Weekend games 21-22 sep
- Thread starter Modo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I also think he'll be near the top of their list. No one is as good as Rodri but Zubi is of a similar ilk.
And if we'd done exactly the same thing to score and it was ruled out, you'd be equally mad... There's nothing wrong with that - Neither fouled him, they just stood in places that made it hard for him to get to the ball - That's not illegal. If the goalie does anything more than just fall down the second he bumps into somebody, he could have made an effort to get to the cross.
They don't just stand there though. They box him in and make it impossible for him to come off his line.
Martinelli backing into him from one side and Saliba running infront of him. Its quite obvious a free kick.
If they were standing there from the start, fine. But when you obstruct the GK without even looking at the ball so that another player can attack it, its a free kick. This isnt the NBA or NFL were blocking to that degree is okay to make a play.
Arteta is Pulis/Allardyce in disguise.
Martinelli backing into him from one side and Saliba running infront of him. Its quite obvious a free kick.
If they were standing there from the start, fine. But when you obstruct the GK without even looking at the ball so that another player can attack it, its a free kick. This isnt the NBA or NFL were blocking to that degree is okay to make a play.
Arteta is Pulis/Allardyce in disguise.
"Running in front of him"..? Come on, mate - That's not a foul. And leaning into somebody isn't a foul either.
Defenders do more than that 5 times a match, in shepherding an overhit pass out over the line, obstructing the attacker's attempts to get there... If the keeper has spun to his left, rather than fall to his right, he'd have had a chance to get to the back post at the same time as the ball and the attacker.
Defenders do more than that 5 times a match, in shepherding an overhit pass out over the line, obstructing the attacker's attempts to get there... If the keeper has spun to his left, rather than fall to his right, he'd have had a chance to get to the back post at the same time as the ball and the attacker.
Running in front in terms of boxing him in from both sides. Martinelli has his back to the ball while obstructing Ederson. They have no interest regarding the ball at all. Everything is about taking out the GK so that someone else can attack the ball which is why its an obvious free kick.
This might have been a thing with Kevin Davies and Bolton, but PGMOL said they would give free kicks for this sort of blocking this season.
I'll be extremely disappointed if we don't address this when we play Arsenal, and have some players to counter these blocks.
Actually it's not 'quite obviously a FK' because neither the ref. nor VAR gave it!
Honestly, I'll never see it... Just running around, without fouling somebody can never be a free out. And I stand by my earlier response about defenders obstructing forwards all the time, as they try to let a ball go out of play - This is a lesser offense than what they do all the time.
But I do agree 100% with your final sentence... They do it all the time, we have to be ready for it. The good news is that Ibou and VVD are big, strong lumps, and we should be able to combat it.
It wasn’t why our goal was ruled out though?
Endo was offside when he was blocking a defender and was considered active in play, it wasn’t because blocking as far as I remember. When I saw it played back, could understand why.
Plus that was one player on a defender, goal keepers are normally more protected. This case there were two players on one, what if it was 3 players? it’s not the same.
They are just standing there? Really? There are there two blocking explicitely and it’s a planned American football playbook positioned explicitly with some arms thrown in. Has no place in football I don’t believe.
Havertz (adv being his tall frame) actually does this often and I have no issue in theory as I kept keeper to make more of a fight of it but when there are more than one player involved the explicit block then it’s not a fair fight.
For me you’re intentionally impeding someone by standing there. How’s it different from old school obstruction? Or even a shirt pull when they’ve beaten you? It’s intentional. Just because they don’t force the contact doesn’t mean it’s not a foul for me. The fact the PGMOL said they were clamping down on that exact situation makes it insane that it was allowed
I really don't understand your issue with it, mate - You're saying that it's wrong, because TWO players were involved, but you're also saying that if it's only ONE player, you're fine with it. If two wrongs don't make a right, how do two rights make a wrong? (Apologies for the dad-pun there).
Neither player fouled the keeper, they just were in the area that he was in, and didn't get out of his way, as he came for the ball... There's nothing wrong with that, as long as the officiating is consistent with it.
The officials utterly fucked Cheats 115 FC on the first goal, but there's nothing wrong with this one. The defense / defenders have to handle it better. Think Peter Schmeichel would have just fallen down like Ederson did..? Would he bollox.
Neither player fouled the keeper, they just were in the area that he was in, and didn't get out of his way, as he came for the ball... There's nothing wrong with that, as long as the officiating is consistent with it.
The officials utterly fucked Cheats 115 FC on the first goal, but there's nothing wrong with this one. The defense / defenders have to handle it better. Think Peter Schmeichel would have just fallen down like Ederson did..? Would he bollox.
I will just never see how simply standing in a spot on the pitch, before the ball is even in play, is a foul. Can a foul be given on any other part of the pitch if no contact is made (other than a lunging tackle that misses)?
Also, I wasn't aware of your last sentence, so yes, that DOES make a big difference. If the rules now state that you cannot be that close to a keeper in those situations, then I do agree with you all.
Ederson was a fanny but I just don’t think was a fair fight. If it’s more than one on a keeper was gist of my point. I doubt you will see Arse get away with same play again.
Had Ederson not been a complete wimp and made a proper attempt he would’ve got the foul.
Yes. We've all seen a speedy winger try to get past the full back and the full back just steps in front of them. They're not making contact, they're not fouling them, they're just blocking and obstructing their way. How's that different to a set piece situation where you're standing intentionally blocking the way?
Id understand if it was a tussle between 2 players that it might not equate to a foul; but here there's 1 player trying to get the ball, and 2 players making zero attempt to play the ball.
To me, it just seems wrong
I guess for me, it's a technicality, based on the differing passage of play... In your example (which I'm not sure I've ever seen, genuinely), the play is happening and the player in possession of the ball is impeded.
On Sunday, the ball was not yet in play, players stood wherever they chose to, and as the ball came across the box, there was movement... Before a free kick or any restart of play, I don't have to move to allow you to take up a position that I've already occupied. And, because contact is allowed as runs are being made and being covered, I saw nothing but a congested six-yard box causing the keeper trouble - He wasn't fouled.
I understand the spirit of what you're saying, of course. They knew what they were doing, and they did it sooooo well... But, for the same reason that Havertz and then Haaland lamping the bloke in front of them at the start and the end of the match were each fouls and free kicks, it's not a foul if you're just standing close to the keeper, don't get out of his way, and he runs into you.
If I were a Cheats 115 fan, I'd be really annoyed that they hadn't worked on anything to combat something that the arse always try to do...
In a situation where the opposition is habitually doing this (Arsenal had already tried the exact same routine a few minutes earlier when they should also have scored) then the keeper should have a minder, so it isn't 2 against 1. If you know the opposition are going to try to block the keeper (newsflash - they will) then the keeper should have protection. It's within the defending team's control to not allow a 2 v 1. One man standing behind Ederson, even a smaller guy like Silva or Doku, could have prevented this.
It's savvy exploitation of a grey area in the rules by Arsenal. Usually when a keeper is being blocked off, it's happening before the kick is taken, and he'll shout to the ref to highlight it, maximising his chance of getting the foul. But what Arsenal did was to create the obstruction AFTER the kick was taken, so the keeper couldn't attract the ref's attention. But in this new era of "referee's call", it's also not something VAR are going to intervene in, especially if they think the keeper is a massive fanny, which he obviously is. Props to Arsenal, they've taken the age-old tactic of blocking the keeper off to a new level. And let's not overlook that the delivery from both attempts was perfect and took all of City's big men out of the game by by-passing them at the near post.
But it's also awful defensive set-up by City, a failure by them to adapt to what they'd already seen in the game. They set up as drilled, it almost cost them a goal, then they set up the same way the second time, Arsenal executed better and it did cost them a goal. That's when they need a leader who will stand up and tell them to adapt. They didn't have that, because they all have to do what Pep tells them to do because they know he needs to control them. And the only guy who maybe has the authority and the bollocks to do that wasn't on the field because he'd done his ACL by then.
I have to admit that I don't know what the rules actually say, but my instinct is that this stuff should be a foul. You shouldn't just be able to deliberately block a player from moving towards the ball while making zero effort to play it yourself.
In theory you could just put three men around the keeper and basically make it impossible for him to move. I think everyone would have to recognise that as a foul. Not sure what the difference is with two men or even one man, really - it's just less blatant.
The shepherding a ball out of play by defenders isn't the same thing at all. They're in possession and are effectively just shielding it.
In theory you could just put three men around the keeper and basically make it impossible for him to move. I think everyone would have to recognise that as a foul. Not sure what the difference is with two men or even one man, really - it's just less blatant.
The shepherding a ball out of play by defenders isn't the same thing at all. They're in possession and are effectively just shielding it.
I disagree. They're not always actually in possession of the ball, they're just stopping the player opposite them reaching it, and they're being more physical about it than either arse player was with the keeper on Sunday.
Bottom line for me, it all depends on the wording of the law, which I do not know. I just know that the behaviour of either arse player on Sunday wouldn't have been a topic of conversation if a goalie hadn't been involved. Not fouled, just involved. For me, that's telling.
It will have a bigger bearing on the title race so of course they are.
It just shows what a small club mentality they have and I pray to the Dragon queen that they don't win the league.
It’s hard for them to win the league when we are winning it.
- Status
Similar threads
