Challenging Goalkeepers (Split)

[egg]

21 minutes ago, TWar said:

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

Nor did one of their players. He dropped it, nothing to do with their player. 

The point on our defenders is that someone said that Doherty must have been playing Fraser not the ball cos he had his back to him. Our defender also had his back to him. The point being that having your back to a player doesn't mean that you're playing the man not the ball. Simple point to anyone who has any understanding of how to play the game. 

[Toadhall Saint]

Argue about anything you lot.

[Turkish]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Nor did one of their players. He dropped it, nothing to do with their player. 

The point on our defenders is that someone said that Doherty must have been playing Fraser not the ball cos he had his back to him. Our defender also had his back to him. The point being that having your back to a player doesn't mean that you're playing the man not the ball. Simple point to anyone who has any understanding of how to play the game. 

Interesting that those arguing it was definitely a foul, Doherty made no attempt to play the ball, using his back being to Forster as their "proof" are the stattos and aintclever, who when it comes to any subject on here just backs whatever decision has been made, he is the Peter Walton of this forum.

[Whitey Grandad]

26 minutes ago, egg said:

Nor did one of their players. He dropped it, nothing to do with their player. 

The point on our defenders is that someone said that Doherty must have been playing Fraser not the ball cos he had his back to him. Our defender also had his back to him. The point being that having your back to a player doesn't mean that you're playing the man not the ball. Simple point to anyone who has any understanding of how to play the game. 

What on earth are you smoking? Doherty jumped backwards into Forster. He wasn't just standing there admiring the crowd.

The rest of your post just doesn't make sense.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

What on earth are you smoking? Doherty jumped backwards into Forster. He wasn't just standing there admiring the crowd.

The rest of your post just doesn't make sense.

Sad that you have to get arsey when someone has a different view to you. It wasn't a foul. You think otherwise. I'll end the discussion there mate. Enjoy your afternoon. 

[aintforever]

18 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Interesting that those arguing it was definitely a foul, Doherty made no attempt to play the ball, using his back being to Forster as their "proof" are the stattos and aintclever, who when it comes to any subject on here just backs whatever decision has been made, he is the Peter Walton of this forum.

Maybe Doherty was trying to score with his back and Fraser just happened to be in the way.

[Whitey Grandad]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Sad that you have to get arsey when someone has a different view to you. It wasn't a foul. You think otherwise. I'll end the discussion there mate. Enjoy your afternoon. 

I wasn't getting arsey, I was expressing disbelief. I thought I was being polite

I get arsey when somebody posts nonsense.

Always a pleasure having a discussion with you. Have a good day

[Klaus Schwab]

Massive shout out to Forster for falling like an 800 year old oak every time he caught the ball. 

 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

I look forward to the “right decision” merchants backing the referee when we have a goal disallowed for a soft as shite challenge on a keeper. 

[Alan Sugarfree]

18 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I look forward to the “right decision” merchants backing the referee when we have a goal disallowed for a soft as shite challenge on a keeper. 

Given our fractious relationship with VAR last season, I’m delighted we seem to have got the rub of the green yesterday. Those occasions don’t happen too often for us so take the wins where you can. 

[Dark Munster]

8 hours ago, Turkish said:

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. 

Doesn't matter if it's deliberate or accidental. He collided with FF who had his hands on the ball. No goal according to the rules.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

5 hours ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Argue about anything you lot.

No we don't! 🙂

I'm in the it was a foul camp, but that FF didn't have the control over it, he should have. Super finish though.

[Toadhall Saint]

3 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

No we don't! 🙂

I'm in the it was a foul camp, but that FF didn't have the control over it, he should have. Super finish though.

I’m in the it went for us so I’m not shouting about it camp. Can’t be bothered to debate it endlessly just to try to convince someone on an Internet forum that I’m right. I mean what a page or so and has anyone changed their minds? Didn’t think so (awaits the normal “I have” from the joker in the pack 😉 ).

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I look forward to the “right decision” merchants backing the referee when we have a goal disallowed for a soft as shite challenge on a keeper. 

It is never the right decison if it goes against us.

[Dark Munster]

6 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

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.

Who cares? I'd rather he drop the ball after a clear foul than do a Boruc.

[Dark Munster]

9 hours 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. 

I only saw it on my stream. Given that they are using thicker lines now I was surprised it was offside. Not that I'm complaining of course!

 

[saintadjg]

7 hours 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?

That's one of the dumbest comments I've seen on here.. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

19 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

I’m in the it went for us so I’m not shouting about it camp. Can’t be bothered to debate it endlessly just to try to convince someone on an Internet forum that I’m right. I mean what a page or so and has anyone changed their minds? Didn’t think so (awaits the normal “I have” from the joker in the pack 😉 ).

I changed my mind from the first time I saw it, when I thought FF had made a right ricket of it. It took a couple of replays for me on that one.  🙂

[egg]

1 hour ago, saintadjg said:

That's one of the dumbest comments I've seen on here.. 

