Challenging Goalkeepers (Split)

[Whitey Grandad]

49 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

He really wasn’t. 
 

You’re so one eyed every week it’s ridiculous. The worst decision by a mile was over ruling their goal when Forster went juggling. The ref was poor, but he wasn’t biased in any way shape or from. 

Me? One eyed? I think you’ll find that in the past I have consistently supported referees against popular opinion. That was a foul on Forster. The sort that get given in any game these days. I didn’t say that the ref was biased, I said that there was a bias in his decisions which may have been subconscious. We see it often enough when a big club is involved.

1 hour ago, egg said:

The only duff decision was no card for Reguilon. Everything else was a fair call. The pen was a pen and all cards were cards imo. There's an argument that Salisu first yellow was soft but he was piling in everywhere before that and I suspect that card was for an accumulation as much as that particular foul. His sending off had everything to do with his stupidity, and nothing to do with bias. 

They had at least one good goal ruled out. No bias there. 

They had more free kicks because we committed more fouls. Nothing more sinister than that for me. 

Yes, Salisu was piling in but he was doing so fairly. You’re right about his first card, that was for ‘persistent misconduct’ and Taylor held up three fingers to Salisu. We all thought he was hard done by.

’At least one good goal’

Which one was that? Kane was offside and Forster was fouled.

49 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

[egg]

33 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Me? One eyed? I think you’ll find that in the past I have consistently supported referees against popular opinion. That was a foul on Forster. The sort that get given in any game these days. I didn’t say that the ref was biased, I said that there was a bias in his decisions which may have been subconscious. We see it often enough when a big club is involved.

Yes, Salisu was piling in but he was doing so fairly. You’re right about his first card, that was for ‘persistent misconduct’ and Taylor held up three fingers to Salisu. We all thought he was hard done by.

’At least one good goal’

Which one was that? Kane was offside and Forster was fouled.

Forster dropped the ball. No foul. 

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Forster dropped the ball. No foul. 

I’m struggling to see how anyone can think it was a foul. If that has been us having a goal disallowed there would be uproar about biased refs favouring the big clubs. It was poor goalkeeping and we got lucky simple as 

[The Kraken]

4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I’m struggling to see how anyone can think it was a foul. If that has been us having a goal disallowed there would be uproar about biased refs favouring the big clubs. It was poor goalkeeping and we got lucky simple as 

It’s a disgrace that was given as a foul. Even worse that VAR didn’t get it.

I like Fraser and I think he’s our best glovesman this season, but that was dreadful and we really got away with one.

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

It’s a disgrace that was given as a foul. Even worse that VAR didn’t get it.

I like Fraser and I think he’s our best glovesman this season, but that was dreadful and we really got away with one.

Agreed. Well done on using glovesman too 👏👏👍

[CB Fry]

2 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

It’s a disgrace that was given as a foul. Even worse that VAR didn’t get it.

I like Fraser and I think he’s our best glovesman this season, but that was dreadful and we really got away with one.

I think if the Ref had given it VAR wouldn't have overturned it. And I think the ref didn't give it because it just looked like a clumsy mess so there must have been a foul. Probably more plausible in that split second than "yep, their keeper has just dropped it and backheeled it into his own net".

[The Kraken]

Just now, Turkish said:

Agreed. Well done on using glovesman too 👏👏👍

Of course, gloveswoman and glovesperson are equally valid descriptions 👍

[The Kraken]

3 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

I think if the Ref had given it VAR wouldn't have overturned it. And I think the ref didn't give it because it just looked like a clumsy mess so there must have been a foul. Probably more plausible in that split second than "yep, their keeper has just dropped it and backheeled it into his own net".

Lovely finish though…

[The Kraken]

F365 forum has got this poll running on whether it was a foul or not. Mostly neutral fans. I’m surprised so many think it’s a foul but there we go

[TWar]

Their player jumped directly into our keeper with no attempt to get the ball, exclusively making contact with the player, and caused him to drop it. Its a foul every day of the week.

Edited 29 December, 2021 by TWar

[Dark Munster]

1 hour ago, TWar said:

Their player jumped directly into our keeper with no attempt to get the ball, exclusively making contact with the player, and caused him to drop it. Its a foul every day of the week.

