Linlithgow Rose 18/19

[8MileBU]

This is how we know you're just here for the wind-up. You need better bait.

Is it aye? [emoji52]

The goal should’ve stood.

[deejay1]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Not remotely how the game went, Linlithgow completely dominated midfield and controlled the vast bulk of possession, but they weren't going anywhere with it. Ruari had all the time on the ball he wanted but there was no movement up front and Dunbar were very compact and organised, so everything was going sideways or ended with a hopeful ball forward. Nothing you'd put in a 5 minute highlights video of a game that had five goals and one chopped off.

The problem was that every time Dunbar got behind the Rose midfield they were straight through on a shambolic defence.

Yous got Pumped - end of!!!! One of the worst teams Dunbar have played this year. You lot would be lucky to get a draw against tweedmouth lol

[th1stleandr0se]

1 hour ago, 8MileBU said:

 

Is it aye?

The goal should’ve stood.

 

My initial impression was that it should have stood but maybe the interpretation was that Thom wouldn't have had to make to desperate attempt to clear if there wasn't an opponent ready to score if he didn't.

I agree with GordonS's reading of the game.  The Rose had a massive amount of possession but couldn't break down a well-organised defence and got continually caught on the break.  Too many passes to forwards with their backs to the goals.  Hit the ball back from the bye-line or play a ball for someone to run onto.

 

[GordonS]

49 minutes ago, deejay1 said:

Yous got Pumped - end of!!!! One of the worst teams Dunbar have played this year. You lot would be lucky to get a draw against tweedmouth lol

Er, yes. Not sure what I said to elicit that response, I don't think I said anything other than weez did indeed get pumped. I think we'd probably beat Tweedmouth given that we beat Inverkeithing 10-0 on Wednesday, though.

As for "end of", football fans are often interested in how and why one team pumped another. 

[Auld duffer]

 

surprised theres no much comment from the dunbar fans on here about the game - mind you they are a bit slow on the uptake down there - it must be the sea air lol

Can we play them every week [emoji6]

[Ann Dan Otherthing]

Looks like the Rose benefited from one decision and one non-decision.

Firstly,  not offside for me:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or (Nope)
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision (Nope) or
challenging an opponent for the ball (Hardly - he was 4 / 5 yards away, admittedly 'loitering with intent', but I read somewhere that 'being in an offside position is not in itself an offence')

And the  number 9 who appeared to be getting away with dissent at the throw-in (which looks right), then talking himself into the book, was lucky not to pick up a second yellow later!
 

[drs]

7 hours ago, GordonS said:

 

This is how we know you're just here for the wind-up. You need better bait.

Indeed, you should ask him to take a £25 a week wage cut.

[GordonS]

40 minutes ago, Ann Dan Otherthing said:

Looks like the Rose benefited from one decision and one non-decision.

Firstly,  not offside for me:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or (Nope)
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision (Nope) or
challenging an opponent for the ball (Hardly - he was 4 / 5 yards away, admittedly 'loitering with intent', but I read somewhere that 'being in an offside position is not in itself an offence')

And the  number 9 who appeared to be getting away with dissent at the throw-in (which looks right), then talking himself into the book, was lucky not to pick up a second yellow later!
 

You left off the final two bullet points of that part of the law.

His position forces the defender to make an attempt to play the ball, that's how he interferes with the opponent. The only reason the defender attempts to play the ball is because of the player behind him.

I don't believe anyone really thinks that wasn't offside, tbh. 

[BlackandWhite]

14 minutes ago, GordonS said:

You left off the final two bullet points of that part of the law.

His position forces the defender to make an attempt to play the ball, that's how he interferes with the opponent. The only reason the defender attempts to play the ball is because of the player behind him.

I don't believe anyone really thinks that wasn't offside, tbh. 

Honestly, I don’t think it’s offside. Tbh it doesn’t really matter. 100% agree with your review of the game, Linlithgow clearly had the possession but you done nothing with it. There was no plan B, and plan A was not working . Technically good players but there was only one team that wanted it out there yesterday!

[boheesian]

31 minutes ago, drs said:

Indeed, you should ask him to take a £25 a week wage cut.

You heard that rumour as well

[TheGeneral10]

42 minutes ago, GordonS said:

You left off the final two bullet points of that part of the law.

His position forces the defender to make an attempt to play the ball, that's how he interferes with the opponent. The only reason the defender attempts to play the ball is because of the player behind him.

I don't believe anyone really thinks that wasn't offside, tbh. 

Here is a photo from Dunbar’s website. Onside. Everyone level with penalty spot. Now belt up!! 

