TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

ethantufcbaker wrote:Highlights are on Lincoln City's Player

Very **** helpful... =D

Does anyone have a link or something from YouTube for those of us who didn't have the foresight to sign up for the LincolnPlayer for occasions such as this?

Matt.

Gullsplayer login works Matt. The full 90 minutes are available to watch, as well as a 6 minute highlight package. Very impressive.

Dave_Pougher wrote:Copied from Lincoln City's match report,

After things quietened down, the game sprung into life in the eighth minute when Duane Ofori-Acheampong latched on to a forward ball, flicked it against Nat Brown who was pulled up for hand ball by the referee's assistant. Mr Wigglesworth, after awarding Torquay a free-kick and with Gulls players surrounding him, duly brandished a red card to the City defender.

I don't agree with trying to influence an official but the sad fact is it has now become part of the game, however it seems something that we have been reluctant to do sometimes. Would be interested to hear from people at the match how forthright TQY was in appealing to the ref.

I wasn't there so don't know for sure, but I would say that perhaps the Torquay players surrounded the referee only because he didn't initially give the free kick. I've seen the picture on the Lincoln forum (more on that later) and it is pretty easy to see how the referee would almost certainly be unsighted whereas the lino would be looking straight at it.

As to the offence itself: I've had a look at the LOAF and it isn't a great deal of help, if I'm honest. It confirms nothing more than we already know. Accordingly, it is up to the observer (lino, referee or whatever) to interpret the word "deliberate" within its ordinary meaning.
Deliberate clearly includes intentionally. Indeed, the words are synonymous. To any reasonable thinking, deliberate must also include reckless. If a player puts his hands in a position and is reckless as to whether the ball hits them or not, then he has deliberately handled the ball. He may not have intended specifically for the ball to hit them, but if he places his hands in a position, knowing full well that there is a reasonable chance that the ball will come into contact with them, he has taken that chance deliberately and must face the consequences accordingly.
Having seen the photo, I can say that the defender has deliberately placed his hands in a wholly unnatural position. Both arms are outstretched in front of him. This is not a position in which the arms could inadvertently find themselves. They were put there deliberately. The defender was also making a challenge on a player in possession of a bouncing ball. He was aware both of the position of his hands and the reasonable chance that the ball would come into contact with them. Any other interpretation of the situation in quite without sense. Thus, we can say that the defender has deliberately handled the ball.

Secondly, we must determine whether, in so doing, he has denied an "... obvious goalscoring opportunity". If we accept that the defender was the last man between Duane and the goalkeeper and that, in the photo, Duane is facing the Lincoln goal, while the defender is facing the sideline and that the goal is somewhere between 25 and 40 yards distant and that the players are somewhere within the confines of the width of the penalty area, then it seems on the face of it to be a goalscoring opportunity. The question is how much credence must be given to the more technical elements of the situation. It would be unreasonable to expect that the referee would be able to identify the relevant strengths and weaknesses of the goalkeeper, opponent and and defenders tracking back. It should not be for the official to make a value judgement that the opponent running through on goal has a poor goalscoring record, or that the goalkeeper is especially good at 1-on-1 scenarios. He should presume that each player involved is of ordinary skill for a player in that division. In the situation as I have described it here (using a combination of knowledge of the radio commentary, the picture and a few assumptions to complete the scene), it can be said that Duane, but for the handball, is likely to proceed in possession of the ball towards the centre of the goal with no one but the goalkeeper to beat. In this situation, it is reasonable for a referee to adjudge that a Conference level player of ordinary skill would have a better than 50:50 chance of scoring a goal against a Conference goalkeeper of exactly similar ability. This, but any objective view, is an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

While not inconceivable that a goal would not have been scored, it is, as I have described it, at least as likely as not that a goal would have been scored. We see then, that the decision to dismiss the defender was undoubtedly the correct one. Any argument to the contrary is without basis. Should it transpire, upon a viewing of the video, that the situation was markedly different from that which I have described, then a reassessment shall be in order.

