Jump to content
Zoo

General Weekend/Midweek Football

Recommended Posts

On 06/06/2019 at 22:23, Elston Gunnn said:

Two massive giveaways by Stones and Barkley allow Netherlands to win.  Embarrassing, both.

Good match.  Youthful Netherlands v. Ronaldo on Sunday.

I though that Stones dropped Barkley right in it. Passed to him when he was on edge of the box facing goal and a man on his back, Stones was responsible for all 3 goals IMO, shocking night from him. The whole team needs to learn when to play out from the back and when to lump it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wiggytop said:

I though that Stones dropped Barkley right in it. Passed to him when he was on edge of the box facing goal and a man on his back, Stones was responsible for all 3 goals IMO, shocking night from him. The whole team needs to learn when to play out from the back and when to lump it.

The self destruct button was definitely pressed by Stones that night, I wasn’t all that surprised by how he was caught out we’ve seen that a good few times for us. 

Thats part of who he is and how he wants to play the game it won’t change, managers will have to weigh up is good points against his bad and make a decision, but I’d have him back here in a heartbeat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Palfy said:

The self destruct button was definitely pressed by Stones that night, I wasn’t all that surprised by how he was caught out we’ve seen that a good few times for us. 

Thats part of who he is and how he wants to play the game it won’t change, managers will have to weigh up is good points against his bad and make a decision, but I’d have him back here in a heartbeat. 

Me too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so the Italian goal in the Women's World Cup that followed this was ruled out by VAR for offside. Certainly the Italian's upper half was offside but her feet were most certainly not, what's the rule on this? I'm assuming it must go on forward most position of whole body but surely as it's football and her progress to goal relied on her foot speed the decision ought to be based on where her feet were should it not? Goal shouldn't be ruled out because her left shoulder was off. Madness.Capture.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MikeO said:

OK so the Italian goal in the Women's World Cup that followed this was ruled out by VAR for offside. Certainly the Italian's upper half was offside but her feet were most certainly not, what's the rule on this? I'm assuming it must go on forward most position of whole body but surely as it's football and her progress to goal relied on her foot speed the decision ought to be based on where her feet were should it not? Goal shouldn't be ruled out because her left shoulder was off. Madness.Capture.JPG

Your correct.

Don't mind the rule though as having your shoulder forward gives you momentum to beat the defender to the ball. They should've timed their run better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Your correct.

Don't mind the rule though as having your shoulder forward gives you momentum to beat the defender to the ball. They should've timed their run better. 

Point taken but I still think it's wrong. Like you say it's down to the timing of the run (achieved by where you put your feet), which I think in this case was perfect. By the logic of the law as it stands (I trust you to be right on that) if the Australian defender happened to be pointing towards goal with her left arm marshalling a team-mate then it would've been allowed because the Italian was "on" by a well manicured fingernail. If that's the law then for me it needs to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t be doing with your foot is slightly ahead of someone so your offside bollocks. The game is supposed to favour attacking football, it should go back to daylight between players. Great scenes the other night when Lingard scored and it just deflates you with that VAR bollocks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Point taken but I still think it's wrong. Like you say it's down to the timing of the run (achieved by where you put your feet), which I think in this case was perfect. By the logic of the law as it stands (I trust you to be right on that) if the Australian defender happened to be pointing towards goal with her left arm marshalling a team-mate then it would've been allowed because the Italian was "on" by a well manicured fingernail. If that's the law then for me it needs to be changed.

Yep, it's harsh but for me the defender would know it was their fault and blame themselves rather than the rules. For me the defence keep a line so if the striker breaks it then it'd be offside or if the defender broke it by pointing then they've kept you onside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking I'm not going to like VAR as it stands, England's women get a penalty for a handball that only one player appealed for for maybe a quarter of the second and all 22 played on quite happily; the girl who put in the cross that was "handled" didn't register any protest at all and ref and linos carried on without a second thought. Then the VAR official called a halt. That can't be right surely? Maybe we should go down the route of tennis and cricket and limit the amount of appeals each team can have and once they're out of failed ones it's "umpires call".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Thinking I'm not going to like VAR as it stands, England's women get a penalty for a handball that only one player appealed for for maybe a quarter of the second and all 22 played on quite happily; the girl who put in the cross that was "handled" didn't register any protest at all and ref and linos carried on without a second thought. Then the VAR official called a halt. That can't be right surely? Maybe we should go down the route of tennis and cricket and limit the amount of appeals each team can have and once they're out of failed ones it's "umpires call".

How about no technology in any sport and you just have to accept the decisions given, nearly all sports have flourished and not floundered in the years before any of these technologies came into being.

I’m still a great believer that human errors add to the whole emotional experience and connection with the supporters of their chosen sports, sanitising it to the degrees we are I feel is going to take away some of the things we enjoy discussing, yes bad decisions can hurt but they can also in equal measures bring joy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MikeO said:

Thinking I'm not going to like VAR as it stands, England's women get a penalty for a handball that only one player appealed for for maybe a quarter of the second and all 22 played on quite happily; the girl who put in the cross that was "handled" didn't register any protest at all and ref and linos carried on without a second thought. Then the VAR official called a halt. That can't be right surely? Maybe we should go down the route of tennis and cricket and limit the amount of appeals each team can have and once they're out of failed ones it's "umpires call".

The new handball rule is a joke. Man U and Liverpool both shouldn't have got theirs in the champions league. 

The numpties running the game think more goals will attract more fans, why they made the offside rule more complicated too with the different phases of play bollocks. Think pretty much every fan other than the kopites would agree that penalty they got should never be and ruined the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, MikeO said:

OK so the Italian goal in the Women's World Cup that followed this was ruled out by VAR for offside. Certainly the Italian's upper half was offside but her feet were most certainly not, what's the rule on this? I'm assuming it must go on forward most position of whole body but surely as it's football and her progress to goal relied on her foot speed the decision ought to be based on where her feet were should it not? Goal shouldn't be ruled out because her left shoulder was off. Madness.Capture.JPG

If any part of your body that you can score a goal with is ahead of the play it’s offside. You can score with your shoulder, so offside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

If any part of your body that you can score a goal with is ahead of the play it’s offside. You can score with your shoulder, so offside. 

Not disagreeing with the decision having had the rule explained, just disagreeing with the rule.

Was not that many years ago when officials were told to give the benefit of any doubt to the striker, they keep moving the goalposts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MikeO said:

Not disagreeing with the decision having had the rule explained, just disagreeing with the rule.

Was not that many years ago when officials were told to give the benefit of any doubt to the striker, they keep moving the goalposts.

I don’t really see what there is to disagree with tbh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

But why? Unless you're wanting it to be so that you can only score a goal with your foot?

In my view your position on the pitch should be dictated by where you're standing. The reason teams wear different coloured socks so the linesmen (in old money) could differentiate between teams by looking at them. If (for example) Arsenal were playing Spurs all 40 shoulders on the pitch would be white, and you can score off your arse but teams play each other in the same colour. I just think it's daft, if it's the rule it's the rule but I don't think it should be.

 

Capture.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MikeO said:

Not disagreeing with the decision having had the rule explained, just disagreeing with the rule.

Was not that many years ago when officials were told to give the benefit of any doubt to the striker, they keep moving the goalposts.

But this is why VAR is spoiling it there is no benefit of doubt it's been taken away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...