Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
He denied Salah scoring, though. The position of attacking players do not come into it AFAIK. It's about the position of defenders in relation to Salah taking the ball on and scoring.
The factors are
Distance to goal, direction of play, likelihood of control and defenders position. If that's correct then the defender could and should have seen red.
Yes, but denial of a goal-scoring opportunity is what clicks this all into motion, and if a goal is scored, all bets are off- rightly or wrongly, that has always been the case in these scenarios. Think about Garcia's ghost goal as that ultimate example. Cech smashes into Baros which would have been a red card and peno but Luis Garcia's goal saves that eventuality. This has always been the way.
Yes, but denial of a goal-scoring opportunity is what clicks this all into motion, and if a goal is scored, all bets are off- rightly or wrongly, that has always been the case in these scenarios. Think about Garcia's ghost goal as that ultimate example. Cech smashes into Baros which would have been a red card and peno but Luis Garcia's goal saves that eventuality. This has always been the way.
I get this but anywhere else on the pitch, the ref pulls it back after the advantage was given. But in this case we don't know what would have happened because the ref didn't even give the foul anyway.
I'm pretty certain that the ref didn't play an advantage, but rather saw it as a fair challenge, because had it been a foul in his mind, even after we'd scored on the advantage he played, he'd have come back to book the defender, right..?
I'm pretty certain that the ref didn't play an advantage, but rather saw it as a fair challenge, because had it been a foul in his mind, even after we'd scored on the advantage he played, he'd have come back to book the defender, right..?
Yes, but denial of a goal-scoring opportunity is what clicks this all into motion, and if a goal is scored, all bets are off- rightly or wrongly, that has always been the case in these scenarios. Think about Garcia's ghost goal as that ultimate example. Cech smashes into Baros which would have been a red card and peno but Luis Garcia's goal saves that eventuality. This has always been the way.
He denied Salah scoring, though. The position of attacking players do not come into it AFAIK. It's about the position of defenders in relation to Salah taking the ball on and scoring.
The factors are
Distance to goal, direction of play, likelihood of control and defenders position. If that's correct then the defender could and should have seen red.
Not sure about that. Virtually every commentator / pundit I saw after the game mentioned the double jeopardy, you haven't denied a goal-scoring opportunity if we scored from that play. So a yellow.
What was the match, two seasons ago, where Diaz scored a header from the edge of the area & the keeper wiped him out. He wasn't sent off, but most pundits then were saying he should have been ... I don't think anyone was using the double jeopardy argument then.
In my simple world, all fouls should be punished in the same way, regardless of what happens afterwards ...
What was the match, two seasons ago, where Diaz scored a header from the edge of the area & the keeper wiped him out. He wasn't sent off, but most pundits then were saying he should have been ... I don't think anyone was using the double jeopardy argument then.
In my simple world, all fouls should be punished in the same way, regardless of what happens afterwards ...
We were taking after the game about how there should be more (official) standard signals from refs as in cricket so you know what their decision is. In the case of advantage, refs usually hold both hands out, palms up in front of their hips to indicate they’re playing advantage. In this case, Coote crossed his hands over to indicate he thought there was no foul. So it was clear, in-play, what his decision was. Even disagreeing with his assessment, his judgment was at least clear. Both of these gestures are commonly used so players know where they stand.
Of course in this case there was the added jeopardy that VAR might alter the picture if we hadn’t scored, which is where the ghost goal incident is different because it would still have been the ref’s call. And I still think Chelsea got a huge advantage in that game from that goal. Down to 10 men, Cech off the pitch and a penalty likely scored they would not have still been in the tie until the final whistle.
The Russian ref dude said he was relieved when his linesman said he thought it was over the line as he preferred games with eleven men on each side still on the pitch and he would have had to give a pen and a red if it hadn't gone in. That gets forgotten about a lot.
What's crazy about the City meltdown is no one mentions its a conspiracy against them anymore.
Like it went from the world was against them to nothing.
Almost like an admittance that they've had their own way for years, with the 115 charges, the financial fuckery, Coote video etc
What's crazy about the City meltdown is no one mentions its a conspiracy against them anymore.
Like it went from the world was against them to nothing.
Almost like an admittance that they've had their own way for years, with the 115 charges, the financial fuckery, Coote video etc
The Russian ref dude said he was relieved when his linesman said he thought it was over the line as he preferred games with eleven men on each side still on the pitch and he would have had to give a pen and a red if it hadn't gone in. That gets forgotten about a lot.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.