Sharp-Lambert pairing gets Adkins purring (From Daily Echo)

SPOT ON NIGE - RICKIE AND BILLY !!!

Rickie was fantastic on Saturday and his work on and off the ball was immense !!

COYR

Great combination. Billy is the front runner we need to support Rickie.

Anyone out there have a spare tickets for Watford away??
The Woolston Connection are two short so if anyone can help it will be appreciated and a few beers will also be provided.

The players bought and the ones returning from injury have given us so many options again I thought Guly & Morgan had brilliant games on Saturday Let's do it again against the Hammers

Lambert-Sharp certainly look a class act. Well bought Nigel, this last transfer period gives us great possibilities. RL has all round quality in the air, shooting, free kicks, penalties and very classy touches to put other players through. BS is that quick, tough, low centre of gravity type player (reminds me of Maradona) who will split the backs and just his being there will frighten them. And we haven't even seen Tadanari Lee yet! Would love to see all three on at the same time! Maybe when we are 3-0 up in one game? The opposition dare not push up too far with the fear that our midfielders will drop balls behind them now. Well played Nigel. Great to be a Saints supporter at this special time. ONWARDS AND UPWARDS.

WATFORD AWAY SOLD OUT.
Anyone got any spare tickets?
We need 2 if there's any going out there

Did anyone else feel a bit sorry for David Connolly. Did a massive goal celebration and was offside :-)

Dickosfc wrote:
Did anyone else feel a bit sorry for David Connolly. Did a massive goal celebration and was offside :-)

And the rest of the 24,000 who thought it was a goal, including me!!

seventh-junction wrote:

Dickosfc wrote:
Did anyone else feel a bit sorry for David Connolly. Did a massive goal celebration and was offside :-)

And the rest of the 24,000 who thought it was a goal, including me!!

Felt sorry for him, but general opinion says, that harsh that it was, the officials got it right, hypothetical, but if Lambos's shot had gone straight in, it too, would have been ruled out.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

seventh-junction wrote:

Dickosfc wrote: Did anyone else feel a bit sorry for David Connolly. Did a massive goal celebration and was offside :-)

And the rest of the 24,000 who thought it was a goal, including me!!

Felt sorry for him, but general opinion says, that harsh that it was, the officials got it right, hypothetical, but if Lambos's shot had gone straight in, it too, would have been ruled out.

Connolly was not active when Lambert had his shot, so if it had gone straight in it would have been a goal

Had Lambert's shot gone in it would have stood eventhough Connolly was in an offside position because he would have been deemed as not interfering with play.

legod7 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

seventh-junction wrote:

Dickosfc wrote: Did anyone else feel a bit sorry for David Connolly. Did a massive goal celebration and was offside :-)

And the rest of the 24,000 who thought it was a goal, including me!!

Felt sorry for him, but general opinion says, that harsh that it was, the officials got it right, hypothetical, but if Lambos's shot had gone straight in, it too, would have been ruled out.

Connolly was not active when Lambert had his shot, so if it had gone straight in it would have been a goal

To be very kind, the linesman had a bad day........in reality he was absolutely awful the whole match! He only flagged offside when the Burnley players called it! The three points are the most important - but it would have been nice to see Lee score in injury time! How far off the mark was he?
Off to West Ham tomorrow night - let's get another 3 points and back to where we belong!

Brussels Saint wrote:

legod7 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

seventh-junction wrote:

Dickosfc wrote: Did anyone else feel a bit sorry for David Connolly. Did a massive goal celebration and was offside :-)

And the rest of the 24,000 who thought it was a goal, including me!!

Felt sorry for him, but general opinion says, that harsh that it was, the officials got it right, hypothetical, but if Lambos's shot had gone straight in, it too, would have been ruled out.

Connolly was not active when Lambert had his shot, so if it had gone straight in it would have been a goal

To be very kind, the linesman had a bad day........in reality he was absolutely awful the whole match! He only flagged offside when the Burnley players called it! The three points are the most important - but it would have been nice to see Lee score in injury time! How far off the mark was he? Off to West Ham tomorrow night - let's get another 3 points and back to where we belong!

I thought it was a goal by Connolly from where I was in the Itchen North.
But having seen the replay Connolly is definitely offside. Yes, the linesman had a bad day, but he did get that one correct.

Have you notice how much of the pitch the so called pie-eater covers these days, and I don't mean the shadow from his belly! He was creator, defender, midfield general, and unlucky not to be a scorer. Lambo is rapidly becoming a complete player, wouldn't be surprised if they had to put him in goal, he would have a blinder there too, legend in the making imo.

promised land wrote:
Had Lambert's shot gone in it would have stood eventhough Connolly was in an offside position because he would have been deemed as not interfering with play.

That was what I said earlier, the "interfering with play bit, is a very grey area", the lino would still have put his flag up as he was looking from the side, he would not have been able to tell from his angle whether Connoly was obscuring the GK's view, the decision would have rested on the Referee who was in a better position to judge, no harm done lets move on.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

promised land wrote:
Had Lambert's shot gone in it would have stood eventhough Connolly was in an offside position because he would have been deemed as not interfering with play.

That was what I said earlier, the "interfering with play bit, is a very grey area", the lino would still have put his flag up as he was looking from the side, he would not have been able to tell from his angle whether Connoly was obscuring the GK's view, the decision would have rested on the Referee who was in a better position to judge, no harm done lets move on.

I with the late bill Nicholson here If he wasn't interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage then he shouldn't have been on the pitch

Saintsayer II wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

promised land wrote:
Had Lambert's shot gone in it would have stood eventhough Connolly was in an offside position because he would have been deemed as not interfering with play.

That was what I said earlier, the "interfering with play bit, is a very grey area", the lino would still have put his flag up as he was looking from the side, he would not have been able to tell from his angle whether Connoly was obscuring the GK's view, the decision would have rested on the Referee who was in a better position to judge, no harm done lets move on.

I with the late bill Nicholson here If he wasn't interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage then he shouldn't have been on the pitch

Saintsayer, I remembered that comment but couldn't recall who had said it.
Osprey, I've seen so many "offside" goals allowed to stand, when players are virtually standing on the goal keepers feet, that I no longer know what is considered "interfering with play".
Maybe the player in the offside position needs to be kissing the goal keeper on the cheek, or shoving his hands down the GK's shorts, as the ball whistles past him, to count as interference?

Nothing makes sense anymore.

It's the same when offside isn't given against a striker who doesn't chase a through ball, but who then closes the ball down as soon as a defender collects it. This movement towards the ball takes away any advantage the defending team would have gained had offside been given in the first place, often leading to hurried clearances and misplaced passes, giving an advantage to the team that was offside!!!

Costa Baz wrote:

Saintsayer II wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

promised land wrote: Had Lambert's shot gone in it would have stood eventhough Connolly was in an offside position because he would have been deemed as not interfering with play.

That was what I said earlier, the "interfering with play bit, is a very grey area", the lino would still have put his flag up as he was looking from the side, he would not have been able to tell from his angle whether Connoly was obscuring the GK's view, the decision would have rested on the Referee who was in a better position to judge, no harm done lets move on.

I with the late bill Nicholson here If he wasn't interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage then he shouldn't have been on the pitch

Saintsayer, I remembered that comment but couldn't recall who had said it. Osprey, I've seen so many "offside" goals allowed to stand, when players are virtually standing on the goal keepers feet, that I no longer know what is considered "interfering with play". Maybe the player in the offside position needs to be kissing the goal keeper on the cheek, or shoving his hands down the GK's shorts, as the ball whistles past him, to count as interference? Nothing makes sense anymore. It's the same when offside isn't given against a striker who doesn't chase a through ball, but who then closes the ball down as soon as a defender collects it. This movement towards the ball takes away any advantage the defending team would have gained had offside been given in the first place, often leading to hurried clearances and misplaced passes, giving an advantage to the team that was offside!!!

Saintsayer. The comment was made but I am sure it was Bill Shankley.

Purring yes orgasmic no haha
Chung's the one to watch

It's important to those who may not realize regarding Officials that every game is covered with an Assessor, the obvious reasons An Assessor attends is that competence is paramount by all 4 Officials in every game, if the Assistant had a "mare" the Assessor comments and marks will be seen by that Official, if he is consistant with not giving 100% concentration with other games he will be "taken off" higher league games until they are sure the Official has corrected his faults, having mentioned that, I wasn't there so can't comment but nobodys infallable and without Officials there wouldn't be a game, lets hope the Officials get it right tomorrow night and Saints go top

Malcy wrote:
It's important to those who may not realize regarding Officials that every game is covered with an Assessor, the obvious reasons An Assessor attends is that competence is paramount by all 4 Officials in every game, if the Assistant had a "mare" the Assessor comments and marks will be seen by that Official, if he is consistant with not giving 100% concentration with other games he will be "taken off" higher league games until they are sure the Official has corrected his faults, having mentioned that, I wasn't there so can't comment but nobodys infallable and without Officials there wouldn't be a game, lets hope the Officials get it right tomorrow night and Saints go top

Whilst accepting what you say what concerns me is the number of errors made by referees and their assistants week in - week out. Living in Italy I only get to watch sport on TV but in virtually every football match I have seen there is always discussion re poor refereeing decisions, whilst after a rugby union match (which some might argue is a more technical game) there is very little. Rugby union referees also come across as much stronger characters than your average football referee.

Malcy wrote:
It's important to those who may not realize regarding Officials that every game is covered with an Assessor, the obvious reasons An Assessor attends is that competence is paramount by all 4 Officials in every game, if the Assistant had a "mare" the Assessor comments and marks will be seen by that Official, if he is consistant with not giving 100% concentration with other games he will be "taken off" higher league games until they are sure the Official has corrected his faults, having mentioned that, I wasn't there so can't comment but nobodys infallable and without Officials there wouldn't be a game, lets hope the Officials get it right tomorrow night and Saints go top

Whilst accepting what you say what concerns me is the number of errors made by referees and their assistants week in - week out. Living in Italy I only get to watch sport on TV but in virtually every football match I have seen there is always discussion re poor refereeing decisions, whilst after a rugby union match (which some might argue is a more technical game) there is very little. Rugby union referees also come across as much stronger characters than your average football referee.

JohnItaly wrote:

Costa Baz wrote:

Saintsayer II wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

promised land wrote: Had Lambert's shot gone in it would have stood eventhough Connolly was in an offside position because he would have been deemed as not interfering with play.

That was what I said earlier, the "interfering with play bit, is a very grey area", the lino would still have put his flag up as he was looking from the side, he would not have been able to tell from his angle whether Connoly was obscuring the GK's view, the decision would have rested on the Referee who was in a better position to judge, no harm done lets move on.

I with the late bill Nicholson here If he wasn't interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage then he shouldn't have been on the pitch

Saintsayer, I remembered that comment but couldn't recall who had said it. Osprey, I've seen so many "offside" goals allowed to stand, when players are virtually standing on the goal keepers feet, that I no longer know what is considered "interfering with play". Maybe the player in the offside position needs to be kissing the goal keeper on the cheek, or shoving his hands down the GK's shorts, as the ball whistles past him, to count as interference? Nothing makes sense anymore. It's the same when offside isn't given against a striker who doesn't chase a through ball, but who then closes the ball down as soon as a defender collects it. This movement towards the ball takes away any advantage the defending team would have gained had offside been given in the first place, often leading to hurried clearances and misplaced passes, giving an advantage to the team that was offside!!!

Saintsayer. The comment was made but I am sure it was Bill Shankley.

I thought it was Brian Clough!

Sounds very much like a "Cloughism" to me.