That goal

Shocker from Clarke, blatant goal. Just before he plays that bottom  back pass, he gestured to try and loft a through ball early and thinks better of it, so clearly he believes the ball is placed and set for a kick to be taken. Mckeown hasn't helped him to be fair and there's no reason for him to take it, but it's a blatant goal. If Clarke did play it forward quickly like he looked like he was going to before thinking better of it, and we'd scored, we wouldn't of noticed the close proximity of the eventual goal scorer. If every free kick required all players to be 10 yards away then we would never have seen the millions of goals from "quick" free kicks over the years. The whistle had gone. The ball was placed, he played it, it's a blatant goal.

Slade said the whistle hadn't gone, and the neutral TV pundits last night both felt that the goal should not have been allowed as Clarke was clearly knocking the ball to his keeper to take the free kick.

Whatever the truth of it, it shouldn't have happened, but it has and that's that.

Quoted from chaos33

Slade said the whistle hadn't gone

Oh well that's all right then, it can't be a goal because Slade said so !!

I know you've got it in for Slade,  but don't be so peevish. A previous poster said the whistle had gone. I was just pointing out that Slade said it hadn't. I don't actually know myself as I was in the Pontoon.

I don't think the goal should have been allowed but we were stupid to allow it to happen. Worse than conceding, was the effect it had on our players, who totally lost their focus.

Quoted from grimsby pete

After looking at the clip several times my thoughts are,

Why did Clarke kick the ball at all, he should have left it to Macca to take from that spot,

Their player was not 10 yards away so you would think the ref would had asked us to retake the kick.

Looking at it again Pete makes a valid point Clarke signalled to Macca probably just to pass it back for Macca to take the free kick causing confusion all round.  The striker sees his chance and nips in and Macca thinks the ball is in play and scores.

Clarke at fault next time just fecking leave it to Macca that is the usual way.

I think Pete makes the key point - if Macca is going to come up and take it, why is there a need for Clarke to touch the ball at all? Leave it there for James and there's no debate about whether or not the ball is in play.

With the way the referee was performing, I think the players should have realised they needed to be more careful. I personally don't think it should have been a goal but reckon the referee was never going to disallow it when you consider he'd denied them what looked to be a clear penalty a few minutes earlier.

No doubt that we lost all composure and organisation after the goal and nobody seemed to have the first clue what they should be doing when the second goal came around. I think we seemed to have Berrett 'marking' their tall and powerful full-back at the corner. Only one result of that mismatch once a good ball was put in.

If he was taking the free kick then it's a goal , if he was knocking it back then it's not . Only Clarke knows

What matters is we didn't deserve anything from that game . We were shocking from start to finish .

People saying if it's a quickly taken free kick then u can't expect opposition to be 10 yards BUT Berrett was booked for obstructing when they had a free kick and tried to take it quickly. I thought at the time fair enough but let's see if u apply that to both sides. You can't say Berrett acquired more of an advantage than their player did. Also Berrett wouldn't have been sent off if he hadn't have received that booking. (stupid foul to give when already booked tho)