Yes, FF dropped the ball after their player collided with him. In that situation the benefit of the doubt is always given to the goalie, accidental or not. For example, Romeu had a goal disallowed for a far more minor goalkeeper infringement (can't remember which match).

On the other hand Kane's goal looked onside to me. That's the one Spurs should be complaining about.

[egg]

3 hours ago, TWar said:

Their player jumped directly into our keeper with no attempt to get the ball, exclusively making contact with the player, and caused him to drop it. Its a foul every day of the week.

I knew we could rely on you to get it wrong. 

[Turkish]

8 hours ago, The Kraken said:

F365 forum has got this poll running on whether it was a foul or not. Mostly neutral fans. I’m surprised so many think it’s a foul but there we go

There aren’t many neutrals when it comes to spurs though. Either you’re a spurs fans or you hate them

Edited 29 December, 2021 by Turkish

[aintforever]

5 hours ago, TWar said:

Their player jumped directly into our keeper with no attempt to get the ball, exclusively making contact with the player, and caused him to drop it. Its a foul every day of the week.

This.

[The Cat]

I think what did for Doherty was jumping with his back into Forster. If he'd have jumped the way he was originally facing and gone for the ball he might have got away with it.

I don't understand how someone so tall who has the advantage of being able to put his arms up tried to catch the ball the way he did. Just stick your hands up and catch it way above everyone else. It wasn't even difficult and if you want the kind of comparison people seem to enjoy on here then McCarthy would have dealt with it comfortably.

 

[Turkish]

21 minutes ago, aintforever said:

This.

We could rely on you to get it wrong as well.

Edited 29 December, 2021 by Turkish

[TWar]

Doherty wasn't even looking at the ball, the challenge was purely to make Forster drop it while claiming it in the air. Its a foul and always will and should be.

[trousers]

3 hours ago, egg said:

I knew we could rely on you to get it wrong. 

Why are human beings so obsessed with being 'right' or 'wrong'. Maybe both interpretations of the incident have merit? Let's be more tolerant of other people's views, I say, and usher in world peace in the process. 

Love Trousers 

(Other forms of legware are available)

Edited 29 December, 2021 by trousers

[Turkish]

14 minutes ago, TWar said:

Doherty wasn't even looking at the ball, the challenge was purely to make Forster drop it while claiming it in the air. Its a foul and always will and should be.

That isn't what happened at all.

[TWar]

19 minutes ago, Turkish said:

That isn't what happened at all.

Oh yeah, look how he only has eyes for the ball when he makes contact. Absolutely didn't throw himself into Forster while facing in completely the wrong direction.

[Teddeer]

Just to balance this up we were really hard done by in the incident in the first half where Taylor gave an extremely soft free kick to them for a nothing challenge on Kane by Bednarek. It was never a foul but, from the free kick, Spurs worked the ball into our box and Salisu brought down Son for the penalty and his second yellow. Watch it back and it was never a foul by Bednarek and Taylor's poor officiating caused us to lose a player, a goal and possibly the chance of taking all 3 points. If Doherty's 'foul' on Fraser wasn't then nor was Bednarek's 'foul' on Kane. Swings and roundabouts not all 'poor Spurs'.

[Turkish]

11 minutes ago, TWar said:

Oh yeah, look how he only has eyes for the ball when he makes contact. Absolutely didn't throw himself into Forster while facing in completely the wrong direction.

Your freeze frame photos prove nothing. Trying to say he wasn't looking at the ball only jumping backing into Forster is laughable and embarassing. 

Edited 29 December, 2021 by Turkish

[Matthew Le God]

19 minutes ago, TWar said:

Oh yeah, look how he only has eyes for the ball when he makes contact. Absolutely didn't throw himself into Forster while facing in completely the wrong direction.

 

9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Your freeze frame photos prove nothing. Trying to say he wasn't looking at the ball only jumping backing into Forster is laughable and embarassing. 

Watch from 2:10 

https://youtu.be/vT_4rFJ8Nu4?t=131

Is it embarrassing to spell embarrassing incorrectly? 😉😇

Edited 29 December, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, TWar said:

Doherty wasn't even looking at the ball, the challenge was purely to make Forster drop it while claiming it in the air. Its a foul and always will and should be.

I can’t see why anyone would think it wasn’t a foul. Doherty jumped into Forster and wasn’t even looking at the ball. He made contact with Forster’s hands first which is ‘man before ball’. There is even a case to be made that the ball was knocked out of Forster’s hands by Doherty’s arm, which would have been handball.

[Whitey Grandad]

6 hours ago, Dark Munster said:

On the other hand Kane's goal looked onside to me. That's the one Spurs should be complaining about.

We were sitting in the Kingsland in line with our defence and at the time Kane looked offside to me. In days before VAR the flag would have gone up straight away and that would have settled the matter. Even with the technology he’s offside. 

[Turkish]

Here is is my freeze frame evidence he was looking at the ball and not only jumping into Forster whilst backing into him to stop him catching it. 

Edited 29 December, 2021 by Turkish

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

We were sitting in the Kingsland in line with our defence and at the time Kane looked offside to me. In days before VAR the flag would have gone up straight away and that would have settled the matter. Even with the technology he’s offside. 

Under the rules he was offside and given that we had one disallowed for Ings sleeve being offside last season it was the right call, although the argument still stands about which part of the body should the decision be made on.

[Matthew Le God]

@Turkish He is jumping backwards into Forster. Your screenshot even shows that!

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

@Turkish He is jumping backwards into Forster. Your screenshot even shows that!

No it doesn't. You're talking Utter nonsense as usual. You stattos have probably never jumped to head a ball in your life so i wouldn't expect you to get it.

Edited 29 December, 2021 by Turkish

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

@Turkish He is jumping backwards into Forster. Your screenshot even shows that!

 

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

No it doesn't. You're talking Utter nonsense as usual. 

Embarrassing, or for you perhaps I should say... embarassing! 😉🙄😇

1) In your screenshot he has his back to Forster

2) In your screenshot he is jumping

3) Play the video I linked to on a little further and he bumps into Forster

 

 

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

Embarrassing, or for you perhaps I should say... embarassing! 😉🙄😇

1) In your screenshot he has his back to Forster

2) In your screenshot he is jumping

3) Play the video I linked to on a little further and he bumps into Forster

 

 

Why does it matter if he had his back to Forster or not? Like i said, i doubt you've ever tried to win a header in match in your life. He was clearly jumping, eyes on the ball, using arms to leverage to get to head the ball. laughable people saying he was not trying to get the ball and deliberately fouled Forster. 

[Dman]

I think it was a soft and we got away with one. I don’t think there would be many complaints (and certainly wouldn’t have been over turned on VAR) if it wasn’t given as a foul. However, it just shows how much protection keepers are given in the modern game. It’s ridiculous really. 

For me, the contact was fairly minimal and a keeper of Forster’s stature should be cleaning everything out there. Having watched it a few times, it looks like he dropped the ball whilst anticipating the contact from the attacker. I’d say it was poor keeping rather than a blatant foul. 

There is another part to this, there’s an argument that the only reason there is contact, is because Valery bends over causing Doherty to almost go over the top of him.

I think we got away with the offside as well, very harsh decision in my book. The rule really needs to change, Kane has gained no advantage there even if his armpit is slightly ahead of Bednerak. 
 

No complaints about the red card, first yellow was for a couple of late tackles second a clear, clumsy foul. 

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, Dman said:

I think it was a soft and we got away with one. I don’t think there would be many complaints (and certainly wouldn’t have been over turned on VAR) if it wasn’t given as a foul. However, it just shows how much protection keepers are given in the modern game. It’s ridiculous really. 

For me, the contact was fairly minimal and a keeper of Forster’s stature should be cleaning everything out there. Having watched it a few times, it looks like he dropped the ball whilst anticipating the contact from the attacker. I’d say it was poor keeping rather than a blatant foul. 

There is another part to this, there’s an argument that the only reason there is contact, is because Valery bends over causing Doherty to almost go over the top of him.

I think we got away with the offside as well, very harsh decision in my book. The rule really needs to change, Kane has gained no advantage there even if his armpit is slightly ahead of Bednerak. 
 

No complaints about the red card, first yellow was for a couple of late tackles second a clear, clumsy foul. 

Yep that's how i saw it, why a keeper of Forsters size isn't claiming of clearing that above his head is bizarre, there is contact but it's minimal, we'd be fuming if the goal had been disallowed up the other end. It's laughable people trying to make out he deliberately fouled Forster and only looked at him, he attacked a ball coming in from the Spurs right whilst running in from the left, follows the flight of the ball all the way and anyone who has ever headed a ball in their life knows you cant just jump up like a Jack in the Box to get leverage and power, there will be a motion in your body to get the height and connection needed. Very lucky to get away with that. 

