Birmingham City manager Chris Davies felt the Blues profited from two harsh decisions by referee Andrew Kitchen during last night’s 1-1 draw in the Championship’s season opener at St Andrew’s.

Top of the list was the 95th-minute penalty converted by George Hirst after sub Lyndon Dykes, an international teammate of the Town striker with Scotland, had handled a Jacob Greaves header from an Ashley Young corner.

“I thought it was really, really harsh,” Davies said. “He’s gone up and obviously his arms are raised – you have to raise your arms to jump – and it’s scraped his fingers on the way down.

“It’s really harsh. I would be surprised if anyone doesn’t have that opinion. That’s happened now, we just have to take it.

“It’s made a huge impact on the game because we were one-nil up with a couple of minutes to go. That’s football, it can happen.”

Earlier, in the seventh minute of the first half, Japanese international striker Kyogo Furuhashi had the ball in the net but with Kitchen having already blown his whistle as the debutant had jumped into Greaves.

“Again, I thought it was harsh,” Davies added. “You only have to look at Kyogo to see the size of him compared to the centre-back. For me, that one looked harsh.

“The good news is that is what Kyogo is capable of. He was trying to make the right runs and was disciplined in his performance. I’m really happy with him.”

Despite the Blues’ late equaliser, Davies was pleased with his side’s overall display against a Town team which was two division above them last season.

“We were the better team, we dominated the match and we deserved to win the game but for misfortune with a decision,” he insisted.

“We were good with the ball, I thought we showed good patience, we pressed well and switched the play well. We had moments around the box and defensively we were really strong – I don’t think they had a shot on target until the penalty.”

TWTD

poet added 14:41 - Aug 9 I’ve said it many times that these post match reports from opposing managers are more than a bit humorous. Both incidents that he referred to, for example, the penalty. The players arms were in the air in line with the incoming ball. He deflected it, all be slightly away from danger, therefore he gained an unfair advantage…. It was handball, and the referee was right to award a penalty. The second incident that he whinges about was, no matter how diminutive his player is, it still doesn’t prevent him from committing a foul against a bigger player. He clearly pushed Greaves in the back whilst Greaves was watching the ball and was not fully balanced. Therefore it wouldn’t take much strength for a smaller player to impede an unbalanced player, which is exactly what happened…. It was a foul and the referee was right to award a free kick. The size of both players therefore is completely irrelevant, and it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. He claims that his side were the better side, yes they had the lions share of the ball, but without causing Palmer to have to make one serious save. He has conveniently forgotten the fact that both Szmodics and Taylor missed excellent opportunities to score. Clearly showing that his team was vulnerable to the breakaway attack. Had they have converted those chances, he’d have nothing more to whinge about.

0

poet added 14:41 - Aug 9 I’ve said it many times that these post match reports from opposing managers are more than a bit humorous. Both incidents that he referred to, for example, the penalty. The players arms were in the air in line with the incoming ball. He deflected it, all be slightly away from danger, therefore he gained an unfair advantage…. It was handball, and the referee was right to award a penalty. The second incident that he whinges about was, no matter how diminutive his player is, it still doesn’t prevent him from committing a foul against a bigger player. He clearly pushed Greaves in the back whilst Greaves was watching the ball and was not fully balanced. Therefore it wouldn’t take much strength for a smaller player to impede an unbalanced player, which is exactly what happened…. It was a foul and the referee was right to award a free kick. The size of both players therefore is completely irrelevant, and it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. He claims that his side were the better side, yes they had the lions share of the ball, but without causing Palmer to have to make one serious save. He has conveniently forgotten the fact that both Szmodics and Taylor missed excellent opportunities to score. Clearly showing that his team was vulnerable to the breakaway attack. Had they have converted those chances, he’d have nothing more to whinge about.

0

benslifeyt added 14:54 - Aug 9 Guess he’s forgotten about the O’Shea block in box then …. That was a pen
1

aas1010 added 16:31 - Aug 9 Boo hoo . Fowling , cheating didn’t mention that
0

FransFan added 16:55 - Aug 9 If VAR was involved in the pen decision we’d still be awaiting the outcome. Go with the ref: you win some, you lose some….
1

cantona11 added 18:51 - Aug 9 First point (excuse the pun) but if i was a 12 stone bloke and i threw all my weight at the back of you that's a foul and it's like saying it was blown offside but the player carries on running and scores the goal doesnt matter it was blown up !!!! And it's about time we had some luck with the pen decision it was a bit hemarsh but like many have said it hit his hand and changed the direction of the ball aswell so had to be given,I think they were the only 2 decisions that ref got right in the whole game

0

BlueSkies added 12:40 - Aug 10 I'd love to read the bed-wetting if it was us these decisions had gone against.
0

Blogs 298 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls