QuoteHe was shocking all game.Originally Posted by Nesta99
The real shocker is that a LoI ref didnt jump at the chance to blow his whistle - playing advantage obviously.....
He was shocking all game.
Nah, its obviously pro Rovers bias
Missed that. The point is that the second ball isn't even an issue. Saying Derry should be switched on is laughable when the players are turned the other way to defend the throw from the right place.
I didn't actually know about the 2nd ball change, still haunted by the Santry 2nd ball incident back in the day.
As Irishmen we dilute our sense of nation by depending on the English to bring us our balls
RTE reporting that the Rovers throw in for the goal was only" a few yards away" from where it should have been taken.So there! The Oracle has spoken, nothing to see here!
In other news, Bohs continue to improve, check out Devoys back heel nutmeg leading up to Burts 20 yard finish.
I would have used Trash-heap myself!
Saw another angle and i can kind of see where the ref let it go. Scales picked a ball up from on top of the nearest cone to him and then stole another few yards to throw it. Still hard to believe it was let go but cest la vie
Well, that doesn't say why the ref should have let it go in fairness. Scales was thinking fast, and no harm in that, but the point of the referee is to ensure fast thinking is in line with the rules, and that didn't happen here.
And while two balls on the pitch isn't an issue as such, it does become one if it interferes with play. Here, the other Rovers guy controls the first ball and walks as if to take the throw (which he probably would have done if Scales didn't do it first). So there's a situation where Derry are being asked to defend against two things at once, and that's when the ref should have called play back.
These things balance out over time of course. VAR would have disallowed the goal, but given us nothing to yap about.
1. Procedure
At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must:
• stand facing the field of play
• have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the
touchline
• throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play
Fixed that for you
In fairness most players will take a few yards on throw ins and will get away with it 90% of the time. For this one however, from the limited footage available, the Rovers player was extracting the urine a bit too much and should have been brought back.
Upwards to the vanguard where the pressure is too high.
Yep. Plus the second ball on the pitch is also a factor in this case I think.
The situation for that goal was crazy. Even the cameraman didn't record the throw-in, as he was following the first ball and the Rovers player who looked like he was about to take the throw-in from where it went out. Stuff like this just makes us look like a Mickey Mouse league.
Danny Lafferty got booked for protesting the goal too, then got his marching orders in stoppage time.
As Irishmen we dilute our sense of nation by depending on the English to bring us our balls
The word "only" is your own insertion. You could have mentioned that the article said "at least a few yards forward", but I guess that doesn't fit your narrative as well.
City definetly have the best bands playing at half-time.
O'Bama - "Eerah yeah, I'd say we can alright!"
G.O'Mahoney Trapattoni'll sort ém out!!
In our game away to Dundalk there was a similar incident to the Rovers Derry game, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7s5I2ZXZQ&t=7521s
No great fuss because Dundalk didn't score in the end but how hard is it to not get these things so outrageously and obviously wrong?
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
wow , if possible thats even worse.
Ah no, the Rovers one is worse IMO, the fact that it looked like Gannon was about to take a throw from the correct spot clinches it.
If I misquoted the report, you might have had a point, but I didn't.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks