Toonpack 12516 Posted Monday at 15:34 Share Posted Monday at 15:34 1 minute ago, Kid Dynamite said: When you read the FA Laws, I'm not convinced the Villa disallowed goal was that much of a howler tbh. It was a free kick for me when I first saw it, the furore is just controvesy for controvesy sake, and headlines/clicks, with not a little deflection by Dracula thrown in. Villa fans in the comments in the Atlantic article were not fussed sbout it and more questioning Emery tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4471 Posted Monday at 15:35 Share Posted Monday at 15:35 4 minutes ago, wykikitoon said: They said on MOTD it was very wishy washy the laws. Yeah but they were being cunts, it’s very straightforward and it was a free kick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 8097 Posted Monday at 15:46 Share Posted Monday at 15:46 It's also not an easy one for the ref to delay blowing his whistle to see how things pan out. It's easy to do that for a borderline offside, less so when a striker appears to boot the ball out of the keepers hands. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 53781 Posted Monday at 15:56 Share Posted Monday at 15:56 There's a better camera angle than the one you've shown where it's very clear that at the time Rogers kicks the ball, it wasn't actually touching EITHER of the keeper's hands. It was an absolutely shit decision imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 53781 Posted Monday at 15:57 Share Posted Monday at 15:57 It was just a mistake though. Massively consequential as it turned out, but no different to all the other mistakes that get made across the season. Villa fucked CL themselves with their slow start to the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 12516 Posted Monday at 15:59 Share Posted Monday at 15:59 Just now, Gemmill said: There's a better camera angle than the one you've shown where it's very clear that at the time Rogers kicks the ball, it wasn't actually touching EITHER of the keeper's hands. It was an absolutely shit decision imo. Yes the ref had a great view of that "better camera angle" when he had to make the decision 🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 53781 Posted Monday at 16:03 Share Posted Monday at 16:03 2 minutes ago, Toonpack said: Yes the ref had a great view of that "better camera angle" when he had to make the decision 🙄 Nice one Parfitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 12516 Posted Monday at 16:04 Share Posted Monday at 16:04 Just now, Gemmill said: Nice one Parfitt. Just admit you're wrong again ginge 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 53781 Posted Monday at 16:08 Share Posted Monday at 16:08 A perfectly good goal was incorrectly disallowed. So no, I don't think I will change my view that it was a terrible decision. I've just reread your post and you actually think it was a free kick. Despite every piece of evidence to the contrary, we're back to the "my eyes don't lie" rule. Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4471 Posted Monday at 16:15 Share Posted Monday at 16:15 18 minutes ago, Gemmill said: There's a better camera angle than the one you've shown where it's very clear that at the time Rogers kicks the ball, it wasn't actually touching EITHER of the keeper's hands. It was an absolutely shit decision imo. Read the rules again slowly then have another go. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 53781 Posted Monday at 16:23 Share Posted Monday at 16:23 6 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said: Read the rules again slowly then have another go. I've read them. Please tell me that you're interpreting "between the hands" as meaning he just has to have a hand either side of the ball but doesn't have to be touching it with either of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4471 Posted Monday at 16:26 Share Posted Monday at 16:26 2 minutes ago, Gemmill said: I've read them. Please tell me that you're interpreting "between the hands" as meaning he just has to have a hand either side of the ball but doesn't have to be touching it with either of them. That’s exactly what it says, in fact it mentions touching later on in the rules. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 8097 Posted Monday at 16:28 Share Posted Monday at 16:28 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Gemmill said: There's a better camera angle than the one you've shown where it's very clear that at the time Rogers kicks the ball, it wasn't actually touching EITHER of the keeper's hands. It was an absolutely shit decision imo. Aye, for a split second, but how is the ref meant to see that in real time from 20m away? Edited Monday at 16:28 by Kid Dynamite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 53781 Posted Monday at 16:30 Share Posted Monday at 16:30 1 minute ago, Kid Dynamite said: Aye, for a split second, but how is the ref meant to see that in real time from 20m away? Doesn't take away from the fact it's a terrible decision though. He only blew his whistle cos Craig told him someone might die if he didn't. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 53781 Posted Monday at 16:32 Share Posted Monday at 16:32 4 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said: That’s exactly what it says, in fact it mentions touching later on in the rules. how much of a gap is allowed. 20cm each side of the ball ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4471 Posted Monday at 16:33 Share Posted Monday at 16:33 1 minute ago, Gemmill said: how much of a gap is allowed. 20cm each side of the ball ok? The rules don’t mention a gap size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 53781 Posted Monday at 16:35 Share Posted Monday at 16:35 Just now, Kevin Carr's Gloves said: The rules don’t mention a gap size sounds like we go with the arm span of the keeper in question then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 24225 Posted Monday at 16:36 Share Posted Monday at 16:36 That's why it's wishy washy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 53781 Posted Monday at 16:36 Share Posted Monday at 16:36 You'd think more keepers would take advantage of this invisible forcefield power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4471 Posted Monday at 16:39 Share Posted Monday at 16:39 3 minutes ago, Gemmill said: sounds like we go with the arm span of the keeper in question then. How big a gap would you say there was between the keepers hands and the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 53781 Posted Monday at 16:42 Share Posted Monday at 16:42 Instead of worrying about Pope's kicking, we should just get him to drop to his knees, slam his hands down either side of the ball and shout "Safe!". He could even do it from back passes as long as he doesn't touch it with his hands. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 53781 Posted Monday at 16:52 Share Posted Monday at 16:52 Sounds like he can just hover one hand above the ball when it's on the ground too. I genuinely cannot believe that you are stupid enough to read: "A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with his hands when the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface" And think that that just means ANYWHERE between his hands or the hand and the surface. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 12516 Posted Monday at 17:00 Share Posted Monday at 17:00 48 minutes ago, Gemmill said: A perfectly good goal was incorrectly disallowed. So no, I don't think I will change my view that it was a terrible decision. I've just reread your post and you actually think it was a free kick. Despite every piece of evidence to the contrary, we're back to the "my eyes don't lie" rule. Christ. The ref see's it real time from one angle, it was a free kick, he blew his whistle, end of. You don't hesitate to blow the whistle when you see a foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 24225 Posted Monday at 17:01 Share Posted Monday at 17:01 Just now, Toonpack said: The ref see's it real time from one angle, it was a free kick, he blew his whistle, end of. You don't hesitate to blow the whistle when you see a foul. Apparently now we have VAR you have to wave on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 12516 Posted Monday at 17:11 Share Posted Monday at 17:11 8 minutes ago, wykikitoon said: Apparently now we have VAR you have to wave on Only for offside as far as I know, other offences are blown up straight away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now