|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Apr 11, 2024 18:25:01 GMT
Fuck all wrong, no foul on the keeper, the keeper fucked up and he pounced..Dreadful refereeing again.
Who knows, at 1-1 the outcome could have been very different.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 11, 2024 18:26:40 GMT
Fuck all wrong, no foul on the keeper, the keeper fucked up and he pounced..Dreadful refereeing again. Who knows, at 1-1 the outcome could have been very different. Everyone apart from one particular poster agreed it was a disgraceful decision. VAR changes it but we don’t want it |
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Apr 11, 2024 18:28:15 GMT
Fuck all wrong, no foul on the keeper, the keeper fucked up and he pounced..Dreadful refereeing again. Who knows, at 1-1 the outcome could have been very different. What's this bud? Not seen it mentioned anywhere else |
|
|
|
Post by marwood on Apr 11, 2024 18:38:45 GMT
again for me our favourite ex player turned pundit has nailed it
what do you think Garth?
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 11, 2024 18:43:14 GMT
Fuck all wrong, no foul on the keeper, the keeper fucked up and he pounced..Dreadful refereeing again. Who knows, at 1-1 the outcome could have been very different. Everyone apart from one particular poster agreed it was a disgraceful decision. VAR changes it but we don’t want it Didn’t most of the analysts agree it was the right decision after checking the rules as well? At the very least I sympathise with the ref, it was a really hard decision. Harsh but not a disgrace at all imo |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 11, 2024 18:44:18 GMT
Everyone apart from one particular poster agreed it was a disgraceful decision. VAR changes it but we don’t want it Didn’t most of the analysts agree it was the right decision after checking the rules as well? At the very least I sympathise with the ref, it was a really hard decision. Harsh but not a disgrace at all imo Not to my knowledge and if they did they’re clearly wrong |
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Apr 11, 2024 18:51:53 GMT
Didn’t most of the analysts agree it was the right decision after checking the rules as well? At the very least I sympathise with the ref, it was a really hard decision. Harsh but not a disgrace at all imo Not to my knowledge and if they did they’re clearly wrong It really was a borderline decision. If Ennis getting up from the floor causes his head to inadvertently dislodge the ball it's a foul. If the keeper knocks the ball against Ennis's head causing it to be dislodged then it's not. Ennis was getting up and the keeper did knock into him so where on balance do you put the cause. I would have given a goal but not surprised to see the keeper get the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 11, 2024 18:53:34 GMT
Not to my knowledge and if they did they’re clearly wrong It really was a borderline decision. If Ennis getting up from the floor causes his head to inadvertently dislodge the ball it's a foul. If the keeper knocks the ball against Ennis's head causing it to be dislodged then it's not. Ennis was getting up and the keeper did knock into him so where on balance do you put the cause. I would have given a goal but not surprised to see the keeper get the benefit of the doubt. Indeed. Are they becoming extinct or something? They have to be the most protected species on the planet! |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 11, 2024 18:53:58 GMT
Not to my knowledge and if they did they’re clearly wrong It really was a borderline decision. If Ennis getting up from the floor causes his head to inadvertently dislodge the ball it's a foul. If the keeper knocks the ball against Ennis's head causing it to be dislodged then it's not. Ennis was getting up and the keeper did knock into him so where on balance do you put the cause. I would have given a goal but not surprised to see the keeper get the benefit of the doubt. Some sense. Perfectly explained 👍🏼 |
|
|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Apr 11, 2024 19:07:05 GMT
Fuck all wrong, no foul on the keeper, the keeper fucked up and he pounced..Dreadful refereeing again. Who knows, at 1-1 the outcome could have been very different. What's this bud? Not seen it mentioned anywhere else I'd not trawled through other threads. Sorry if I have caused you any upset, and I promise I will be more vigilant in future... |
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Apr 11, 2024 19:13:10 GMT
again for me our favourite ex player turned pundit has nailed it what do you think Garth? I've never seen that before. That's proper made me giggle. |
|
|
|
Post by marwood on Apr 11, 2024 19:16:21 GMT
again for me our favourite ex player turned pundit has nailed it what do you think Garth? I've never seen that before. That's proper made me giggle. Ive watched it about 700 times The third poor decision gets me every time I aim to post it every time there is a PD against us |
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Apr 11, 2024 19:19:20 GMT