I’ve never watched a game with one side so in control. You dont need to have 60 or 70 percent possession to dictate games. Dunbar were the better side - end of story. The midfield battle was won by a team that knew their jobs and never broke ranks, then hit on the break with pace and energy. Notice that Dunbar had all 10 outfield players celebrating every goal. You lot couldn’t even break sweat or work as a team to get back for Dunbar’s third goal. That for me was the tell tale sign on the highlights. One was a team and the other individuals. 

Its only one game - but if I’m a Linlithgow fan I’m a worried person.  

[heedthebaa]

Just watched the highlights, you could feel the seethe the cameraman had for the throw taker for the fourth  

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, TheGeneral10 said:

Here is a photo from Dunbar’s website. Onside. Everyone level with penalty spot. Now belt up!! 

He looks about 2 feet offside to me in that picture!

Quote

I’ve never watched a game with one side so in control. You dont need to have 60 or 70 percent possession to dictate games. Dunbar were the better side - end of story.

No argument that Dunbar were by far the better side, the score didn't flatter them at all and they could easily have won by more, but control? That's not the word I would have used. For the first half hour they were anything but in control, they were doing a very good job of keeping a toothless Rose at bay, but they had little of the ball and nothing up front. Until the first goal went in Rose looked the more likely to score, and I thought that if they did they would go on to win the game because it would force Dunbar to open out. Instead, by scoring with their first attack of the game, Dunbar were able to sit and wait for the chances that Rose would give them, which they most certainly did.

You don't need control to win a game, control will give you more chances but if your defence is good enough to hold out the opposition all you need to do is convert some of the chances you make. Dunbar did that beautifully. That said, the way Rose played and the way the game panned out was perfect for Dunbar, it played right into their hands. For instance, the rotund number 8 is some player, but you wouldn't want to be replying on him in the last 20 minutes of a game. 

I'd totally agree with you that many Rose players didn't look hungry enough after the game was gone - they were very slow at shutting down their opponents after it went to 4-0. Maybe that's a product of how the early season has gone, as it has presumably sapped confidence. 

Quote

Its only one game - but if I’m a Linlithgow fan I’m a worried person.  

Yup, it's bizarre, part of it is losing Leiper and Batchelor was badly missed, but it looks like something else is going on. Maybe it's a series of little things with different players - is TC fit? will Ronald be back soon? will the central defensive pairing gel? -  maybe there's a wider thing, but the team are a shadow of what they were last season. The team of the season before last was the worst Rose side I've seen, but this doesn't look like a bad team, it looks like a good-enough team playing badly. If this carries on for a month we'll be out of the big Scottish and out of the running for promotion. If it carries on for a few months we'll be struggling to make next season's EoS Premier. So yes, I'm worried.

Good luck to Dunbar though, I was down there on a freezing Saturday earlier this year when you had just about the only game on in the country, you've got a good set-up and a team that's very easy to get behind. I didn't like losing to LTHV last week but yesterday the football gods gave both sides what they deserved.

[TheGeneral10]

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

He looks about 2 feet offside to me in that picture!

No argument that Dunbar were by far the better side, the score didn't flatter them at all and they could easily have won by more, but control? That's not the word I would have used. For the first half hour they were anything but in control, they were doing a very good job of keeping a toothless Rose at bay, but they had little of the ball and nothing up front. Until the first goal went in Rose looked the more likely to score, and I thought that if they did they would go on to win the game because it would force Dunbar to open out. Instead, by scoring with their first attack of the game, Dunbar were able to sit and wait for the chances that Rose would give them, which they most certainly did.

You don't need control to win a game, control will give you more chances but if your defence is good enough to hold out the opposition all you need to do is convert some of the chances you make. Dunbar did that beautifully. That said, the way Rose played and the way the game panned out was perfect for Dunbar, it played right into their hands. For instance, the rotund number 8 is some player, but you wouldn't want to be replying on him in the last 20 minutes of a game. 

I'd totally agree with you that many Rose players didn't look hungry enough after the game was gone - they were very slow at shutting down their opponents after it went to 4-0. Maybe that's a product of how the early season has gone, as it has presumably sapped confidence. 

Yup, it's bizarre, part of it is losing Leiper and Batchelor was badly missed, but it looks like something else is going on. Maybe it's a series of little things with different players - is TC fit? will Ronald be back soon? will the central defensive pairing gel? -  maybe there's a wider thing, but the team are a shadow of what they were last season. The team of the season before last was the worst Rose side I've seen, but this doesn't look like a bad team, it looks like a good-enough team playing badly. If this carries on for a month we'll be out of the big Scottish and out of the running for promotion. If it carries on for a few months we'll be struggling to make next season's EoS Premier. So yes, I'm worried.

Good luck to Dunbar though, I was down there on a freezing Saturday earlier this year when you had just about the only game on in the country, you've got a good set-up and a team that's very easy to get behind. I didn't like losing to LTHV last week but yesterday the football gods gave both sides what they deserved.

