Bogle is miles better than Nouble.

Chepstow'sFine wrote: February 15th, 2023, 3:30 pm I like Bungle but I think he's got to be a little bit careful that he keeps the fans onside. For example, the slight bit of petulance when he got subbed off recently and the hand clasped against his ear gesture after he scored last night. Those things aren't going to impress the quiet majority of us who wish him well and want him to score every game.

Don't blame him to be honest some of the stuff I've heard shouted at him is way out of order

If he's playing for the County he'll never hear stick off me

I wasn't there but on highlights never a penalty. Evans was right. Lad won the ball cleanly then Bogle fell over him afterwards. What you reckon?

If so, then Evans has been around long enough to know that 'you win some, you lose some'. No need to make it into a conspiracy theory.

Another way of seeing it is that he's gone in off his feet and after playing the ball he has caught Bogle knee-high studs first so lucky to stay on the pitch the way the laws are interpreted these days.

Amberexile wrote: February 16th, 2023, 11:07 am Another way of seeing it is that he's gone in off his feet and after playing the ball he has caught Bogle knee-high studs first so lucky to stay on the pitch the way the laws are interpreted these days.

Watching from the Compeed that's precisely what ended up happening. As Coughlan said, it was not what he intended, but if the impact is high up on the ball that has a leg behind it, the boot will run up the stationary ball onto the leg behind it. Boggle didn't do anything wrong, just a blocking tackle stood upright. It was the player attempting to tackle that got it wrong.

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2023, 11:32 am

Amberexile wrote: February 16th, 2023, 11:07 am Another way of seeing it is that he's gone in off his feet and after playing the ball he has caught Bogle knee-high studs first so lucky to stay on the pitch the way the laws are interpreted these days.

Watching from the Compeed that's precisely what ended up happening. As Coughlan said, it was not what he intended, but if the impact is high up on the ball that has a leg behind it, the boot will run up the stationary ball onto the leg behind it. Boggle didn't do anything wrong, just a blocking tackle stood upright. It was the player attempting to tackle that got it wrong.

Agree with you both. Although at the time I was dubious as to wether it was a penalty. With the benefit of seeing replays it is clear that the defenders foot slid over the ball and connected with Bogle high up on his shin. Given that the defender also finished on the floor, it could be deemed to have been out of control and warranted a red card. Nevertheless we'll done the ref for awarding the pen,despite obviously denying what I saw as a definite penalty committed on Aaron Lewis first half. The negative from the incident is that Bogle was limping heavily afterwards and may be unavailable for Saturday.

Leaving aside whether or not it wasva penalty. Seeing it live I didn't know and I still don't, it does show the limitations of VAR. Ten of us can watch did ten times and still disagree as to whether it was a penalty or not, and as I say I don't know and I suspect neither really does anyone else.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: February 16th, 2023, 12:14 pm Leaving aside whether or not it was a penalty. Seeing it live I didn't know and I still don't, it does show the limitations of VAR. Ten of us can watch did ten times and still disagree as to whether it was a penalty or not, and as I say I don't know and I suspect neither really does anyone else.

But with VAR you have multiple cameras at multiple angles with close ups of incidents like this. The VAR 'controller/viewer' or what ever they are called would have asked the ref to have a look at the incident. The ref would then have seen it slow-mo where the defender is not in control of his actions and his studs make contact with bogles leg high up. Penalty and red card, only difference on the night was that he got a yellow card.
The Stevenage players seemed more disappointed than incensed.

ghosty wrote: February 16th, 2023, 7:12 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: February 16th, 2023, 12:14 pm Leaving aside whether or not it was a penalty. Seeing it live I didn't know and I still don't, it does show the limitations of VAR. Ten of us can watch did ten times and still disagree as to whether it was a penalty or not, and as I say I don't know and I suspect neither really does anyone else.

But with VAR you have multiple cameras at multiple angles with close ups of incidents like this. The VAR 'controller/viewer' or what ever they are called would have asked the ref to have a look at the incident. The ref would then have seen it slow-mo where the defender is not in control of his actions and his studs make contact with bogles leg high up. Penalty and red card, only difference on the night was that he got a yellow card.
The Stevenage players seemed more disappointed than incensed.

Obviously your view is what you saw, and for yourself it is true. All I can say is that I'm not sure and I've seen similar given and not given.

Moving on. And I would be interested in views. When it comes to off-side I think VAR does allow for farr fewer 'errors' to be made. That said I feel there is one change to the offside rule I'd like to see.


The point of off-side is of course to prevent what in the school yards of the 1960s we all called goal hanging. I therefore think it not condusive to the entertainment factor of our game when a 'goal' is disallowed because a players big toe is one inch off-side.

Yhe change I would make is that a forward be deemed on-side if any part of his body, other than arms, is onside. Rather than as the law stands now.

As I said I would be interested in the views of others.

Stevenage have just announced a new loan for a goalkeeper. It sounds like their keeper was injured quite badly in the collision with Priestly Farquharson. Steve Evans complained that the challenge went unpunished by the referee I wasn't at the game so I am only going on my view on video but I didn't think it was a foul. For those who had a better view, should it of been called a foul?

Both players came at pace towards the ball. The goalie was at full stretch and probably collided with Priestly after getting a punch on the ball. Nothing Priestley could do, he was also fully committed to getting to the ball.

excessbee wrote: February 16th, 2023, 8:28 pm Both players came at pace towards the ball. The goalie was at full stretch and probably collided with Priestly after getting a punch on the ball. Nothing Priestley could do, he was also fully committed to getting to the ball.

Saw it that way also. Many such similar 'coming together' instances happened in this game and probably every other competitive game between opposing outfield players without, quite rightly IMO, fouls being awarded. There does seem an expectation among many however if a goalkeeper receives the slightest touch from an opposition player when jumping for the ball that it has to be called a foul. Would value an opinion from a qualified referee as to whether 'keepers are entitled to be treated differently from outfield players in such instances.

[quote=Would value an opinion from a qualified referee as to whether 'keepers are entitled to be treated differently from outfield players in such instances.
[/quote]

According to the rules of the game, keepers aren’t treated any differently to outfield players, but there are differences in how the laws of the game are interpreted -

Any player who recklessly, carelessly or even accidentally collided with an opponent who got the ball first commits a foul. Therefore any keeper who catches the ball (getting it first) but where a striker collided with the GK, has been fouled.

Any injury to a GK must result in play being stopped as it can’t go on, even through an advantage, when such an integral player is on the deck, this clearly differs to outfield players where play will only be stopped for a head injury or serious injury.

In reality, us referees do protect the GKs at most corners and when they come under pressure when gathering a cross, simply because it can ‘all kick off’ if a GK is hurt and we let this go unnoticed.

DeePeeNCAFC wrote: February 16th, 2023, 10:35 pm [quote=Would value an opinion from a qualified referee as to whether 'keepers are entitled to be treated differently from outfield players in such instances.

According to the rules of the game, keepers aren’t treated any differently to outfield players, but there are differences in how the laws of the game are interpreted -

Any player who recklessly, carelessly or even accidentally collided with an opponent who got the ball first commits a foul. Therefore any keeper who catches the ball (getting it first) but where a striker collided with the GK, has been fouled.

Any injury to a GK must result in play being stopped as it can’t go on, even through an advantage, when such an integral player is on the deck, this clearly differs to outfield players where play will only be stopped for a head injury or serious injury.

In reality, us referees do protect the GKs at most corners and when they come under pressure when gathering a cross, simply because it can ‘all kick off’ if a GK is hurt and we let this go unnoticed.
[/quote]
Many thanks for your perspective on that. It has lessoned my indignity somewhat towards 'keepers being seen as a pampered protected species; having heard a ref's viewpoint.