As for the offside under the rules and given we had at least one disallowed by a sleeve last season then it's the correct and consistent decision, would have been annoyed if the goal had stood.

[stevy777_x]

23 minutes ago, Dman said:

I think it was a soft and we got away with one. I don’t think there would be many complaints (and certainly wouldn’t have been over turned on VAR) if it wasn’t given as a foul. However, it just shows how much protection keepers are given in the modern game. It’s ridiculous really. 

For me, the contact was fairly minimal and a keeper of Forster’s stature should be cleaning everything out there. Having watched it a few times, it looks like he dropped the ball whilst anticipating the contact from the attacker. I’d say it was poor keeping rather than a blatant foul. 

There is another part to this, there’s an argument that the only reason there is contact, is because Valery bends over causing Doherty to almost go over the top of him.

I think we got away with the offside as well, very harsh decision in my book. The rule really needs to change, Kane has gained no advantage there even if his armpit is slightly ahead of Bednerak. 
 

No complaints about the red card, first yellow was for a couple of late tackles second a clear, clumsy foul. 

Let s all be honest, if we had a goal ruled out with that sort of marginal offside and by a nonnexistent foul on the opposition goalkeeper we would all be going bonkers on here and slating Taylor and VAR

[Mosin]

1 hour ago, Dman said:

I think it was a soft and we got away with one. I don’t think there would be many complaints (and certainly wouldn’t have been over turned on VAR) if it wasn’t given as a foul. However, it just shows how much protection keepers are given in the modern game. It’s ridiculous really. 

For me, the contact was fairly minimal and a keeper of Forster’s stature should be cleaning everything out there. Having watched it a few times, it looks like he dropped the ball whilst anticipating the contact from the attacker. I’d say it was poor keeping rather than a blatant foul. 

There is another part to this, there’s an argument that the only reason there is contact, is because Valery bends over causing Doherty to almost go over the top of him.

I think we got away with the offside as well, very harsh decision in my book. The rule really needs to change, Kane has gained no advantage there even if his armpit is slightly ahead of Bednerak. 
 

No complaints about the red card, first yellow was for a couple of late tackles second a clear, clumsy foul. 

Its not soft, you cant challange a keeper who has two hands on the ball, cant interpret the rule, its clear, your not allowed full stop ( you can untill he touches it with both hands though ), so yes its a foul and VAR should / would have likely ruled so as well, as it will be an obvious mistake..... As for offside, if its off, its off, i dont even agree that attackers get a " Margin of error " now, your either off or on...  he is offside more than a lot of disallowed goals last season when the margin of error was 0 and the tip of your nose was deemed off side. not the few inches they now currently get.

Edited 29 December, 2021 by Mosin

[egg]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

@Turkish He is jumping backwards into Forster. Your screenshot even shows that!

That makes as much sense as saying that Forster was jumping into him. They were both playing the ball which Forster dropped. Never a foul. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

Embarrassing, or for you perhaps I should say... embarassing! 😉🙄😇

1) In your screenshot he has his back to Forster

2) In your screenshot he is jumping

3) Play the video I linked to on a little further and he bumps into Forster

 

 

In that screenshot, our defender also had his back to the goal. Presumably that must mean he was also playing the keeper not the ball?

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, TWar said:

Oh yeah, look how he only has eyes for the ball when he makes contact. Absolutely didn't throw himself into Forster while facing in completely the wrong direction.

Exactly, clearly a foul. Fraser only drops it because some Spurs cunt has thrown himself into his body.

[egg]

55 minutes ago, stevy777_x said:

Let s all be honest, if we had a goal ruled out with that sort of marginal offside and by a nonnexistent foul on the opposition goalkeeper we would all be going bonkers on here and slating Taylor and VAR

Bingo, and some of those saying that they were never goals, were also complaining about Spurs bias. We got more rub of the green than they did. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Exactly, clearly a foul. Fraser only drops it because some Spurs cunt has thrown himself into his body.