Fair play. We can agree to disagree regarding the definition of being in control but you are right the first goal was key to the game. The ‘rotund number 8’ was probably the only player on the pitch who could have done what he did at key moments. He returned to haunt Linlithgow that’s for sure. 

Your team were just so slow in possession and tried to play up the middle the whole game - there was no Plan B at all. Dunbar did their homework as that’s the first time I’ve seen them play 4 at the back for over a year. Your defence could not cope with our pace on the break.  

Good luck to you for the remainder of the season which I’m sure will be w good one as your right the players are there - your manager just needs to find a team spirit from somewhere. Dunbar showed yesterday that it can take you a long way. 

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, TheGeneral10 said:

Fair play. We can agree to disagree regarding the definition of being in control but you are right the first goal was key to the game. The ‘rotund number 8’ was probably the only player on the pitch who could have done what he did at key moments. He returned to haunt Linlithgow that’s for sure. 

Your team were just so slow in possession and tried to play up the middle the whole game - there was no Plan B at all. Dunbar did their homework as that’s the first time I’ve seen them play 4 at the back for over a year. Your defence could not cope with our pace on the break.  

Good luck to you for the remainder of the season which I’m sure will be w good one as your right the players are there - your manager just needs to find a team spirit from somewhere. Dunbar showed yesterday that it can take you a long way. 

Agreed on all counts!

I don't know if this will be a good season for Rose, I doubt it, but I'm going to make the most of it because it'll probably be unique. 

[bravehearts dad]

Are the Lithgae taxi companies banned from the Deprestonfield part of the town?

[Ann Dan Otherthing]

13 hours ago, GordonS said:

You left off the final two bullet points of that part of the law.

His position forces the defender to make an attempt to play the ball, that's how he interferes with the opponent. The only reason the defender attempts to play the ball is because of the player behind him.

I don't believe anyone really thinks that wasn't offside, tbh. 

Oops so I did, unintentionally., which says ‘clearly intending to play the ball which is close... or.. impacts on the opponent’s ability to play the ball’. 

I’d have added nope for those also, as the Dunbar player is too far away  to be counted as ‘close’.  

I accept that the defender did panic because of him. But having since picked the brains of a senior Ref, the consensus is that’s not enough nowadays. A bit like the mishit by Lovren v Spurs last season, when he hurried and mishit a clearance, because a Spurs player was behind him (in an offside position and even closer to the Liverpool defender that the Dunbar player was to the Rose defender on Saturday)

See:

 

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, Ann Dan Otherthing said:

Oops so I did, unintentionally., which says ‘clearly intending to play the ball which is close... or.. impacts on the opponent’s ability to play the ball’. 

I’d have added nope for those also, as the Dunbar player is too far away  to be counted as ‘close’.  

I accept that the defender did panic because of him. But having since picked the brains of a senior Ref, the consensus is that’s not enough nowadays. A bit like the mishit by Lovren v Spurs last season, when he hurried and mishit a clearance, because a Spurs player was behind him (in an offside position and even closer to the Liverpool defender that the Dunbar player was to the Rose defender on Saturday)

See:

 

Well that was... em... ok.

It was a cartoon wasn't it, I'm not cracking up am I?

And no offence, genuinely, but I'd want a name for your senior ref.

Fact is, if Thom doesn't make any attempt to play the ball it's offside, and the only reason he makes an attempt to play the ball is because of the guy in the offside position. The forward is attempting to seek an advantage by being in an offside position, and he got one. What's the defender supposed to do, leave it and hope the linesman spotted the offside? He's got to play to the whistle, in this case the linseman did spot the offside, so it's offside.

[Ann Dan Otherthing]

I’m clearly not gonna name a source, who strongly disagrees with the refs decision, albeit with the benefit of a video replay. Sorry. 

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I saw that and thought never an offside, ran it by him and he agreed with me:

“Not offside for me as he's not clearly interfering with play or an opponent, not close enough to be active.”

A Dunbar supporter (presumably) doesn’t even see him as in an offside position (way wrong for me!). The only fact is, it was given. Other than that you, presumably not a ref, disagree with one who is up to date with current application of offside. Long gone are the days where being in an offside position means the decision is given. Yes the Lovren one is a cartoon, but for me perfectly set out the situation, but if you prefer, here’s a screenshot of Kane’s offside position. because of where he was Lovren panicked and only scuffed the ball to him, Kane was then brought down by the keeper, or dived and no offside was given. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Ann Dan Otherthing

[Burnie_man]

Arguing over whether Lithgae should have lost 4-1 or 5-1 to Dunbar, changed days!

Was Marley in goal?