I've never seen that before. That's proper made me giggle. Ive watched it about 700 times The third poor decision gets me every time I've absolutely lost it at that. It might be one of the funniest things I've ever seen. I can't fathom how no one has shown me that before! The transition from the nod of the head into the shake of the head is exquisite. Right up there with Mark Lawrenson's 'Autobahn' gag on Football Focus. |
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 11, 2024 19:20:13 GMT
Everyone apart from one particular poster agreed it was a disgraceful decision. VAR changes it but we don’t want it Didn’t most of the analysts agree it was the right decision after checking the rules as well? At the very least I sympathise with the ref, it was a really hard decision. Harsh but not a disgrace at all imo Not really, the whole panel on Sky last night said the goalkeeper was incredibly lucky, even after reading the letter of the law. www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/swansea-stoke-niall-ennis-goal-9217874Having seen the letter of the law, I don't think the correct decision was made. I guess there's a measure of ambiguity for a weird situation like this, but I would say that the goalkeeper was in control of the ball and made a positive action, even if he wouldn't have done that if he realised Ennis was there. I don't know how you can commit a foul passively. It's just a goalkeeping error. |
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Apr 11, 2024 19:22:02 GMT
Everyone apart from one particular poster agreed it was a disgraceful decision. VAR changes it but we don’t want it Didn’t most of the analysts agree it was the right decision after checking the rules as well? At the very least I sympathise with the ref, it was a really hard decision. Harsh but not a disgrace at all imo The discussion considered whether as Ennis was getting up ( he had no idea where the ball was) does he knock the ball out of gk hands It is an unclear incident re did the gk bring the ball onto Ennis head or did Ennis knock it out of his hand Drop ball? 😂 I’m certainly in favour of VAR regardless of the outcome Their penalty would have been changed to a free kick |
|
|
|
Post by binthelplates on Apr 11, 2024 19:27:48 GMT
Not to my knowledge and if they did they’re clearly wrong It really was a borderline decision. If Ennis getting up from the floor causes his head to inadvertently dislodge the ball it's a foul. If the keeper knocks the ball against Ennis's head causing it to be dislodged then it's not. Ennis was getting up and the keeper did knock into him so where on balance do you put the cause. I would have given a goal but not surprised to see the keeper get the benefit of the doubt. Fair assessment. To chuck in an opinion, LOAF says challenges the goalkeeper...... So when does getting up off the floor oblivious to where the goalkeeper is and what they are doing become a 'challenge'? Being on the field of play isn't an offence so, standing up after falling over shouldn't be deemed an offence. There's a big argument to suggest that a challenge on the goalkeeper has to be deliberate, standing up in the way that Ennis did (not aggressively) seems just an innocent thing to do after being on the floor....... does he have to stay in the floor for a set time, no because thats a stupid thing to do. For me LOAF doesn't cover this type of incident, as it does many other situations, so play should continue as no foul/infringement has occurred. |
|
|
|
Post by scarlet on Apr 11, 2024 19:45:42 GMT
Although I think it was a legitimate goal I am amused at the number of pundits who have said Ennis didn’t know what was happening, as if that’s anything different to his general play 🤣
|
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Apr 11, 2024 20:06:05 GMT
Didn’t most of the analysts agree it was the right decision after checking the rules as well? At the very least I sympathise with the ref, it was a really hard decision. Harsh but not a disgrace at all imo Not really, the whole panel on Sky last night said the goalkeeper was incredibly lucky, even after reading the letter of the law. www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/swansea-stoke-niall-ennis-goal-9217874Having seen the letter of the law, I don't think the correct decision was made. I guess there's a measure of ambiguity for a weird situation like this, but I would say that the goalkeeper was in control of the ball and made a positive action, even if he wouldn't have done that if he realised Ennis was there. I don't know how you can commit a foul passively. It's just a goalkeeping error. As they pointed out, Ennis didn't make a challenge on the keeper making it a legit goal under the rules. Even Ashley Williams said was harsh |
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Apr 11, 2024 20:11:37 GMT
Not to my knowledge and if they did they’re clearly wrong It really was a borderline decision. If Ennis getting up from the floor causes his head to inadvertently dislodge the ball it's a foul. If the keeper knocks the ball against Ennis's head causing it to be dislodged then it's not. Ennis was getting up and the keeper did knock into him so where on balance do you put the cause. I would have given a goal but not surprised to see the keeper get the benefit of the doubt. Yes. As stated previously, big sympathy for the referee (on this occasion)... Very difficult decision to make. Reckon we would have gone apoplectic if it was Iverson and their centre forward and the goal was given. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 11, 2024 20:31:23 GMT
Didn’t most of the analysts agree it was the right decision after checking the rules as well? At the very least I sympathise with the ref, it was a really hard decision. Harsh but not a disgrace at all imo Not really, the whole panel on Sky last night said the goalkeeper was incredibly lucky, even after reading the letter of the law. www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/swansea-stoke-niall-ennis-goal-9217874Having seen the letter of the law, I don't think the correct decision was made. I guess there's a measure of ambiguity for a weird situation like this, but I would say that the goalkeeper was in control of the ball and made a positive action, even if he wouldn't have done that if he realised Ennis was there. I don't know how you can commit a foul passively. It's just a goalkeeping error. Imagine a player is skipping backwards or sideways without looking where he’s going and inadvertently barges into the goalkeeper as he’s about to throw it out, causing him to drop the ball. That’s a “passive” challenge on the keeper while he has the ball and would be given as a foul every time. That’s the principle applied to the Ennis incident, it’s just much less of a clear-cut case. |
|
|
|
Post by Old School Stokie on Apr 11, 2024 20:42:50 GMT
It was a bad decision on two counts. The Law says if the keeper has it both hands & is challenged its a foul. Keeper had one hand on the ball as he was looking to wing it away (cant do that with two hands) second issue was he was not challenged he knocked the ball against Ennis. So a diabilical decision on those two counts and goal should have stood. Then there wsa the penalty which like the Phillips Gordon decision was incorrect - need I say more!
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 11, 2024 20:59:18 GMT
It was a bad decision on two counts. The Law says if the keeper has it both hands & is challenged its a foul. Keeper had one hand on the ball as he was looking to wing it away (cant do that with two hands) second issue was he was not challenged he knocked the ball against Ennis. So a diabilical decision on those two counts and goal should have stood. Then there wsa the penalty which like the Phillips Gordon decision was incorrect - need I say more! You're just objectively wrong about the the law. Goalie can be in control of the ball with one hand or two. |
|
|
|
Post by cokecystfit on Apr 11, 2024 21:12:28 GMT
Not really, the whole panel on Sky last night said the goalkeeper was incredibly lucky, even after reading the letter of the law. www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/swansea-stoke-niall-ennis-goal-9217874Having seen the letter of the law, I don't think the correct decision was made. I guess there's a measure of ambiguity for a weird situation like this, but I would say that the goalkeeper was in control of the ball and made a positive action, even if he wouldn't have done that if he realised Ennis was there. I don't know how you can commit a foul passively. It's just a goalkeeping error. Imagine player is skipping backwards or sideways without looking where he’s going and inadvertently barges into the goalkeeper as he’s about to throw it out, causing him to drop the ball. That’s a “passive” challenge on the keeper while he has the ball and would be given as a foul every time. That’s the principle applied to the Ennis incident, it’s just much less of a clear-cut case. I'm not sure that's the right analogy. Ennis made contact with the ball, not the goalkeeper's hand, so I don't see where there's a foul. The goalkeeper effectively threw the ball to Ennis, which has been complicated by the close proximity. The goalkeeper was in control of the ball up until the point he wasn't - which was when he fucked up an attempted throw. |
|
|
|
Post by Glory Hunter on Apr 11, 2024 21:21:33 GMT
It really was a borderline decision. If Ennis getting up from the floor causes his head to inadvertently dislodge the ball it's a foul. If the keeper knocks the ball against Ennis's head causing it to be dislodged then it's not. Ennis was getting up and the keeper did knock into him so where on balance do you put the cause. I would have given a goal but not surprised to see the keeper get the benefit of the doubt. Fair assessment. To chuck in an opinion, LOAF says challenges the goalkeeper...... So when does getting up off the floor oblivious to where the goalkeeper is and what they are doing become a 'challenge'? Being on the field of play isn't an offence so, standing up after falling over shouldn't be deemed an offence. There's a big argument to suggest that a challenge on the goalkeeper has to be deliberate, standing up in the way that Ennis did (not aggressively) seems just an innocent thing to do after being on the floor....... does he have to stay in the floor for a set time, no because thats a stupid thing to do. For me LOAF doesn't cover this type of incident, as it does many other situations, so play should continue as no foul/infringement has occurred. Spot on. It’s a goal. The ref bottled it and was crap all game, the immediate award of a pen for a foul a yard outside the box confirms that. There are 4 officials at a game. Might the twat have considered consulting the other 3 first. We were still awful, but this kind of officiating does not help. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 11, 2024 21:27:15 GMT
Imagine player is skipping backwards or sideways without looking where he’s going and inadvertently barges into the goalkeeper as he’s about to throw it out, causing him to drop the ball. That’s a “passive” challenge on the keeper while he has the ball and would be given as a foul every time. That’s the principle applied to the Ennis incident, it’s just much less of a clear-cut case. I'm not sure that's the right analogy. Ennis made contact with the ball, not the goalkeeper's hand, so I don't see where there's a foul. The goalkeeper effectively threw the ball to Ennis, which has been complicated by the close proximity. The goalkeeper was in control of the ball up until the point he wasn't - which was when he fucked up an attempted throw. Ok so not barged into but inadvertently elbowed the ball out of his hand. |
|
|
|
Post by cokecystfit on Apr 11, 2024 21:30:54 GMT
It really was a borderline decision. If Ennis getting up from the floor causes his head to inadvertently dislodge the ball it's a foul. If the keeper knocks the ball against Ennis's head causing it to be dislodged then it's not. Ennis was getting up and the keeper did knock into him so where on balance do you put the cause. I would have given a goal but not surprised to see the keeper get the benefit of the doubt. Fair assessment. To chuck in an opinion, LOAF says challenges the goalkeeper...... So when does getting up off the floor oblivious to where the goalkeeper is and what they are doing become a 'challenge'? Being on the field of play isn't an offence so, standing up after falling over shouldn't be deemed an offence. There's a big argument to suggest that a challenge on the goalkeeper has to be deliberate, standing up in the way that Ennis did (not aggressively) seems just an innocent thing to do after being on the floor....... does he have to stay in the floor for a set time, no because thats a stupid thing to do. For me LOAF doesn't cover this type of incident, as it does many other situations, so play should continue as no foul/infringement has occurred. Yep. It's a goalkeeping error. It's the same scenario as the ball being dislodged by one of his own players or even the post. |
|
|
|
Post by cokecystfit on Apr 11, 2024 21:32:47 GMT
I'm not sure that's the right analogy. Ennis made contact with the ball, not the goalkeeper's hand, so I don't see where there's a foul. The goalkeeper effectively threw the ball to Ennis, which has been complicated by the close proximity. The goalkeeper was in control of the ball up until the point he wasn't - which was when he fucked up an attempted throw. Ok so not barged into but inadvertently elbowed the ball out of his hand. That would probably be chalked off for handball. In this case there was no challenge, never mind a foul. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 11, 2024 21:40:33 GMT
Ok so not barged into but inadvertently elbowed the ball out of his hand. That would probably be chalked off for handball. In this case there was no challenge, never mind a foul. Oh yeah 🤣 his hip then ffs, surely you can see the point I’m making. It’s possible to do it inadvertently, and if the goalie is in control of the ball it counts as a “challenge” unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by cokecystfit on Apr 11, 2024 21:45:34 GMT
That would probably be chalked off for handball. In this case there was no challenge, never mind a foul. Oh yeah 🤣 his hip then ffs, surely you can see the point I’m making. It’s possible to do it inadvertently, and if the goalie is in control of the ball it counts as a “challenge” unfortunately. I can see the point you're making, I just disagree. You can tell how 'in control of the ball' he was by the way he was flapping around after losing the ball. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 11, 2024 21:49:43 GMT
Oh yeah 🤣 his hip then ffs, surely you can see the point I’m making. It’s possible to do it inadvertently, and if the goalie is in control of the ball it counts as a “challenge” unfortunately. I can see the point you're making, I just disagree. You can tell how 'in control of the ball' he was by the way he was flapping around after losing the ball. I mean I’m not 100% on it myself, it’s a tricky one. I was just responding to the suggestion that it’s not possible to commit a foul “passively” |
|
