SFC Ref takes his usual in depth review of the Saints game, both from a playing perspective and also the referee. See about the game that felt like a defeat but was at the end of the day a good point.

As it was a Friday game I did actually manage to go to this game myself. But when the squad came out, it certainly didn’t impress many for who was/wasn’t playing in our game on Friday.

As many were satisfied with who was starting at the back and in the centre of midfield, but why Elynousie was picked yet again as well as Walcott and Adam Armstrong really didn’t make sense.

With Adam Armstrong I was in the middle for as he’d not played for a while so a chance was fair enough, but at the same time why not play tall Paul as he’d also not had much of a chance and hadn’t really had one previously whilst Armstrong had. And why Walcott was playing, I originally didn’t agree with as I thought that Stu should be starting over him, but still at least understood why.

But HOW Elynousie was somehow playing is just baffling yet again!? As how he’s picked over Sulemana or Stu makes no sense, and even writing this after the result still don’t understand how?

However the start of the game showed, playing Walcott wasn’t actually the worst decisions ever, and will give him his credit for the decent display he gave, being in the mix of a fair bit this season and did great partnered up with Alcaraz.

We were lucky with the first goal, but fir at least take our chance, but the second goal was well worked and a really good play. But of course with us being Saints we had to just conceded before half-time and just couldn’t keep it together and go in with all the momentum. As after we went 2-0 up just rated to hold back and just go all out defence and we’re lucky to not to concede again before half time. But still you can’t complain with being 2-1 up against top of the table at half-time.

When the second half started, Alcaraz was taken off for Lyanco, which I had mixed opinions for, as yeah he was on a cautioning and we couldn’t afford to go down to 10 men, but at the same time we might as well of been for how invisible Adams and Elynousie were.

We again started the half really well as we didn’t just defend and did start to attack, which is exactly why we got that corner through pressing and got that third goal to make us 3-1 up. But then we took off the likes of Adams, Lavia and Walcott off, in which I agreed with Walcott and Adams, but Lavia was great this game and him coming off is what changed everything, especially when your replacing him with the likes of Diallo, especially whilst Elynousie is still somehow on the pitch.

However back to the usual, the last few minutes just summed up our season with us conceding twice in just like 4 minutes which is what cost us the 2 points! As their first goal was good, but still the lad shouldn’t have been given the space, whilst the second was poor with Bazunu needing to either catch the shot or palm it away into a less dangerous area.

The luck deserted us with Bella-Kotcha slipping and leaving it a free shot on goal for Saka to net the equaliser. All of which just sums up our season dropping vital points yet again all due to not being able to keep a lead and our stupid mistakes of messing up at the back/not taking our chances, leading to us dropping the points.

As at the end of the day, you’d of taken a point before KO, but a point just wasn’t enough for either of us. But I do feel like a mixture of tactical mistakes both cost us and earnt us the point, as some of Rubén’s tactical mistakes ended up being great, whilst others looked to have cost us. But it wasn’t just down to him with some stupid, poor mistakes also coasting us the points.

It looks like Arsenal have almost certainly bottled the title now to City, but if we’d won this we’d just of been 2 points from safety, where a win against Bournemouth on Thursday could’ve seen us out of the relegation zone, but with just the 1 point, it means we need more than just a win against Bournemouth now!

As Thursday will well and truly confirm of what the end of the seasons going to be for us, as anything bar a win and I’ll of lost every last bit of hope. But at the same time if we can play as we did against Arsenal on Thursday and again in our remaining fixtures, then their is that slight bit of hope of us managing to somehow stay up this season.

Referee watch (Simon Hooper)

There was lots of action in this game, with loads of entertainment for any neutrals watching, but there wasn’t really anything for VAR to get involved in, ss all 6 goals were perfectly valid, and other than a few desperately pathetic shouts for penalties from Arsenal, no major incants for them to look at.

There was still a fair bit for Hooper to deal with, with many fouls and indents occurring between all the goals, but nothing of consequence.

For me the referee had an ok game, as I do think that he missed a fair few fouls for us and some almost ended up costing us, but at least he didn’t just blow for all the times that players went down easy (which was usually the Arsenal lot) and actually allowed for the game to have a bit of contact and force around it, allowing it to flow and not just blowing for everything.

Although I have heard a few fans complain about the injury time, in the end it meant bugger all with all goals occurring firing regular time and with Jan Bednarek almost needing the stretcher, all the goals, the issues with the AR’s comms (as that’s why Hooper kept going over to him).

So both half’s did need a fair bit of injury time, which I did think the numbers for where fair, but at the same time you’d never see those sized numbers when the same’s happened in games where we were the ones that wanted the larger injury times.
So overall a good game from VAR and an ok one from Hooper.

Photo: Action Images

Hamnottingham added 11:56 - Apr 24 Opinion needed on the foul that resulted in Bednarek needing to be substituted. Causing someone to fall like that at a lineout in rugby is a straight red card as it is so dangerous. He looked before backing in, it was clearly deliberate. Football?
3

Ifonly added 18:03 - Apr 24 I agree with Hamnottingham. In rugby, it's not just at lineouts, if you so much as touch someone in the air while not directly challenging for the ball, then it's a penalty. If you do it dangerously it's a red card. In a rugby match Martinelli would have been given a straight red, regardless of whether he meant it or not. Also, if you tip someone in a tackle beyond the horizontal, it's your responsibility to get them to ground safely. Again, if you do it dangerously, you're off. Rugby is light years ahead of football in recognition of the dangers of head and neck injuries. The football law makers and referees are in the dark ages. They worry about half an inch offside and completely ignore much more important issues. I include referees in this because any idiot can see that Martinelli endangered Bednarek, so the existing rules cover the situation if applied with intelligence. Unfortunately, intelligence seems to be in short supply.