As to Lincoln's forum, it's quite hilarious. They're utterly certain that, 11 v 11, they would have beaten us handsomely. Now, I'm not suggesting that we've walked all over them (I wasn't there and I don't go by the name of Terrence, so I couldn't possibly), but the loss of one player from 11 does not lead to the type of defeat to which I listened on Saturday. Their goal and only meaningful attacking contribution in 90 minutes was a penalty. We scored three and missed, by some accounts, two seemingly unmissable chances. We had some 30 shots, of which 20 were on target and, judging solely from the content of the radio commentary, Lincoln barely touched the ball in the second half. Add to this that, had the defender not committed the foul, we'd likely have been one up before they even scored and I really cannot see how they can suggest that a 3-1 defeat would have turned into a "comfortable" (shall we say 3-0?) victory. I'm sure it didn't help their cause, but from all accounts, we were good value for our victory.

Matt.

Gulliball wrote:Gullsplayer login works Matt. The full 90 minutes are available to watch, as well as a 6 minute highlight package. Very impressive.

Anyone got a GullsPlayer login I can borrow for 6 minutes (or 90, if the insomnia kicks in again)?

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote: Anyone got a GullsPlayer login I can borrow for 6 minutes (or 90, if the insomnia kicks in again)?

Matt.

Check you PM

I love you, Exile.

Matt.

brucie wrote:Betfair are 2.14 Lincoln. This represents a 46.72% chance of the home team winning the game. Red hot favourites but that percentage looks a little high to me therefore I would be laying Lincoln @ 2.16. The only downside is that we appear to be struggling to score goals.
That said I thought we were the better side v Aldershot and that was with a few players missing. Concerns about us scoring maybe but think we might pinch a draw here.

I only just saw this (been busy!) but odds of 2.14 on betfair does not represent 'red-hot favourites'. that's a bit better than 11/10 when they're the home side. odd of 1/2 (1.50) would counts as hot favourites. Maybe 4/7 if you were feeling generous.

There's no way Tezza uses decimal odds. He's 1000 years older than me and I'm old enough to have learned in fractional.

I've just watched the whole match. Not sure we'll have an easier game all season. All this bollocks about Torquay "being there for the taking" is total horse shit, as I suspected. They didn't look capable of troubling us even with 11 on the pitch, let alone 10. 10 men or not, being given the run around by O' Archie and Cameron is just silly. They couldn't cope with either. As to whinging about the red, well, it's even more clear on video than it is in still images. He throws his hands towards the ball and it's just so crashingly deliberate.

Last word goes to their commentators. Congratulations fellas, you're officially the most deluded couple on the planet. I implore anyone with access to their Player to have a watch of the full match from the sending off for about the next 10 minutes. It's comedy gold.

Matt.

Surely not a case of Lincoln thinking they are bigger than they actually are?!

They've always been a club with a bit of a chip on its shoulder, plenty of hot air but just a small regional club like us. Always makes it sweeter to put one over on them (which we frequently do).

Do they still have that air raid siren, or did that depart with Ben Futcher and the extreme route 1 football they used to employ under Keith Alexander?

Anyone willing to let me use their log in too? I am very sad and am desperate to see our goals!

Heard the air raid siren at the start of the radio commentary.

Kit_robin wrote:Anyone willing to let me use their log in too? I am very sad and am desperate to see our goals!

PM'd you the details

Jeff wrote:Surely not a case of Lincoln thinking they are bigger than they actually are?!

They've always been a club with a bit of a chip on its shoulder, plenty of hot air but just a small regional club like us. Always makes it sweeter to put one over on them (which we frequently do).

Do they still have that air raid siren, or did that depart with Ben Futcher and the extreme route 1 football they used to employ under Keith Alexander?

They did say at one stage, in the most incredulous tone imaginable, that "Torquay haven't come here to defend, they're attacking at times". As if we'd be so shit scared of their attacking prowess (Burrow and Power, whoever the **** they might be) that we'd happily turn up and defend for our lives for 90 minutes. I should mention also that this came at a time when we'd been camped in their half for at least 5 minutes and they only touched the ball when they whalloped it back to our defenders.

Very strange.

Matt.

Can someone tell me how to watch the whole game in there? Cant find it:(

Nor me
Idiots guide required!