Altrincham mgr's view, a good listen

[Piethagoram]

 

[liampie]

one of the better opposition managers to have spoken about notts, its funny how more professional non league managers are.

[DangerousSausage]

A very fair interview, he was justifiably annoyed about the first goal, but he didn't rant and rave and kept a sense of perspective. You can understand why the brothers liked the cut of his jib.

[Chris]

I watched it on the day, on YouTube. He spoke well, and I think the first goal quite rightly annoyed him.

I don't think officials should allow a quick free kick to be taken where there's a level of an unfair advantage. I have seen refs bring play back, due to the opposition not being ready and from a much greater distance. If the first goal didn't annoy him, I would question why not. Very fair views and opinions by him.

[TheSkipper]

Phil Parkinson raised a valid argument about the swift free-kick in the recent football match. I cannot deny that it would irk me, regardless of whose favour it was in. As an avid football supporter, it is reasonable to say that no one would enjoy conceding a goal in such a manner. However, I concur with Parkinson that the primary responsibility lies with the referee.

It is imperative for the referee to be aware of the situation and ensure that the defending team is prepared before allowing the attacking team to take a quick free-kick. While the swift free-kick rule is meant to increase the pace and flow of the game, the referee must ensure that both teams have an equal opportunity to defend or attack.

In the current scenario, while the attacking team was within their rights to take a quick free-kick, the referee should have assessed the situation and ensured that the defenders were given ample time to prepare before allowing play to continue. Thus, while the attacking team may have scored a goal, the blame should not be attributed solely to them. Instead, the referee must take responsibility for not ensuring fair play.