1

Ifonly added 18:12 - Apr 24 While I'm here, can we all please stop asking why Moi is picked and why Tall Paul isn't. It's because Selles wants to play a high press. Moi is good at it, Paul isn't. That's it. You can disagree with the tactics and the priorities (like I do) and say that Moi's game against the ball doesn't make up for his lack of productivity with it, but please stop asking why Selles is doing it. It's getting boring.

0

SFC_Referee added 18:28 - Apr 24 Ok but it’s not a red card as bednerak is the one that’s jumped over him and he’s the one that fallen awkwardly, as yeah the Arsenal player backs into him a little, but there’s very little force which is exactly why it’s just a free kick, as bednerak is the one that causes most of the force and a cautioning would be harsh, yet understandable, but it’s never a red.

-1

Ifonly added 19:17 - Apr 24 A challenge doesn't have to use excessive force to cause a red card. From Law 12: SERIOUS FOUL PLAY A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Note that it says "OR". Either endangering an opponent OR excessive force MUST be sanctioned as serious foul play (red card). Can anyone seriously say that Martinelli did not endanger Bednarek by backing in to him? Of course not. That's why Bednarek had to go off injured. Even if referees choose to ignore this law, then Martinelli was still guilty of "reckless" play i.e. he "acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent" and so should have had a yellow card. The fact that he acted with little force is totally irrelevant. If someone is in the air, it only takes a touch to cause serious injury. Rugby understands this. Football, as usual, is decades behind. The laws are there to be used already, it's the lack of thought in the way that they are applied that's the problem.

1

Hamnottingham added 19:26 - Apr 24 Are you seriously suggesting that Bednarek jumped over Martinelli? That's quite an Olympic high jump feat. Martinelli looked before backing under Bednarek in time-honoured centre-forward fashion. The fact that players are more athletic and can jump higher than 'the good old days' only makes the offence of backing in/under more dangerous. Could easily have been a broken neck. If Bednarek had the time to put his hand out, broken collar bone/wrist/dislocated shoulder take your pick.

1

Hamnottingham added 19:28 - Apr 24 When you back under someone in that way you apply virtuall no force to tip someone on thei head as they are in the air.......
1

SFC_Referee added 20:54 - Apr 24 As you’ve just stated ifonly SFP needs to have excessive force or brutality and what would be just your usual shoulder barge, if it wasn’t for Bednerak being midair, is not SFP for either of those two. And seeing how, like I said before, bederak is also jumping over the arsenal lad, as the arsenal lad going into him more, yes, but bednerak is also going towards and into him, as it’s not a red as it’s been caused by both. As after seeing the replay, yeah I would probably say it is a cautioning, yeah, as the arsenal player is late and has more force, but sorry but as much as I’d love to say there is, there’s just not enough in there for a red. And how he’s fallen is irrelevant under the LOTG, as if he’d fallen on his ass/feet, rather than how awkwardly he did land, then nobody would say that it’s a red. But many are saying it’s a red due to how he fell, which wasn’t nice, but is irrelevant under the LOTG as it’s not how a player falls over after being tripped up which determined the disciplinary action, but the trip itself, which is why a late shoulder barge is a foul and yeah probably a cautioning, but certainly isn’t a red. And you talk about rugby, but it’s different in that sport on the fact that players don’t jump up to header/catch a ball over an opponent, but simply go straight up, as it’s simply just a late shoulder barge whilst he’s midair, which may not be allowed in rugby, but when they’re on the ground is allowed, whilst in football whether their midair or not is fairly irrelevant. As you can’t compare the LOTG to rules for other sports for things that are part of the game (aka SFP, DOGSO etc…) but only really for things that shouldn’t be happening in any sports (like VC, FAL, dissent etc…). As saying that’s a red in football, would practically say that every time a player jumps over an opponent where the point just bends over and doesn’t jump (which happens all the time) is a yellow card offence, and they’re never reckless as it’s just as much the offended players fault for the incident as it is the offenders, hence why they’re also quite often, just waved away.

0

Ifonly added 21:43 - Apr 24 SFC Ref: "As you’ve just stated ifonly SFP needs to have excessive force or brutality..." That is EXACTLY WHAT I AM NOT SAYING. It is the opposite of what I'm saying. Read the extract from law 12 that I quoted: "A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play." It says "OR". that means that SFP applies if EITHER the opponent is endangered OR excessive force is used. That is what the law says. In this case Martinelli clearly endangered Bednarek (it is no exaggeration to say he could have broken his neck). Therefore Law 12 says that this was SFP. Therefore Law 12 also says that Martinelli MUST be sent off. The law is very clear. Unfortunately it seems that referees either haven't read it or don't understand it.

1

Blogs 31 bloggers

Chelsea Polls