Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Non-Boro Football


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, JonnyMFC said:

Every time you hear this? Im intrigued into exactly how often this is!

It is on my insomnia playlist along with about 200 others, so depends on how often it comes up in the shuffle and how often I am awake at 3.30 in the morning. All part of the fun 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Neverbefore

    1399

  • Borodane

    1350

  • Brunners

    1271

  • wilsoncgp

    1098

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Their is a fascinating article about the Boro in today’s Athletic... Nine championship games in 29 days.  Following a team in their maddest run ever.    Neil Warnock was on the pit

Centuries ago Villages had ducking stools whereby if the person drowned they were innocent and if they lived they were guilty and sentenced to death. Nowadays not much has changed sadly. Idiots postin

Thanks for all your thoughts and prayers. I probably shouldn’t have made things public, but I was at as very low ebb. It’s been a difficult year, not made better by COVID. Lockdown bucket lists aren’t

Posted Images

18 minutes ago, TeaCider24 said:

I assume most neutrals do, but Alan Nixon is calling it one of the most.controverial goals in Premier League history.

I honestly don't understand on what possible grounds it could have been ruled out on though?

He's a bit of an odd fella at the best of times in fairness 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Aphex_Boro said:

I honestly don't understand on what possible grounds it could have been ruled out on though?

He's a bit of an odd fella at the best of times in fairness 

He seems to think because he nearly blew for a non-existent foul, that the goal should be disallowed or the ref should be put before a tribunal and explain his actions.

He is a strange one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TeaCider24 said:

He seems to think because he nearly blew for a non-existent foul, that the goal should be disallowed or the ref should be put before a tribunal and explain his actions.

He is a strange one.

It's lucky the ref didn't blow the whistle till after the ball was in the net, cause IIRC if he'd have blown before the ball went in, I think it would have been disallowed regardless, I'm sure we've seen that happen before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you follow the rule book it was the refs fault. The rules specifically say that the goalkeeper has to be fully functional at all time for the game to be continued. It was Arsenals luck that the ref didn't see he was down injured and blew his whistle before the ball had gone in. It's the refs responsibility to stop play as soon as the keeper isn't functional. That is what makes it controversial. If a keeper is hurt while trying to stop the ball from going into the net ie. bangs his head against the post and the ball goes in then it's obviously a goal. But if the keeper is down hurt before the 2nd 3rd or whatever touch then the ref has to stop play. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Borodane said:

If you follow the rule book it was the refs fault. The rules specifically say that the goalkeeper has to be fully functional at all time for the game to be continued. It was Arsenals luck that the ref didn't see he was down injured and blew his whistle before the ball had gone in. It's the refs responsibility to stop play as soon as the keeper isn't functional. That is what makes it controversial. If a keeper is hurt while trying to stop the ball from going into the net ie. bangs his head against the post and the ball goes in then it's obviously a goal. But if the keeper is down hurt before the 2nd 3rd or whatever touch then the ref has to stop play. 

I can't see anything in the laws that says that.

It does say that an injured goalkeeper doesn't have to leave the field of play to receive treatment, and that in itself prevents play from restarting until the keeper has received treatment, but it doesn't say anything specific about goalkeeper injuries stopping play.

The ref has to stop play if they deem a player to be seriously injured, but I wouldn't class stepping on someone's heel as a serious injury.

Which I think is reinforced by the fact De Gea was up and about walking within a minute.

It also say the ref "allows play to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is only slightly injured" and if Fred had stepped on any other Man United player, I definitely think that would be deemed only a slight injury and waved on.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Arsenal scored before the ref blew the whistle, it's his responsibility to manage the game. He clearly wanted to stop it, as he indicated no goal to Smith-Rowe as soon as the ball went in to the net.  However the quick shot beat the refs decision and reaction time, therefore it's a goal.

Based on the rules you can't blame anyone in this situation. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see the problem with it personally, whatever the rules actually are, I feel like it should be a goal.

It's not a foul as its a challenge by his own player. It's not a head injury so it doesn't need immediate attention. And you're gonna have a hard time convincing me he's not making the most of that just to stop play anyway. Admittedly, he probably doesn't realise himself who's actually stood on his foot but note that by the time the shot hits the back of the net, there only seems to be one player who realises he's down and is asking for play to be stopped... the man who stood on his foot to begin with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Borodane said:

If you follow the rule book it was the refs fault. The rules specifically say that the goalkeeper has to be fully functional at all time for the game to be continued.

If that was the case, every keeper out there would just feign death and fall over whenever the ball was anywhere near their goal and every game would end 0-0 for all eternity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be bothered to sift through an english version of the rulebook, but I saw a link to the Danish version of the international rules and it specifically says, that the keeper at all times must be fully functional ie. not injured and if he is not then the ref must immediatly stop play. It would be odd if the rules aren't the same since they are international rules by IFAB. So yes, the ref should have stopped play, which they usually do whenever a keeper drops to the floor and looks injured. Had he blown before Rowe took the shot it wouldn't have stood. As it were the refereeing team looked lost and I imagine the VAR room came to the conclusion that the ref didn't stop play before they ball went in and no one can be blamed. It was just justice that it was a Man U player who injured him - but that was impossible for the ref to see in live. In short, the rules say he needs to stop the game when the keeper is injured. It happens all the time. How often do you see play continue with the keeper injured on the floor?

2 hours ago, boro-unger said:

If that was the case, every keeper out there would just feign death and fall over whenever the ball was anywhere near their goal and every game would end 0-0 for all eternity.