I agree entirely - saying that someone is playing the keeper not the ball because he has his back to him is very dumb. That was my point. 

[niceandfriendly]

You're not allowed to jump back first into the keeper's hands when he's holding the ball with both. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

It's fine to hate Forster, but pretending it's not a foul to try and justify that hatred just makes you look really f*cking stupid.

[niceandfriendly]

The Kane offside one was harsh, incredibly tight. But after Adam's disallowed "offside" goal at Old Trafford last season I'd have been very upset if the Kane one was given. Can understand their frustration on that one. Certainly not the foul on FF though jesus.

[CB Fry]

3 hours ago, niceandfriendly said:

You're not allowed to jump back first into the keeper's hands when he's holding the ball with both. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

It's fine to hate Forster, but pretending it's not a foul to try and justify that hatred just makes you look really f*cking stupid.

You'll have to show me at what point Forster is "holding the ball with both hands".

[egg]

3 hours ago, niceandfriendly said:

You're not allowed to jump back first into the keeper's hands when he's holding the ball with both. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

It's fine to hate Forster, but pretending it's not a foul to try and justify that hatred just makes you look really f*cking stupid.

The ball was in the air and the keeper and player were both going towards the ball. The keeper dropped it and the players touched. The player had his back to play to avoid a smack in the face.

People see it differently, but no need to be a cock about it.

[Mosin]

28 minutes ago, egg said:

The ball was in the air and the keeper and player were both going towards the ball. The keeper dropped it and the players touched. The player had his back to play to avoid a smack in the face.

People see it differently, but no need to be a cock about it.

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/competitions/premier-league/12505656/ref-watch-should-spurs-goals-have-stood  looks like he catches it and is under control and bringing it towards his chest till it gets popped out the bottom.. the player caused the goalkeeper to drop it...... goalkeeper only needs to touch the ball even with 1 hand to be classed as in control.

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Mosin said:

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/competitions/premier-league/12505656/ref-watch-should-spurs-goals-have-stood  looks like he catches it and is under control and bringing it towards his chest till it gets popped out the bottom.. the player caused the goalkeeper to drop it...... goalkeeper only needs to touch the ball even with 1 hand to be classed as in control.

Cheers, interesting discussion on there and it shows differences of opinion on it. Some call foul, others weak goal keeping. Either way, we got the call, so all good. 

[Turkish]

35 minutes ago, egg said:

Cheers, interesting discussion on there and it shows differences of opinion on it. Some call foul, others weak goal keeping. Either way, we got the call, so all good. 

Interesting that the two ex-players think it's not a foul and weak goalkeeping, but the ex-ref thinks it's a foul. Which seems to be consistent with the character profile of the differing opinions on here.

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Interesting that the two ex-players think it's not a foul and weak goalkeeping, but the ex-ref thinks it's a foul. Which seems to be consistent with the character profile of the differing opinions on here.

Refs have a better understanding of the rules than players.

[Dman]

7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Refs have a better understanding of the rules than players.

That doesn’t mean they have a better interpretation of the rules though. 

[Mosin]

1 minute ago, Dman said:

That doesn’t mean they have a better interpretation of the rules though. 

The goalkeeping rule is pretty clearly worded...

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air

A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Mosin said:

The goalkeeping rule is pretty clearly worded...

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air

A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

In this case Doherty was clearly going for the ball. Forster then moves towards him. Are you saying its a foul when a keepers own movement, combined with the momentum of both players, causes them to come into contact? 

[Billy the Kidd]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

In this case Doherty was clearly going for the ball. Forster then moves towards him. Are you saying its a foul when a keepers own movement, combined with the momentum of both players, causes them to come into contact? 

Correct, that is technically a foul. 

I don’t like the rule either, but in context it is a foul even if Doherty went for the ball as Fraser had the ball when it got knocked out of his control. 

Same as Romeu v Villa last season. In fact that was even worse as their keeper actually dropped the ball onto Romeu and it went in. At least I think that was how it happened. 

For me, under the rules that are followed, it was a foul. So I think this debate is more so about rules being fit for purpose opposed to if it was a foul or not. 

[Mosin]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

In this case Doherty was clearly going for the ball. Forster then moves towards him. Are you saying its a foul when a keepers own movement, combined with the momentum of both players, causes them to come into contact? 

If it causes the goalkeeper to drop the ball yes.. you cant challnage the goalkeeper if he is in control of the ball. KS got a free kick the other day because he had a finger on the ball and a player nicked it from under his finger...

I dont agree with it.. just want to say that

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Billy the Kidd said:

Correct, that is technically a foul. 

I don’t like the rule either, but in context it is a foul even if Doherty went for the ball as Fraser had the ball when it got knocked out of his control. 

Same as Romeu v Villa last season. In fact that was even worse as their keeper actually dropped the ball onto Romeu and it went in. At least I think that was how it happened. 