Was our defender also fouling Forster being as he was also near him with his back to him? Assuming you've watched it, did he drop it before or after contact was made? 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Bingo, and some of those saying that they were never goals, were also complaining about Spurs bias. We got more rub of the green than they did. 

That’s what started the argument on this thread, the ridiculous notion that the referee was biased. Fuck me, we’re a provincial club that nobody really gives a shite about, why do people think the referees and administrators are always against us?

To me it was a 7/10 decision, most refs would have blown for the foul, occasionally one wouldn’t. Personally, I don’t want fouls given for that sort of shite, but that ship sailed years ago. The bloke hardly touched him, he should have held onto it regardless of whether it was a foul or not. As the great Sir Geoffrey would have said “my mum would have caught that in her pinny”. 

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Was our defender also fouling Forster being as he was also near him with his back to him? Assuming you've watched it, did he drop it before or after contact was made? 

Happened at he same time from what I saw, it's the sort of decision that goes in favour of the keeper 99 times out of 100. He's throwing himself into the keeper and turning his back.

[Mosin]

1 hour ago, stevy777_x said:

Let s all be honest, if we had a goal ruled out with that sort of marginal offside and by a nonnexistent foul on the opposition goalkeeper we would all be going bonkers on here and slating Taylor and VAR

we had tighter ones go against us last season, if it was given off this season it was more offside than most last season which only had to be 1 cm offside, now they get two inches, which the EPL them selfs said would have had 20 more goals last season.... https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12361221/whats-new-for-2021-22-var-thicker-lines-armpits-and-handball-rule-changes-for-new-season

 

"We've introduced the benefit of the doubt for the attacking player so where we have a really close offside situation, we will follow the same process as last year but now apply thicker broadcast lines.

"Effectively what we have done is given back 20 goals to the game that were deemed offside last season by using quite forensic scrutiny.

"So it's the toenails, the noses of players that were offside - they won't be offside now

If it was offside, it was by more than a cm that a lot of goals last season was given off for.. how much margin of error do you think the attacker should get over an entire back line? 5 inches? half a leg? day light between them?

 

[badgerx16]

Someone the size of FF should just come out and jump to catch the ball whilst totally cleaning out the attacking p!ayer, especially leading with his knee. Simple physics - conservation of momentum and the Spurs player gets a mahoosive headache.

Edited 29 December, 2021 by badgerx16

[Teddeer]

1 hour ago, stevy777_x said:

Let s all be honest, if we had a goal ruled out with that sort of marginal offside and by a nonnexistent foul on the opposition goalkeeper we would all be going bonkers on here and slating Taylor and VAR

As I said earlier Bednarek did not foul Kane when Taylor gave Spurs a very soft free kick which led to them getting the ball in the box for the Salisu tackle. So that poor decision cost us a player, a goal and a big percentage of our chance to win the game. Think the major decisions on the day that went against each side were about even.

[TWar]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

That makes as much sense as saying that Forster was jumping into him. They were both playing the ball which Forster dropped. Never a foul. 

Doherty didn't play the ball, he didn't touch the ball at all, he collided with the keeper who had two hands on the ball.

[TWar]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

In that screenshot, our defender also had his back to the goal. Presumably that must mean he was also playing the keeper not the ball?

Our defender didn't collide with the keeper causing him to drop it...

[egg]

12 minutes ago, TWar said:

Doherty didn't play the ball, he didn't touch the ball at all, he collided with the keeper who had two hands on the ball.

You're confusing playing and getting. He played the ball, fraser dropped it, they collided. I can't believe that little Doherty went looking for a collision with big Fraser - crazy notion! 

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

You're confusing playing and getting. He played the ball, fraser dropped it, they collided. I can't believe that little Doherty went looking for a collision with big Fraser - crazy notion! 

He played the ball with what? With his back after he had barged backwards into Forster. Before he got anywhere near touching the ball he had to go through Forster's hands, whcih is 'man before ball' very time. Forster had his hands on the ball first and that's what counts as being in control of the ball. Doherty jumped in blindly backwards with no idea of where the ball was. It was a foul yesterday and it's been a foul for as long as I can remember.

[Whitey Grandad]

53 minutes ago, egg said:

Was our defender also fouling Forster being as he was also near him with his back to him? Assuming you've watched it, did he drop it before or after contact was made? 

After. And he didn't drop it, it was knocked out of his hands.