I’ve lost my head many times at Sincil Bank.
Usually, it is at a red card, a penalty, or outright cheating by another team. It’s never excusable to launch into a foul-mouthed tirade of abuse, but it happens.
Yesterday, I witnessed someone lose their head at a game for the first time, someone who was affected by the occasion, turned by the roar of the crowd and overwhelmed by their role in events. Sadly, he wasn’t on the pitch; he was wearing pink in the middle of the park.
Usually, I’m critical of a referee for getting a major decision wrong, but my anger at the game wasn’t around that. I didn’t see the red card for Sonny Bradley. I was going to the loo, and yesterday, in the odd circumstances surrounding the closed turnstiles, that meant a hike further than a Wetherspoons toilet for me. In fact, I walked so far, I expected to pop out in the bowels of the Ritz on the High Street. I heard the commotion, I saw the flash of red, but my anger around that moment has only surfaced properly in the last fifteen minutes of this sunny Sunday morning.
No, my anger grew for the remaining 60-odd minutes of the game as an official, I shall happily call clueless, fumbled his way awkwardly through a game that didn’t have a single bad tackle, flashing yellows to anyone wearing red for a bit of lip, but omitting to do the same for our visitors. That cannot be summed up better than a few second-half minutes involving George Wickens. I know this defies convention and starts in the middle of a game, but I don’t care. I realise you don’t have to be good at your chosen profession now, so I can do what I want.
79 minutes, Wickens claims a ball in his area. He’s trying to prevent a corner, and on the replay, it’s clear he does. His feet land off the pitch, but he’s leaning forward, and even from the vantage point of the camera, it is obvious the ball is in play. The lino, in true ‘Joe Taylor v Wigan‘ style, guesses. Okay, it’s not quite that bad, he is in line, but if it is out, he has two posts and Wickens in the way. It’s ambiguous, at best, but the corner is given. Wickens argues, and he’s booked.
I can handle that if it is consistent, but it wasn’t. Moments later, we get a throw-in from the same assistant referee (he had a clear view this time), and their lad goes over and gets right in his face. Outcome? Barely a telling off. Why is it a City player gets booked but their player does not? The only two explanations I can find are either an official letting the occasion get to them or complete incompetence. I’m happy to say both because an FA charge won’t float my way, unlike Michael Skubala, who might find one in the post after his justified post-match reaction.
There was a game under the charade of officiating, and even the yellow-tinted spectacle wearers in the away end couldn’t argue that until the red card, we were in complete control. I felt we could be on for another three or four goal win as we settled quickly and took control. Jamie McDonnell, their best player by some distance, wasn’t able to influence the game as he has been doing, and instead of the slightly agricultural approach (God bless Thommo for that saying) we employ against bigger clubs, we played some decent passes.
Stattos will like this – in the first 30 minutes, we had more xG (0.75), three shots, one on target. Mansfield had zero. We played more passes (157 v 116), more accurately (84.1% v 80.1%), more to the final third (28 v 10) and had more possession (56%). In truth, we were in complete control of the game, and Sonny Bradley’s 15th-minute opener ensured the stat that really counts, goals, was also in our favour.
It came from a set piece, lofted in by Reeco Hackett. Bradley got the first header, James Collins recycled play, and the big centre back was on hand to poke home from close range. At that point, it felt like justification for our efforts, despite our other two chances being efforts dragged wide by McGrandles and Bayliss. I just felt comfortable, and I take nothing away from the Stags, who didn’t look as bad as they did last season. We were just cruising in second gear. 1-0 up, easing into the game, not under any pressure and with a bench capable of coming on and affecting play later. Routine Lincoln City home win.
Enter Aaron Bannister, comfortably one of the worst officials I’ve ever seen at the Bank. If we had Wyscout stats for the referee, and I could drill down by minutes like I can with the stats, I’d be sure to say he had a decent first 30 minutes. Six fouls is about right when looking at the previous few matches, no cards, it felt like he was alright. There had been no mention of him in my subconscious thoughts, and at that stage, I’d had no reason to look up his name.
I’ve watched the red card back, and for me, there are some clear barriers between the action and his ultimate decision to send off Sonny Bradley. Let us start at the end, and wind back. There is no doubt, Bradley fouls George Maris. I’m not going to contest that. The issue is, does he deny a clear goal-scoring opportunity? What do the rules say?
“(A player) who commits any of the following offences is sent off: denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick”
However…
“The following must be considered: distance between the offence and the goal, general direction of the play, likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball, location and number of defenders.”
My argument is that Tom Bayliss appears to be able to get back and put in a tackle, and Reeco is also in attendance. The player has turned and played the ball across Bradley – it’s not heading towards goal, but almost parallel to the 18-yard line. I can see the argument for a red, and yet it does feel like a 50/50 decision.
However, you then must consider the phase of play before that. Their striker comes back from an offside position as the ball is lofted forwards, and runs between Maris and McGrandles. That blocks McGrandles’ view of play for a moment, and that is how Maris is able to get ahead of him. McGrandles then misses the tackle, having been visually impeded, but the referee thinks he’s not interfering with play. How on earth can a player who runs between the ball and a defender not be interfering with play? The phase of play should never have got to a stage where the 50/50 decision against Bradley was made.
In the words of Karen on the internet, ‘fuming’ and ‘rant over’.
Actually, the rant has only just begun. Because I’ve analysed every single one of the yellow cards, and it doesn’t get any better.
Also, against convention, the first half continues over the page. Yep, that’s how bad it’s got.
You must be logged in to post a comment.