Non-Boro Football

[Old Codger 1,925]

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 🙂

[Aphex_Boro 636]

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 

[TeaCider24 5,229]

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.

[Brunners 5,183]

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.

[Borodane 3,455]

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. 

[TeaCider24 5,229]

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.

[Mr_Maz 1,412]

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. 

 

[wilsoncgp 6,168]

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.

[boro-unger 2,379]

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.

[Borodane 3,455]

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.

[TeaCider24 5,229]

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 December 3, 2021 by TeaCider24

[MMC 789]

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.

[Denzel Zanzibar 3,653]

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

[Borodane 3,455]

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.

[boro-unger 2,379]

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