ricardo 7,395 Posted November 28, 2010 Snowy the cat finally broke his season long silence this week as we were watching Keano being interviewed on the box. The little feller jumped up, yawned and pointed his arse at the telly before nonchalantly strolling out of the room. He is a cat of few words but Ricardo has learned over the years that his actions speak volumes.It was thus a supremely confident Ricardo that donned his M&S thermal pants and wooly socks for the Arctic trek to CR. It was another record all seater crowd as City kicked off towards the River End with Lansbury for MacNamee being the only change. It was an all action start with Holt and Leadbitter being deservedly shown yellows after a clash on the left of the City box. There was some good passing action and I thought Surman unlucky not to win a penalty when chopped down from behind by Zuiverloon. It didn''t matter because within a minute City were ahead. Holt caught O''Dea in possession (with the help of a strong left hand in my opinion) and curled a 15 yarder round Fulop for the opener. Holt and Martin were pulling the Town defence all over the place and with only a couple of long range efforts coming back in reply it seemed only a matter of time before another goal came. It came indeed after 29 minutes but it was Town that unexpectedly drew level. A long free kick was headed on by Priskin and Delaney easily nodded in. City were rocked for a few minutes as Ipswich started to come forward. The match took another turn when after a sweet passing move Lansbury found Holt in acres of space and the big man cooly netted under the advancing Fulop. The crowd was in raptures but it got even better moments later as Holt again beat Delaney to a through ball only to be hacked down as he was making tracks for goal. It was a clear red and Mr Hill duly obliged. Holt was a man on fire and twice went close to a third as the Town defence was kept at full stretch. A Surman header was brilliantly saved as City piled forward aand only the halftime whistle saved Ipswich from further punishment.City found it harder to keep up the first half tempo as Ipswich with two banks of four and just Priskin up front, tightened up on their defensive frailties. Keano went three at the back in the hope of snatching a point but Lambert quickly responded to that. With only a couple of Fox 25 yarders to show for there efforts City withdrew Surman and Wes came on. Within minutes it paid dividends as the little man was involved on the left in a neat move with Martin and Holt was able to make space before crahing in his third of the afternoon. It was obviously game set and match and the little man put the icing on the cake when he cooly slotted the fourth after another fine pass from Martin put him in the clear. We would have loved a fifth but Ipswich to their credit kept coming forward to the last and I for one was more than happy when the final whistle went.Holt was supreme today and fully deserves my vote for MOM. It was another good team effort today with everyone playing a full and effective part. The defence was solid (apart from the goal) and the midfield passing was a joy to watch at times.On my return that prescient pussy, Mr Snowy was curled up in my favourite chair. He gave me a knowing wink, rolled over and drifted back to moggy dreamland. Ricardo will be in his own dreamland this evening with several Peroni''s waiting to be quaffed while the little feller can look forward to the finest cuts of Tuna and Shrimp tonight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bury Yellow 2 Posted November 28, 2010 Brilliant Ricardo. This report will be read out down my local tonight.I love your pussy! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Panic 0 Posted November 28, 2010 An excellent report as always Ricardo.I know Ipswich will moan about the sending off, but they were rubbish. Ten men or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twitchy 0 Posted November 28, 2010 Magic Ricardo cheers, M & S no less. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted November 28, 2010 The Zuiverloon tackle on Surman was definitely no penalty as he clearly played the ball. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,534 Posted November 28, 2010 How clearly???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="nutty nigel"]How clearly???? [/quote]Very clear on slow-motion replay on the BBC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,534 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"] How clearly???? [/quote]Very clear on slow-motion replay on the BBC.[/quote]Not on my TV Paul. And I think all the panelists also said that Zuiverloon got absolutely none of the ball. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"] How clearly???? [/quote]Very clear on slow-motion replay on the BBC.[/quote]Not on my TV Paul. And I think all the panelists also said that Zuiverloon got absolutely none of the ball. [/quote]Strange. Perhaps we''re talking about different incidents. I''m referring to the one where two of our players seemed to get in eachother''s way and Zuiverloon had actually sneaked in between them to tackle the ball away. Surman was down for quite a while after that in the penalty area. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Butler 0 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"] How clearly???? [/quote]Very clear on slow-motion replay on the BBC.[/quote]Not on my TV Paul. And I think all the panelists also said that Zuiverloon got absolutely none of the ball. [/quote]Strange. Perhaps we''re talking about different incidents. I''m referring to the one where two of our players seemed to get in eachother''s way and Zuiverloon had actually sneaked in between them to tackle the ball away. Surman was down for quite a while after that in the penalty area. [/quote]I have looked at it frame by frame and I hate saying it but the ref was right, he got the ball.But does it matter 4-1 and a joyous night!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCFCnutty 1 Posted November 28, 2010 Happy with the win. Bit fortunate with the sending off as I think it was a bit farout to be deemed a goal scoring opportunity. Would have been fuming if role was reversed and Ward/Barnett were sentoff. Still good to see Norwich actuallyfinish a team off, in previous seasons we could have easily lost this game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,534 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="The Butler"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"] How clearly???? [/quote]Very clear on slow-motion replay on the BBC.[/quote]Not on my TV Paul. And I think all the panelists also said that Zuiverloon got absolutely none of the ball. [/quote]Strange. Perhaps we''re talking about different incidents. I''m referring to the one where two of our players seemed to get in eachother''s way and Zuiverloon had actually sneaked in between them to tackle the ball away. Surman was down for quite a while after that in the penalty area. [/quote]I have looked at it frame by frame and I hate saying it but the ref was right, he got the ball.But does it matter 4-1 and a joyous night!!!![/quote]Did any of you press the red button after the game? Sad I know, and not the same as being there but I had no choice. But anyway, if you did you would have seen conclusively that Zuiverloon''s challenge and the subsequent movement of the ball, were totally unconnected. He got absolutely no part of it. And it just goes to show how difficult a referee''s job is when someone can watch the video frame by frame and still reach the wrong decision. It obviously mattered enough for you to watch it frame by frame Butler [;)] Joyous night indeed. In fact joyous weekend with smashing the scum, winning the free bet and not folding to the Aussies in Brisbane.[Y] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
judderman 0 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"] How clearly???? [/quote]Very clear on slow-motion replay on the BBC.[/quote]Not on my TV Paul. And I think all the panelists also said that Zuiverloon got absolutely none of the ball. [/quote]Strange. Perhaps we''re talking about different incidents. I''m referring to the one where two of our players seemed to get in eachother''s way and Zuiverloon had actually sneaked in between them to tackle the ball away. Surman was down for quite a while after that in the penalty area. [/quote]I have looked at it frame by frame and I hate saying it but the ref was right, he got the ball.But does it matter 4-1 and a joyous night!!!![/quote]Did any of you press the red button after the game? Sad I know, and not the same as being there but I had no choice. But anyway, if you did you would have seen conclusively that Zuiverloon''s challenge and the subsequent movement of the ball, were totally unconnected. He got absolutely no part of it. And it just goes to show how difficult a referee''s job is when someone can watch the video frame by frame and still reach the wrong decision. It obviously mattered enough for you to watch it frame by frame Butler [;)] Joyous night indeed. In fact joyous weekend with smashing the scum, winning the free bet and not folding to the Aussies in Brisbane.[Y] [/quote]Also, if the ref and his assistant thorugh Zuiverloon got the ball, how come they gave a goal kick? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ricardo 7,395 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"]How clearly???? [/quote]Very clear on slow-motion replay on the BBC.[/quote]From my seat directly above the incident in the N&P stand, I am positive that Zuiverloon only made contact with Surmans heels. A clear pen for me.I don''t know about the Jackson claim as I was too far away to see clearly but it looked like he was clean through so why would he dive? Maybe I''m wrong but thats how I honestly saw both incidents at the time.The sending off was stonewall for me. Holt was clearly fouled and would have been clean away on goal. I don''t buy the idea that it was too far out, he was too quick for the Ipswich defence all afternoon and nobody would have caught him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bradwell Yellow 0 Posted November 28, 2010 Jackson also got a shove in the second half, weren''t a dive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,534 Posted November 28, 2010 Indeed Adam. And it was more of a foul than the one on Holt that drew the ref''s red card. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
