee.

Now if a referee can sanction a team for the behaviour of it's fans, as per Ebbsfleet, then a referee should be able to sanction a team for the behaviour of it's ball boys. Hence in my view there may be a legitimate criticism of the referee.

And your evidence that the referee sanctioned Newport for fan behaviour at Ebbsfleet is.........? Was it in his match report? Was that report in the public domain?