That's a bit of an overinterpretation considering keepers already have special attention when it comes to injuries. So they can already do that and get play stopped. I mean you sometimes get keepers that drop to the floor and the ref stops play. But they don't do that because the ref might not be able to blow the whistle in time. Just like you don't see many players feigning head injuries despite meaning the ref has to stop play immediatly in that instance too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The laws don't say that though.

Specifically, the English language version of the IFAB Laws of the Game that the Premier League will be using does not say that.

I''ve read every section which contains the word keeper or goalkeeper, all 128 instances, and it's not mentioned.

The referee did nothing wrong by not blowing because De Gea was feigning/exaggerating injury.

Edited by TeaCider24
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Borodane said:

I can't be bothered to sift through an english version of the rulebook, but I saw a link to the Danish version of the international rules and it specifically says, that the keeper at all times must be fully functional ie. not injured and if he is not then the ref must immediatly stop play. It would be odd if the rules aren't the same since they are international rules by IFAB. So yes, the ref should have stopped play, which they usually do whenever a keeper drops to the floor and looks injured. Had he blown before Rowe took the shot it wouldn't have stood. As it were the refereeing team looked lost and I imagine the VAR room came to the conclusion that the ref didn't stop play before they ball went in and no one can be blamed. It was just justice that it was a Man U player who injured him - but that was impossible for the ref to see in live. In short, the rules say he needs to stop the game when the keeper is injured. It happens all the time. How often do you see play continue with the keeper injured on the floor?

That's a bit of an overinterpretation considering keepers already have special attention when it comes to injuries. So they can already do that and get play stopped. I mean you sometimes get keepers that drop to the floor and the ref stops play. But they don't do that because the ref might not be able to blow the whistle in time. Just like you don't see many players feigning head injuries despite meaning the ref has to stop play immediatly in that instance too.

You absolutely see players fake head injuries, seems every game someone goes down clutching their face despite zero contact.

There's a preference and prioritisation to stop play when the keeper is injured, but no law stating it needs to happen. It's at the ref's discretion for exactly the reason we saw yesterday, to stop keepers from feigning injuries to break up opposition attacks.

Only person at fault is De Gea for thinking it was appropriate to hurl himself to the floor before the ball was even cleared.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Borodane said:

I can't be bothered to sift through an english version of the rulebook, but I saw a link to the Danish version of the international rules and it specifically says, that the keeper at all times must be fully functional ie. not injured and if he is not then the ref must immediatly stop play. It would be odd if the rules aren't the same since they are international rules by IFAB. So yes, the ref should have stopped play, which they usually do whenever a keeper drops to the floor and looks injured. Had he blown before Rowe took the shot it wouldn't have stood. As it were the refereeing team looked lost and I imagine the VAR room came to the conclusion that the ref didn't stop play before they ball went in and no one can be blamed. It was just justice that it was a Man U player who injured him - but that was impossible for the ref to see in live. In short, the rules say he needs to stop the game when the keeper is injured. It happens all the time. How often do you see play continue with the keeper injured on the floor?

That's a bit of an overinterpretation considering keepers already have special attention when it comes to injuries. So they can already do that and get play stopped. I mean you sometimes get keepers that drop to the floor and the ref stops play. But they don't do that because the ref might not be able to blow the whistle in time. Just like you don't see many players feigning head injuries despite meaning the ref has to stop play immediatly in that instance too.

We're going by the English version of the rules, not your crazy moon language

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MMC said:

You absolutely see players fake head injuries, seems every game someone goes down clutching their face despite zero contact.

But you don't see it EVERY time and players feigning death when the ball is in a dangerous area because the ref has to stop play as was suggested by boro-unger 🙂

I admit that the same discription about the keepers being fully functional is not present in the english wording of the IFAB rulebook. Strange that it's different in the Danish text.

It still doesn't change the fact that Arsenal got lucky, because if the ref had seen De Gea was down he would have blown the whistle immediatley.

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

But you don't see it EVERY time and players feigning death when the ball is in a dangerous area because the ref has to stop play as was suggested by boro-unger 🙂

 

I was exaggerating of course, but it would be like that if there was a rule that keepers had to be fully functional at all times

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Posts

    • What's the thought on that for Benzema then? I'm mostly confused that nobody is talking about the involvement of the Real Madrid player who attempts to play the ball. Surely the only way that the deflections and the unintentional nature of them matter is if the Real Madrid player that comes in for it actually gets a touch. If the ball makes it from Benzema back to Benzema without touching a single other Real Madrid player, how can he be offside? I thought offside was only possible if the ball is played from one player to another. The only meaningful touch then would be Konate's attempt to control the ball. It deflects off Allisson, Konate and Fabinho. It's in the middle of that, is it Valverde who attempts to get a touch?
    • With Craig Johns mentioning strikers who's contracts up next summer here's the full list according to transfermarkt, would take some from there for sure I'd have Shayne Lavery as a back up I thought he was a proper nuisance in all the games vs Blackpool 
    • Agree with what people have said about Gyokeres. As a career move we are better for him than Fulham. He remains my no.1 striker choice but all depends on his price tag. Would not want to pay over the odds for him on back of 1 good season.
    • I suppose the difference with the Muniz situation last season is that we could guarantee that Gyokeres will be first choice. He's not going to be daft enough to believe he's going to start ahead of Mitrovic.

×
×
  • Create New...