city till i die 0 Posted November 28, 2010 cash comparisonsHolt 170k Priskin 1.7m C Martin free Scotland 750KWard free Delaney 750kCrofts 300k Norris 2mFox 28 pence Leadbitter 2.3mHoolihan 250k Edwards 1.4mNot forgetting the woeful Lee Martin 2m subsequently shunted out to league 1 on season loan.I wouldn''t swap any of their for ours Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="Adam_2010"]Jackson also got a shove in the second half, weren''t a dive.[/quote]No doubt that he got a nudge, but he went over far too easily and was never going to get the ball from that position anyway. To me it was a dive and deserved a booking. . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,534 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Adam_2010"]Jackson also got a shove in the second half, weren''t a dive.[/quote]No doubt that he got a nudge, but he went over far too easily and was never going to get the ball from that position anyway. To me it was a dive and deserved a booking. . [/quote]Agreed he went down easy but the booking was harsh. It''s only simulation if there''s no contact. I think the correct decision was no decision if you see what I mean. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Butler 0 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"] How clearly???? [/quote]Very clear on slow-motion replay on the BBC.[/quote]Not on my TV Paul. And I think all the panelists also said that Zuiverloon got absolutely none of the ball. [/quote]Strange. Perhaps we''re talking about different incidents. I''m referring to the one where two of our players seemed to get in eachother''s way and Zuiverloon had actually sneaked in between them to tackle the ball away. Surman was down for quite a while after that in the penalty area. [/quote]I have looked at it frame by frame and I hate saying it but the ref was right, he got the ball.But does it matter 4-1 and a joyous night!!!![/quote]Did any of you press the red button after the game? Sad I know, and not the same as being there but I had no choice. But anyway, if you did you would have seen conclusively that Zuiverloon''s challenge and the subsequent movement of the ball, were totally unconnected. He got absolutely no part of it. And it just goes to show how difficult a referee''s job is when someone can watch the video frame by frame and still reach the wrong decision. It obviously mattered enough for you to watch it frame by frame Butler [;)] Joyous night indeed. In fact joyous weekend with smashing the scum, winning the free bet and not folding to the Aussies in Brisbane.[Y] [/quote]It is nice to be able to replay incidents "that matter" occasionally for my own interest.(we are not on the box often enough to be able to make a habit of it)My "opinion" for that is what it is and all the experts can give , is that he touched the ball before the player.Frame by individual frame shows that, perhaps, one day, if you have the equipment, I will show you but then if I said the grass looked green you would say it was greeny blue..![;)] Against such overwhelming opinion ............The ref gave a verdict and the match continued to a fantastic result.Good weekend all round, Friday for Drinks was great, Pups win and now the best of all![:D] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 28, 2010 Holt 170k Priskin 1.7m C Martin free Scotland 750K Ward free Delaney 750k Crofts 300k Norris 2m Fox 28 pence Leadbitter 2.3m Hoolihan 250k Edwards 1.4m I would take those figures with a HUGE pinch of saltIf only because they don''t even equate to the paupers own accountsRemember Dave Strikiva''s supposed £750,000 transfer fee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZLF 274 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="The Butler"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"] How clearly???? [/quote]Very clear on slow-motion replay on the BBC.[/quote]Not on my TV Paul. And I think all the panelists also said that Zuiverloon got absolutely none of the ball. [/quote]Strange. Perhaps we''re talking about different incidents. I''m referring to the one where two of our players seemed to get in eachother''s way and Zuiverloon had actually sneaked in between them to tackle the ball away. Surman was down for quite a while after that in the penalty area. [/quote]I have looked at it frame by frame and I hate saying it but the ref was right, he got the ball.But does it matter 4-1 and a joyous night!!!![/quote]I dont think the ball was played having watched it repeatedly; but why was it a goal kick if he did play the ball?