Raith vs Queen’s Park, 2 Sept 2023

[qpfc]

I think a massive difference in going 2-1 up was the introduction of Louis Longridge at half time. Brought so much more control and most importantly experience to the side and seemed to calm the team down (until the 80 minute substitute madness). He’s been unfortunate to not have started more and I think he deserves a start for Bala next week. Looks a totally different player, seems so much sharper, he’s certainly proving me wrong 

Edited September 3, 2023 by qpfc

[Hank Scorpio]

Just now, mrpaddyx said:

No-one needs to tell Kevin that he mucked up. He openly acknowleged to the South Stand that the first was his error and that should have been that. No-one needed the sarcastic cheering when he caught the ball later on.

That sarcastic cheering really, really annoyed me. So out of order. What are you trying to achieve doing that, other than outing yourself as a complete fanny? He’s here and he cares. We need to get behind him and show him our support. 

[Bring Your Own Socks]

23 hours ago, Michael W said:

I'm not sure about the red either - 50/50 on whether that was indeed a professional foul and whether the other QP player was covering. However, it is a cynical foul with absolutely zero intention of playing the ball and these always carry a degree of risk. 

 

Very fair comment. The wording of the law is subjective (DOGSO: Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity) and if you give a ref the option, it’s usually not a happy ending. Also disappointing after years of a supposed referee “team” that the assistant, who must have been close if he was checking for offside, didn’t mention to the ref Charlie Fox quickly adapting to the situation. Or did but was ignored.

But whatever happened to another old rule, “ungentlemanly conduct”. Quite remarkable that the Raith player managed to travel about 6 metres before conveniently falling in the QP half. Referee missed that too.

Still, this is a one-off incident. What I’m more concerned about is how Tizzard got his position so badly wrong and let the ball sail over him. 

To be fair back though, despite our hard labour your attack are pretty scary and on a better day for them it could have been 5 or 6. Our young defence have much to learn. As has our young, blinkered, coach. Better team won!
 

First point of contact…note the ref's sightline/distance and Fox’s jogging stride

Brave Raith striker keeps on running…Fox starts to stretch his legs…

…Raith striker spots Fox speeding up and changing direction just as he reaches the QP half and finally falls down. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Bring Your Own Socks

[CountryBumpkin]

20 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Very fair comment. The wording of the law is subjective (DOGSO: Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity) and if you give a ref the option, it’s usually not a happy ending. Also disappointing after years of a supposed referee “team” that the assistant, who must have been close if he was checking for offside, didn’t mention to the ref Charlie Fox quickly adapting to the situation. Or did but was ignored.

But whatever happened to another old rule, “ungentlemanly conduct”. Quite remarkable that the Raith player managed to travel about 6 metres before conveniently falling in the QP half. Referred missed that too.

Still, this is a one-off incident. What I’m more concerned about is how Tizzard got his position so badly wrong and let the ball sail over him. 

To be fair back though, despite our hard labour your attack are pretty scary and on a better day for them it could have been 5 or 6. Our young defence have much to learn. As has our young, blinkered, coach. Better team won!
 

First point of contact…note the ref's sightline/distance and Fox’s jogging stride

Brave Raith striker keeps on running…Fox starts to stretch his legs…

…Raith striker spots Fox speeding up and changing direction just as he reaches the QP half and finally falls down. 

Its a shirt being pulled, he's not been shackled to the ground, of course he's still going to move. How is it remarkable? 

What is remarkable is that players still insist of pulling shirts and making these decisions that put them under pressure and get red cards. Personally, a booking should have sufficed but you're right, it was poor defending to begin with. 

 

I liked the QP side, the number 6, with the stupid surname had the freedom of the park at times and looked very controlled. There wasn't a lot of chances created but I imagine over the season that'll come given how young the squad is overall. The keeper for a 16 year old is so composed and controlled in possession and isn't shy about giving his team mates a few words when they concede. 

[Raith Against The Machine]

It's a case that a good lawyer would be happy to take either side on. You can make a strong, convincing argument that it should only be a yellow, or that it's deservedly a red. 

Someone above bemoaned the lack of input from the linesman, but I wonder if the opposite isn't true. If you watch the highlights, as the referee blows the whistle he drops his hand to his front pocket, where his yellow card is. As Byrne comes in to start the argument, he moves his hand away and then goes to his back pocket for the red. There's no chance he's changed his mind based on salient points raised by the Rovers players, and he might just be reconsidering having had a second to think, but I think the most likely scenario is the linesman (rightly or wrongly) is in his ear telling him it's a red. 

I've got very little sympathy for the defender, though. As soon as he's turned he's grabbing Hamilton's shirt, no intention to actually do any defending. The law is obviously all about the goalscoring opportunity and nothing to do with the defender's intent, but when it's as cynical as that, I don't think you deserve the benefit of the doubt. 

[Been going too long]

3 hours ago, Zanetti said:

Having now watched it back, that red card was utterly ridiculous. I thought so at the time too but you never know until you've had a closer look at it.

Really hope the players are able to recognise that yesterday was an excellent battling performance despite the referee and a couple of mental managerial decisions, and build on that; we really should've at least come away with a point.

Disagree bud tbh we should have been out of sight at halftime, 2 howlers gifted you back into the game it wasn’t great play or anything but we all see the game differently

[Been going too long]

3 hours ago, CALDERON said:

I didn't think Queens Park battled or played that well at all yesterday to be honest.  Rovers should have been out of sight, and handed 2 goals on a plate really.  Some grim finishing and good goalkeeping kept the score down.

That said, having gone 2-1 up the game management on show was horrific.

Totally agree

[Spider1975]

2 hours ago, RaithRyan said:

all fart but nae shite

Will take that over Glasgow Gretna

[Scary Bear]

Good highlights, but the new kids squealing section didn’t add much to the highlights. It was life-affirming to see the South Stand boo boys are still alive and well. Those goals we lost though…

Great end to the game, unless you’re a Queens Park fan, in which case it was likely a bit gutting.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Scary Bear

[Spider1975]

2 hours ago, qpfc said:

I think a massive difference in going 2-1 up was the introduction of Louis Longridge at half time. Brought so much more control and most importantly experience to the side and seemed to calm the team down (until the 80 minute substitute madness). He’s been unfortunate to not have started more and I think he deserves a start for Bala next week. Looks a totally different player, seems so much sharper, he’s certainly proving me wrong 

Hear me out on this one.

Spong is a very, very good 6 and Thomson had arguably the game of his life and is maturing nicely into the 8 role.  All that said the link up between Turner and Paton just isn't there, which would be fine if we were a team intent on crossing, which evidently we're not.  

The goal vs Arbroath at Gayfield showed that Spong has an eye for a pass and seems very comfortable in tight spaces.  I don't think it's complete madness to suggest giving Spong a shot at the 10 role, Thomson in the 8 and give Longridge a chance at 6.  He showed towards the end of last year the stability that he can give being a deeper lying midfielder.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Spider1975

[Spider1975]

55 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Very fair comment. The wording of the law is subjective (DOGSO: Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity) and if you give a ref the option, it’s usually not a happy ending. Also disappointing after years of a supposed referee “team” that the assistant, who must have been close if he was checking for offside, didn’t mention to the ref Charlie Fox quickly adapting to the situation. Or did but was ignored.

But whatever happened to another old rule, “ungentlemanly conduct”. Quite remarkable that the Raith player managed to travel about 6 metres before conveniently falling in the QP half. Referred missed that too.

Still, this is a one-off incident. What I’m more concerned about is how Tizzard got his position so badly wrong and let the ball sail over him. 

To be fair back though, despite our hard labour your attack are pretty scary and on a better day for them it could have been 5 or 6. Our young defence have much to learn. As has our young, blinkered, coach. Better team won!
 

First point of contact…note the ref's sightline/distance and Fox’s jogging stride

Brave Raith striker keeps on running…Fox starts to stretch his legs…

…Raith striker spots Fox speeding up and changing direction just as he reaches the QP half and finally falls down. 

All of this would have been academic had the ref seen the push near the corner flag a few seconds before this

[Bring Your Own Socks]

41 minutes ago, Raith Against The Machine said:

The law is obviously all about the goalscoring opportunity and nothing to do with the defender's intent, but when it's as cynical as that, I don't think you deserve the benefit of the doubt. 

Just seconds before the red card incident…two-handed shove in the back with no intent to play the ball. No card. Not even a foul. In every sense of the phrase, this was a game-changing moment. 

[Velvet Donkey]

25 minutes ago, Spider1975 said:

Hear me out on this one.

