agreedURZZZZ wrote:A lot of stick for Mukairu, some perhaps justified as not a lot came off for him but I do think we are a better side with him in the XI as opposed to playing Elliott or Ehib out there
Natural width draws the defenders out and opens up space for the likes of Knibbs to operate between the lines whereas when we play Elliott or Ehib out wide, it feels like they drift inside too much and it becomes too congested in the middle of the pitch
Movement and utilisation of space is an important aspect of the game and I thought it was something we did very well in the main, marred by a really poor end product
Yep, all on board with playing players in their specialist positions, and he is our only specialist LW even if he has been a disappointment.traff wrote:agreedURZZZZ wrote:A lot of stick for Mukairu, some perhaps justified as not a lot came off for him but I do think we are a better side with him in the XI as opposed to playing Elliott or Ehib out there
Natural width draws the defenders out and opens up space for the likes of Knibbs to operate between the lines whereas when we play Elliott or Ehib out wide, it feels like they drift inside too much and it becomes too congested in the middle of the pitch
Movement and utilisation of space is an important aspect of the game and I thought it was something we did very well in the main, marred by a really poor end product
I would say he got sucked too high and narrow. Probably should have been more around the D, but I'll ask a ref chum if I get a chance.MartinRdg wrote:Shouldn't the ref be on the other side of the pitch if the far side lino is in the Reading half?Snowflake Royal wrote:Yep. With his lino looking from the same side from an even narrower angle. Very good and brave lino seeing and calling that from the far side halfway line.windermereROYAL wrote:Ref badly positioned, couldn`t see the handball.
Deserves a retrospective ban for the player.
I always though refs ran from the left-back position to left-back position, with the linesmen running down the flank of the right-back position to maximise how much of the game each can see.windermereROYAL wrote:Basically he just followed the ball, which no referee should do, that`s why you have assistants.
That`s RB to RB, he ended up in the Lincoln LB position.Clyde1998 wrote:I always though refs ran from the left-back position to left-back position, with the linesmen running down the flank of the right-back position to maximise how much of the game each can see.windermereROYAL wrote:Basically he just followed the ball, which no referee should do, that`s why you have assistants.
Sorry, I meant left-wing position to left-wing position. Should've been obvious when I posted the diagramwindermereROYAL wrote:That`s RB to RB, he ended up in the Lincoln LB position.Clyde1998 wrote:I always though refs ran from the left-back position to left-back position, with the linesmen running down the flank of the right-back position to maximise how much of the game each can see.windermereROYAL wrote:Basically he just followed the ball, which no referee should do, that`s why you have assistants.
Even if it hit his arm, it was tucked in. Not an obvious pen at all. Brilliant piece of defending I’d suggest.rabidbee wrote:Having seen the very slow replay that the club posted today, I think it was smashed straight into the Lincoln player’s face.
Looked like it hit his hand and then smashed into his face.Royal Rother wrote:Even if it hit his arm, it was tucked in. Not an obvious pen at all. Brilliant piece of defending I’d suggest.rabidbee wrote:Having seen the very slow replay that the club posted today, I think it was smashed straight into the Lincoln player’s face.
From memory - when looking on from 1871, when the incident happened it certainly looked like hand ball. It wasn't the tucked in hand but the top arm it struck, it resembled a goalie's dive more than anything.Snowflake Royal wrote:Looked like it hit his hand and then smashed into his face.Royal Rother wrote:Even if it hit his arm, it was tucked in. Not an obvious pen at all. Brilliant piece of defending I’d suggest.rabidbee wrote:Having seen the very slow replay that the club posted today, I think it was smashed straight into the Lincoln player’s face.
Very much having second thoughts
Depends who the 'people' are, IMOWestYorksRoyal wrote:If people are debating it, it can't have been a clear error.
There is this.jd82 wrote:Depends who the 'people' are, IMOWestYorksRoyal wrote:If people are debating it, it can't have been a clear error.
This.WestYorksRoyal wrote:If people are debating it, it can't have been a clear error. Compare it to Derby where even their fans were admitting we'd been mugged.
AgreeWestYorksRoyal wrote:If people are debating it, it can't have been a clear error. Compare it to Derby where even their fans were admitting we'd been mugged.
I really have never, and will never, get this attitude.blythspartan wrote:AgreeWestYorksRoyal wrote:If people are debating it, it can't have been a clear error. Compare it to Derby where even their fans were admitting we'd been mugged.
Tbh, although bad referee decisions feel rubbish at the time I’d still take them over VAR all day long. The thought of going crazy celebrating a goal to get it chalked off a few minutes later doesn’t fit well with me.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Irvinchangeyaname, Royals and Racers, stealthpapes, zaskar and 29 guests