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,534 Posted November 28, 2010 Well I''d just like to point out two things Butler. You came on this thread to in an attempt to prove me wrong, not the other way around. Now you can come and show how to do anything but I can tell you that the second TV replay, from the angle that I guess Ricardo saw the incident, proved quite conclusively that no part of Zuiverloon touched the ball in that incident. This is not my opinion, this was what was conclusively proved and agreed by the panelists in the studio. Whether it was a penalty or not is debatable but what isn''t debatable is that Zuiverloon played the ball. He didn''t. So watch those frames again and see if you actually see him play the ball? The ball moved as though he did but from the other angle the two things were not connected. Zuiverloon did not touch the ball. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Butler 0 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="nutty nigel"]Well I''d just like to point out two things Butler. You came on this thread to in an attempt to prove me wrong, not the other way around. Now you can come and show how to do anything but I can tell you that the second TV replay, from the angle that I guess Ricardo saw the incident, proved quite conclusively that no part of Zuiverloon touched the ball in that incident. This is not my opinion, this was what was conclusively proved and agreed by the panelists in the studio. Whether it was a penalty or not is debatable but what isn''t debatable is that Zuiverloon played the ball. He didn''t. So watch those frames again and see if you actually see him play the ball? The ball moved as though he did but from the other angle the two things were not connected. Zuiverloon did not touch the ball. [/quote]No I am not trying to prove you wrong as you are only using someone elses opinion.The tv recording from the "live" game shows his foot in contact with the ball.(That''s with my glasses on). If another angle from another camera shows it isn''t then I am confused by the different camera angles and lighting that were not shown on the live broadcast.As you say who would want to be a ref!It appears to me that he played the ball onto a city players leg and then over the line it went. Which bears out the refs decision, although like 26000 others I was baying for a penalty at the time.Lets not argue over something that now matters not a fig.See you Wednesday (weather permiting!)Oh Ricardo another great report. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ricardo 7,395 Posted November 28, 2010 Surely Zipper has it right. If the Ref thought Zuiverloon had played the ball he would have had to give a corner.From my view he clearly played Surman. I think the fact that they ran into Chis Martin probably clouded it for the Ref. It all happened very quickly but my first reaction was a pen and had it been the other way round I would have felt we dodged a bullet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,534 Posted November 28, 2010 [quote user="The Butler"]No I am not trying to prove you wrong as you are only using someone elses opinion.The tv recording from the "live" game shows his foot in contact with the ball.(That''s with my glasses on). If another angle from another camera shows it isn''t then I am confused by the different camera angles and lighting that were not shown on the live broadcast.As you say who would want to be a ref!It appears to me that he played the ball onto a city players leg and then over the line it went. Which bears out the refs decision, although like 26000 others I was baying for a penalty at the time.Lets not argue over something that now matters not a fig.See you Wednesday (weather permiting!)Oh Ricardo another great report.[/quote]I''m not using someone elses opinion I''m telling you what I saw and getting well bored with it now. As I said before you came in, I had nothing better to do so whilst you were all celebrating our great win I took up the beebs kind invitation and pressed the red button for extended comment after the game. On this they showed the incident from another camera that showed conclusively that Zuiverloon did not touch the ball. It''s not opinion Butler -it''s what happened. I''m sorry that your super frame by frame analysis which is beyond me led you to the wrong conclusion but there we are.Yes it was another great report from Ricardo. And yes I will see you Wednesday as I have the tickets stubs and money to go in the raffle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Butler 0 Posted November 29, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9iwZzrIaNw Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,562 Posted November 29, 2010 I think this video answers all questions about the various controversial incidents in the game:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlNcjxiUjfs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,317 Posted November 29, 2010 [quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"] How clearly???? [/quote]Very clear on slow-motion replay on the BBC.[/quote]Not on my TV Paul. And I think all the panelists also said that Zuiverloon got absolutely none of the ball. [/quote]Strange. Perhaps we''re talking about different incidents. I''m referring to the one where two of our players seemed to get in eachother''s way and Zuiverloon had actually sneaked in between them to tackle the ball away. Surman was down for quite a while after that in the penalty area. [/quote]I have looked at it frame by frame and I hate saying it but the ref was right, he got the ball.But does it matter 4-1 and a joyous night!!!![/quote]Did any of you press the red button after the game? Sad I know, and not the same as being there but I had no choice. But anyway, if you did you would have seen conclusively that Zuiverloon''s challenge and the subsequent movement of the ball, were totally unconnected. He got absolutely no part of it. And it just goes to show how difficult a referee''s job is when someone can watch the video frame by frame and still reach the wrong decision. It obviously mattered enough for you to watch it frame by frame Butler [;)] Joyous night indeed. In fact joyous weekend with smashing the scum, winning the free bet and not folding to the Aussies in Brisbane.[Y] [/quote]It is nice to be able to replay incidents "that matter" occasionally for my own interest.(we are not on the box often enough to be able to make a habit of it)My "opinion" for that is what it is and all the experts can give , is that he touched the ball before the player.Frame by individual frame shows that, perhaps, one day, if you have the equipment, I will show you but then if I said the grass looked green you would say it was greeny blue..![;)] Against such overwhelming opinion ............The ref gave a verdict and the match continued to a fantastic result.Good weekend all round, Friday for Drinks was great, Pups win and now the best of all![:D][/quote] Not wishing to be picky mate but perhaps you can then use this wonder technology to explain to me why the referee gave a goal kick rather than a corner? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Butler 0 Posted November 29, 2010 [quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"] How clearly???? [/quote]Very clear on slow-motion replay on the BBC.[/quote]Not on my TV Paul. And I think all the panelists also said that Zuiverloon got absolutely none of the ball. [/quote]Strange. Perhaps we''re talking about different incidents. I''m referring to the one where two of our players seemed to get in eachother''s way and Zuiverloon had actually sneaked in between them to tackle the ball away. Surman was down for quite a while after that in the penalty area. [/quote]I have looked at it frame by frame and I hate saying it but the ref was right, he got the ball.But does it matter 4-1 and a joyous night!!!![/quote]Did any of you press the red button after the game? Sad I know, and not the same as being there but I had no choice. But anyway, if you did you would have seen conclusively that Zuiverloon''s challenge and the subsequent movement of the ball, were totally unconnected. He got absolutely no part of it. And it just goes to show how difficult a referee''s job is when someone can watch the video frame by frame and still reach the wrong decision. It obviously mattered enough for you to watch it frame by frame Butler [;)] Joyous night indeed. In fact joyous weekend with smashing the scum, winning the free bet and not folding to the Aussies in Brisbane.[Y] [/quote]It is nice to be able to replay incidents "that matter" occasionally for my own interest.(we are not on the box often enough to be able to make a habit of it)My "opinion" for that is what it is and all the experts can give , is that he touched the ball before the player.Frame by individual frame shows that, perhaps, one day, if you have the equipment, I will show you but then if I said the grass looked green you would say it was greeny blue..![;)] Against such overwhelming opinion ............The ref gave a verdict and the match continued to a fantastic result.Good weekend all round, Friday for Drinks was great, Pups win and now the best of all![:D][/quote] Not wishing to be picky mate but perhaps you can then use this wonder technology to explain to me why the referee gave a goal kick rather than a corner? [/quote]It''s not wonder technology just "modern technology" based on equipment we manufacture and available to anyone.If you read my other post Jim I said it the appeared to come off a Norwich shin before going over the line.That''s the view from the "recorded live broadcast" . As I said, they have many cameras and if a different angle gives a different perspective well....Many an illusionist has got away with "tricks" shown from a different angle.Who am I to argue with Clarridge and company and does it really matter now?I thought we had a far better penalty appeal later when the ref gave a wrong booking for diving, perhaps a different angle shows that in a blue tinted light. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites