The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

This is the third big brawl we've been involved in this season IIRC? Yes I'm aware that we may have not have initiated this one, but I'm still surprised not to see posts that reflect a sense of disappointment.

Given our ambitions for the future and the elevated status of our club compared to these tinpot village outfits, personally I would like to see this reflected in the actions of our players demonstrating more maturity and professionalism when faced with such situations.

Personally I don't think there's any need to call them "tinpot village outfits". By all means abuse them for one of the worst grounds I've seen in the last three and a bit seasons or for their blatant time-wasting, but calling them that makes us look very arrogant and dismissive of clubs who are just happy to be at Step 4/5.

The KL joint manager saying " I did not expect that from Rushden and Diamonds" shows their mindset was that they were playing against the former club, not a club that 3 years ago were playing Step 6 football.
I wonder if part of their "colluding in the clubhouse after the game" was to send him to A & E as that would add some weight to their argument. Obviously his alleged injury was not severe enough to call for an ambulance (or the police) and how long was his time at A & E spent just waiting!
Once again I reiterate no rules were broken by our players prior to the goal and the referee should have blown for time as soon as KL kicked of, thus finishing the game.

" giving the ball back after an injury" should only be done on resumption of play after an obvious injury has been treated; and even then is it necessary if the throw in is at the other end of the pitch.

Incidentally how long did it take from Brads throw-in to the goal and how many attempts did KL make to stop the move? Surely the goal was down to their own inability to tackle effectively,

From what I've read on the match it sounds like the langley players went in for the challenge as soon as brad threw it in,
Surely giving the wrong signals as to what was going on. Just wondered what would have happened if they'd of stood still? And had it of been 0-0 at the time would things of ended differently? Just often seen that this crazy rule of passing back possession is abused if things are heated!! Personally I also think this needs looked at.

Does anyone know when the decision is expected to be announced?

Listening to Ritchie speaking after the FA cup game, it sounds like they've got one of the lowest budgets in the league. In my opinion the ground wasn't as bad as some. Bit harsh to call them a tin pot village. Unfortunately they don't get the attendances we do at home and unless they obtain a few better players, they're likely to fall away from the play offs too. We're just lucky to have the club we have..

corby diamond wrote:From what I've read on the match it sounds like the langley players went in for the challenge as soon as brad threw it in.

No it wasn't like that. The challenge on Brad was a couple of minutes after we had equalised. He appeared to be shepherding the ball out of play for a throw in to us just in front of the KL bench and he was taken out by a Langley player from behind.

Trek wrote:

corby diamond wrote:From what I've read on the match it sounds like the langley players went in for the challenge as soon as brad threw it in.

No it wasn't like that. The challenge on Brad was a couple of minutes after we had equalised. He appeared to be shepherding the ball out of play for a throw in to us just in front of the KL bench and he was taken out by a Langley player from behind.

Was it not brad who took the throw in leading to the equaliser? Must of picked that up wrong then..

sussexdiamond wrote:
Incidentally how long did it take from Brads throw-in to the goal and how many attempts did KL make to stop the move? Surely the goal was down to their own inability to tackle effectively,

About 10 seconds I reckon. A Langley defender failed to stop Joseph shooting from a wide angle on the right, their goalie then made a mess of the resultant shot which he parried to Quigley who headed it in. None of the Langley defenders advanced from the edge of their penalty box on the resumption of play after the referee decided that a physio was not needed for the 'injured' players. Brad then threw the ball, without any instruction from the referee to return to Langley, to Bunts who put it into the channel for Joseph to chase.

corby diamond wrote:
Was it not Brad who took the throw in leading to the equaliser?

Yes but in between Hanlon was sent off for verbally abusing the referee. Brad was assaulted a couple of minutes later in a separate incident which was the final play of the match before WW3 broke out.

Trek wrote:None of the Langley defenders advanced from the edge of their penalty box on the resumption of play after the referee decided that a physio was not needed for the 'injured' players. Brad then threw the ball, without any instruction from the referee to return to Langley, to Bunts who put it into the channel for Joseph to chase.

IIRC some Kings Langley players DID attempt to charge Bunts down when he received the ball from the throw in. It confused me and maybe Bunts also.

Also, I'd argue that the referee shouldn't tell a team to give the ball back under those circumstances, it's up to the players to decide and 95% of the time the ball would be given back.

Every game I've been involved in this season the referee has instructed the players what he expects on resumption of play