Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Matchday 4: v Wellington Phoenix - Sunday 3rd November 4.00pm at AAMI Park


Nate
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Appears to have rebounded off his chest and into his arm. He was 10 feet away from the cross. Should he have his arm raised that high when a ball is being crossed?

He was running towards the back line. People who run with their arms next to their body aren’t active in professional football.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With JMac we'd have scored 8. Great fight-back after conceding early. Also, how refreshing to see us continue to push for goals even when we had the lead, Warren Joyce would've parked the bus at half-time. Yes, penalty shouldn't have counted and that was sloppy af to concede their second goal, but with no JMac and with a makeshift defense I am happy with the 3 points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Appears to have rebounded off his chest and into his arm. He was 10 feet away from the cross. Should he have his arm raised that high when a ball is being crossed?

The rule is if the ball hits a player’s arm immediately from their own body it isn’t a penalty. 

That was a clear and obvious error. Awful refereeing. 

Edited by Harrison
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good win, somewhat overshadowed by a bullshit penalty decision.

Positives:

We won

We had 3 goal scorers

Our young players did well and all looked like they deserved their place in the team.

Midfield looked good, selection headaches for Le Patron

Genreau will be a good playmaker for us. Joyce just looks more foolish every match, imagine the team that we could have had the past 2 seasons

We look much more dangerous with inverted wingers

We were very well structured, both on and off the ball, well positioned, pressed well

 

Negatives:

That penalty. WTF? VAR, WTF?

Defence caught out more times than I'd like but it was a makeshift defence

What was with the targeting of Piscopo?

Genreau will be a good playmaker for us. Joyce just looks more foolish every match, imagine the team that we could have had the past 2 seasons with all the players he drove away?

Should have converted more of our chances, Najjar looks good but needs a goal

Crowd?

Edited by belaguttman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again much closer than it should of been, need another look at the pen but surprised he gave it initially considering how one sided the reffing was. 

Bouzanis actually did what gk’s are supposed to do in the 2nd half which was nice. 

Wales is fucking shit

brillante is a beast but get him in the midfield asap, him and griffiths holding is the way to go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, icantthinkofacoolname said:

A crowd of only 6,440, very disappointing. I really hope we can get closer to 10k on friday off the back off this unbeaten streak + attractive playing style + it being a 10yr anniversary game (looks like we’ll be in the red+white kit)

Weather not looking good for Friday 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, icantthinkofacoolname said:

A crowd of only 6,440, very disappointing. I really hope we can get closer to 10k on friday off the back off this unbeaten streak + attractive playing style + it being a 10yr anniversary game (looks like we’ll be in the red+white kit).  

I really don't think Sunday matches kicking off at 4.00 p.m. are going to draw big crowds. And don't forget, many people take Monday off from work and have an extended long weekend through until Wednesday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, IssySG said:

@haz You need to chill on Wales. Yes, he's had some shocking games but today wasn't one of them. 

He's just fast that's it. I've never been so frustrated at a player that can't shoot even at an NPL level. Although he skied a few, Williams still got a few goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fox Sports team was just analyzing the pen (which hit his arm after his chest) and apparently if he was making a genuine play at the ball under the new rules, which he wasn't IMO, then it's not a pen. If he simply ran into it's path then it's a pen. Either way, there's enough grey area and complication for it to not be considered a 'clear and obvious error' as far as I'm concerned, much like last week.

I don't understand why they simply don't blanket handballs as any situation where the hand is away from the body and makes contact with the ball. Remove all the grey area and make it as black and white as possible.

Edited by Embee
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Embee said:

The Fox Sports team was just analyzing the pen (which hit his arm after his chest) and apparently if he was making a genuine play at the ball under the new rules, which he wasn't IMO, then it's not a pen. If he simply ran into it's path then it's a pen. Either way, there's enough grey area and complication for it to not be considered a 'clear and obvious error' as far as I'm concerned, much like last week.

I don't understand why they simply don't blanket handballs as any situation where the hand is away from the body and makes contact with the ball. Remove all the grey area and make it as black and white as possible.

Couldn't agree more. Always keep things simple where it's possible to do so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Embee said:

The Fox Sports team was just analyzing the pen (which hit his arm after his chest) and apparently if he was making a genuine play at the ball under the new rules, which he wasn't IMO, then it's not a pen. If he simply ran into it's path then it's a pen. Either way, there's enough grey area and complication for it to not be considered a 'clear and obvious error' as far as I'm concerned, much like last week.

I don't understand why they simply don't blanket handballs as any situation where the hand is away from the body and makes contact with the ball. Remove all the grey area and make it as black and white as possible.

Agree, to be honest thought this was the case already - looking at the recent rounds in AU and the Premier League. Pretty much any ball on the arm (away from the body) is given a penalty. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many ways you could interpret it. Another is distance and speed of shot to the defender. In this case Wales drove the cross into the Fenton’s chest from very close proximity and with velocity. The arm wasn’t away from his body in an unnatural position so it shouldn’t have stood. Surely Fenton is entitled to get in the path of the ball but in this case it was drilled into him in a split second. The whole thing happened so quickly including the referees whistle so let’s not forget the ref’s call taking priority in all this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kiko said:

So many ways you could interpret it. Another is distance and speed of shot to the defender. In this case Wales drove the cross into the Fenton’s chest from very close proximity and with velocity. The arm wasn’t away from his body in an unnatural position so it shouldn’t have stood. Surely Fenton is entitled to get in the path of the ball but in this case it was drilled into him in a split second. The whole thing happened so quickly including the referees whistle so let’s not forget the ref’s call taking priority in all this. 

That's the problem though. And if it's open to interpretation can it really be deemed a 'clear and obvious error'?

VAR isn't there to analyze a call and interpret it based on the rules of the game, it's there to determine if there's a 'clear and obvious error', which based off of ridiculously grey and varied interpretations of the rule can't be the case IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really liked the look of Colakovski when he came up, showed a lot of confidence on debut. Unfortunately he's probably not gonna see a lot of time once MacLaren, Frenchy, and Cabrera are back on deck. It's a shame the loan system is in its infancy because he'd probably get good minutes at a team like Newcastle who had Jason Hoffman produce an absolutely diabolical performance on the wing against Sydney on friday.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Embee said:

That's the problem though. And if it's open to interpretation can it really be deemed a 'clear and obvious error'?

VAR isn't there to (just) analyze a call and interpret it based on the rules of the game, it's there to determine if there's a 'clear and obvious error', which based off of ridiculously grey and varied interpretations of the rule can't be the case IMO.

FTFY but my thoughts exactly. 

Watching it normally it looked a hand ball. Footage from last week for Delbridge and second yellow looked a bit harsh - but luck can and does both ways. 

As annoying as it can be, fans have to accept these will sometimes go for you and against you other times 

Edited by mattyh001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, kiko said:

So many ways you could interpret it. Another is distance and speed of shot to the defender. In this case Wales drove the cross into the Fenton’s chest from very close proximity and with velocity. The arm wasn’t away from his body in an unnatural position so it shouldn’t have stood. Surely Fenton is entitled to get in the path of the ball but in this case it was drilled into him in a split second. The whole thing happened so quickly including the referees whistle so let’s not forget the ref’s call taking priority in all this. 

I've seen plenty of penalties awarded where the ball was kicked into an opposing player's arm or hand from point blank range and the player had no intention of handling the ball, just could not possibly get his hand/arm out of the way of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Embee said:

That's the problem though. And if it's open to interpretation can it really be deemed a 'clear and obvious error'?

VAR isn't there to analyze a call and interpret it based on the rules of the game, it's there to determine if there's a 'clear and obvious error', which based off of ridiculously grey and varied interpretations of the rule can't be the case IMO.

What I meant to say in that opening line "so many ways you could interpret it" isn't so much of the interpretation of the actual decision itself as to the scope and exactness of the rules.  If you take as the staring point the spirit and intention and convention of the game and then how you apply a set of rules to a penalty situation, you are in fact making an interpretation of the game and what the rules should be. That's all I meant to say here. What interpretation of the game do we make in deciding rules for a clear cut penalty?  Factor in the fact that we all have our own internal logic and degrees of common sense and it gets a little tricky.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I've seen plenty of penalties awarded where the ball was kicked into an opposing player's arm or hand from point blank range and the player had no intention of handling the ball, just could not possibly get his hand/arm out of the way of it.

Yeah and that's the annoying thing. This Fenton decision he was 5 yards away,  just inside the penalty area (which may in fact be too big but that's another story) the ball was not goal bound, it  was in fact just whipped into the area in prospect fashion with the ball probably heading back out past the penalty spot itself; the defender had next to zero time to react. How should we interpret how this game is played and what should count as a penalty? I think the common sense consensus in this case was that it was not a penalty, but then there are these rules supposedly designed to clarify things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kiko said:

Yeah and that's the annoying thing. This Fenton decision he was 5 yards away,  just inside the penalty area (which may in fact be too big but that's another story) the ball was not goal bound, it  was in fact just whipped into the area in prospect fashion with the ball probably heading back out past the penalty spot itself; the defender had next to zero time to react. How should we interpret how this game is played and what should count as a penalty? I think the common sense consensus in this case was that it was not a penalty, but then there are these rules supposedly designed to clarify things.

A player who goes into a challenge / handball situation either clumsily or carelessly doesn't intend to commit a infringe the rules (commit a foul), however a fouled has still taken place and will be given the player should have known and should have done better. 

Things can be argued many different ways, making situations like this so hard. 

If Fenton kept his arm down (wtf is he doing with it up by the way), there wouldn't be an issue.

Arm was raised all the same, so Fenton was always tempting fate. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good win but didn't realise how lucky we were with regards to the penalty decision until I got home and watched replays/analysis of the handball, such a shit call and we're really lucky tbh. 

Crowd number sucked but active did great as usual. Hopefully if we can manage to stay up the top of the league for an extended amount of time, our attendances will boost as the season progresses. 

We look like a contender though!

Edited by Nate
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kid Colakovski was terrific for the game time he had. Worked the ball and got into goal scoring positions and took shots on goal. Couldn't have asked for more except maybe scoring.

Simply by the rules of the game VAR got it wrong. Ball comes off body first. But because handball has historically been clouded by caveats, and still is, then it's easy seeing confusion in the minds of refs resulting in decisions like this.

Mombaerts is showing himself to be a shrewd, skillfull coach, one who appears to back any player that can perform a job, young or old. There appears to be team harmony that wasn't evident under Joyce.

I'm not sure if we're the real deal ATM but the going so far has been promising and entertaining and we sit on top of the ladder!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All so quick to jump on last week and slag young metcalf off :tooth: And typically this week when the kid has a good game no one can say anything positive.  

Soooooooooooo, I'll just leave these POSITIVE comments here shall I..........:clap::clap:

Hyundai A-League Team of the Week - Round 4

Which players stood out from the rest of the league in Round 4?

Midfielders

Connor Metcalfe (Melbourne City)

There’s been plenty of hype on the 19-year-old midfielder since the start of the season and he’s certainly been living up to it.

Metcalfe played another fantastic all-round game in his side’s 3-2 win over Wellington, including a vital equalising goal in the first half.

 

DAVUTOVIC’S MAN OF THE MATCH: CONNOR METCALFE (CITY)

A host of City players stepped up including makeshift Noone, Griffiths, Good, Genreau and makeshift defender Brillante, but Metcalfe’s midfield bite, positivity and his first goal were crucial to the outcome.

 

Well done to the kid. And all the youth. Thought they played their hearts out for the team 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...