For me, under the rules that are followed, it was a foul. So I think this debate is more so about rules being fit for purpose opposed to if it was a foul or not. 

 

1 minute ago, Mosin said:

If it causes the goalkeeper to drop the ball yes.. you cant challnage the goalkeeper if he is in control of the ball. KS got a free kick the other day because he had a finger on the ball and a player nicked it from under his finger...

I dont agree with it.. just want to say that

Cheers and cheers. I think the issue is less about the rules, but when the goalkeeper is challenged - is it from the initial movement from Doherty or the result of the subsequent momentum from both players? In that clip that mosin posted up, the opinion of both ex players was that it was a fair attempt by Doherty and no foul. Its academic now of course as we got the call, but this place will be interesting if/when a similar call rules out a goal for us. 

[Dman]

5 minutes ago, Mosin said:

If it causes the goalkeeper to drop the ball yes.. you cant challnage the goalkeeper if he is in control of the ball. KS got a free kick the other day because he had a finger on the ball and a player nicked it from under his finger...

I dont agree with it.. just want to say that

In my opinion Forster dropped (or started to drop) the ball in anticipation of the contact, which was minimal. 

It was soft, I can see why it was given, but also wouldn’t have any complaints had it not been given.

[Billy the Kidd]

24 minutes ago, egg said:

 

Cheers and cheers. I think the issue is less about the rules, but when the goalkeeper is challenged - is it from the initial movement from Doherty or the result of the subsequent momentum from both players? In that clip that mosin posted up, the opinion of both ex players was that it was a fair attempt by Doherty and no foul. Its academic now of course as we got the call, but this place will be interesting if/when a similar call rules out a goal for us. 

No worries. Yeah I’d be pissed as I was last season with Romeu, and pleased it went for us this time. 

The timing of when the challenge started ie the jump is irrelevant though, it is about the contact and if the keeper has the ball. Fraser did have it even if it was soft how it came out of his hands. 

[Dark Munster]

10 hours ago, Dman said:

In my opinion Forster dropped (or started to drop) the ball in anticipation of the contact, which was minimal. 

It was soft, I can see why it was given, but also wouldn’t have any complaints had it not been given.

Given Romeu's much more dubious disallowed goal due to goalie infringement, I would've been very pissed off it it had been given.

On the other hand I wouldn't have any complaints if Kane's goal had been ruled onside. Yes I know Ings and Adams have had similar ones chalked off for us, but the drawn lines are supposed to be thicker now.

[Whitey Grandad]

23 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

Given Romeu's much more dubious disallowed goal due to goalie infringement, I would've been very pissed off it it had been given.

On the other hand I wouldn't have any complaints if Kane's goal had been ruled onside. Yes I know Ings and Adams have had similar ones chalked off for us, but the drawn lines are supposed to be thicker now.

They are. It was very tight and it could have gone either way but rules is rules. He was more offside than he was on.

[tajjuk]

It's a foul because precedent always says that is a foul, if that is two outfield players then it's not a foul but stuff like that on the keeper is always a foul. As they said in the commentary, Schmeical had a finger on the foul and was deemed in control of it and therefore fouled, Forster fully caught it and got barged into, there are no doubts about that.

Should he have probably not dropped it? Yes, but that is irrelevant, actions like that on Keepers holding the ball are always fouls, always have been. 

[tajjuk]

12 hours ago, egg said:

In this case Doherty was clearly going for the ball. Forster then moves towards him. Are you saying its a foul when a keepers own movement, combined with the momentum of both players, causes them to come into contact? 

Is not therefore making a challenge for the ball and if Forster has it under control as per the rules, it is therefore a foul. If Doherty is making a move to get the ball in a 50/50 situation and the keeper gets there first and thus has control of it, then surely its a foul. 

[trousers]

Maybe there's more than one opinion on this rather than a black and white 'right,' or 'wrong' interpretation?

Happy New Year fellow humans!

[East Kent Saint]

I remember the disallowed George Best goal , keeper held the ball out on one hand ready to kick the ball so Best headed it off his hand and put it in the net ! Goal disallowed though . No real contact with the keeper but not given.

Edited 1 January, 2022 by East Kent Saint

[CB Fry]

5 hours ago, East Kent Saint said:

I remember the disallowed George Best goal , keeper held the ball out on one hand ready to kick the ball so Best headed it off his hand and put it in the net ! Goal disallowed though . No real contact with the keeper but not given.

But the Gary Crosby/Andy Dibble one was given. 

Edited 1 January, 2022 by CB Fry

[egg]

8 hours ago, trousers said:

Maybe there's more than one opinion on this rather than a black and white 'right,' or 'wrong' interpretation?

Happy New Year fellow humans!

Yep. This clip highlights that. https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/competitions/premier-league/12505656/ref-watch-should-spurs-goals-have-stood  

Happy New year back to you. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

[Turkish]

This one stood