Spong is a very, very good 6 and Thomson had arguably the game of his life and is maturing nicely into the 8 role.  All that said the link up between Turner and Paton just isn't there, which would be fine if we were a team intent on crossing, which evidently we're not.  

The goal vs Arbroath at Garfield showed that Spong has an eye for a pass and seems very comfortable in tight spaces.  I don't think it's complete madness to suggest giving Spong a shot at the 10 role, Thomson in the 8 and give Longridge a chance at 6.  He showed towards the end of last year the stability that he can give being a deeper lying midfielder.

I don't disagree with this, but I think there's enough promise in Turner's game for development, and do think there is a place for Longridge.

A harder one to resolve for me is Ben McPherson. He offers a lot in attack, but not really convinced he is the answer defensively. A bit disappointed in no activity before the deadline, but now I'm worried that Veldman believes the squad is complete.

[Spider1975]

8 minutes ago, Velvet Donkey said:

I'm worried that Veldman believes the squad is complete.

It's looking increasingly likely, he'll contend we just need to be less 'shloppy".

The benches, ultimately, were the difference.  Rovers could and did bring on Easton, with that sort of bench & a bit less chaos at the back, there's no reason they shouldn't be challenging come the end of the season.

[qpfc]

47 minutes ago, Velvet Donkey said:

I don't disagree with this, but I think there's enough promise in Turner's game for development, and do think there is a place for Longridge.

A harder one to resolve for me is Ben McPherson. He offers a lot in attack, but not really convinced he is the answer defensively. A bit disappointed in no activity before the deadline, but now I'm worried that Veldman believes the squad is complete.

I dread the day Paton or Thomas get injured. We’re absolutely done if either are out for any extended period across the season 

Makes loaning out Williamson utterly bizzare 

[EaglesandSpiders]

2 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Very fair comment. The wording of the law is subjective (DOGSO: Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity) and if you give a ref the option, it’s usually not a happy ending. Also disappointing after years of a supposed referee “team” that the assistant, who must have been close if he was checking for offside, didn’t mention to the ref Charlie Fox quickly adapting to the situation. Or did but was ignored.

But whatever happened to another old rule, “ungentlemanly conduct”. Quite remarkable that the Raith player managed to travel about 6 metres before conveniently falling in the QP half. Referred missed that too.

Still, this is a one-off incident. What I’m more concerned about is how Tizzard got his position so badly wrong and let the ball sail over him. 

To be fair back though, despite our hard labour your attack are pretty scary and on a better day for them it could have been 5 or 6. Our young defence have much to learn. As has our young, blinkered, coach. Better team won!
 

First point of contact…note the ref's sightline/distance and Fox’s jogging stride

Brave Raith striker keeps on running…Fox starts to stretch his legs…

…Raith striker spots Fox speeding up and changing direction just as he reaches the QP half and finally falls down. 

I have just got a screenshot of this ridiculous incident too but someone beat me to it. Nowhere in the world is that a red card. We were robbed. It is so wrong that it could easily be used as an example in referee training courses. I'm fuming. 

[Broken Algorithms]

Just now, EaglesandSpiders said:

I have just got a screenshot of this ridiculous incident too but someone beat me to it. Nowhere in the world is that a red card. We were robbed. It is so wrong that it could easily be used as an example in referee training courses. I'm fuming. 

For all it was a red card (in my opinion), we created plenty of opportunities both before and after the red. Queens capitalised on two defensive errors for their goals but outside of that I can't really recall any other clear cut chances. 

On another day it wouldn't have been disingenuous to suggest we'd have had four or five.

[TxRover]

1 hour ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Just seconds before the red card incident…two-handed shove in the back with no intent to play the ball. No card. Not even a foul. In every sense of the phrase, this was a game-changing moment. 

I’ve mentioned that every time I say that it was a red from the tug down…and the galling thing for the Queen’s fans is the referee is in a similar position as with the coming red. The biggest difference I saw in the two situations was the blindingly obvious nature of the shirt tug versus the “comparatively subtle” push.

Quite often, like here, no two people will agree on what was called and why, but giving a referee a choice like that to make when you are a defender trying to stop an attacking break is going to end in tears.

Edited September 3, 2023 by TxRover

[Beachbum]

 

[Raith Against The Machine]

Easton bodying the right back gets funnier every time I see it. Which is now nearly 400 times.