The Footie Thread

[Billysboots]

Its your opinion it was a farcical situation on Friday night, and that’s the point I’ve been trying to get across. The ref, VAR etc believe they got it right. The ball didn’t rebound up at speed into his forearm. In my opinion it made little difference in terms of control. I do think the rule is farcical but it’s application on Friday night was correct. It was a ‘good’ goal under the current rule, as stupid as the rule is.

Handball can be definitive, and if it isn’t you get situations like Friday night. If you make it a subjective decision you get bleating every time it becomes a contentious, subjective decision. How many times do we get a couple of days of bleating on here after a weekend? Almost every week.

Anyway, the Boro have got Spurs in the next round. UTB.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree! Had the hand not intervened that player either loses control of the ball or the closest United defender, Varane I think, has time to get a tackle/block in. The hand quite clearly allowed the Boro player to get an immediate cross in, which would not otherwise have been possible.

A handball in line with the current ruling? No. Integral in allowing the player to retain control? Absolutely - watch it again! As such, farcical. EDIT - and I mean the rule, not the application of it on Friday.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

 

[Hobbit]

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree! Had the hand not intervened that player either loses control of the ball or the closest United defender, Varane I think, has time to get a tackle/block in. The hand quite clearly allowed the Boro player to get an immediate cross in, which would not otherwise have been possible.

A handball in line with the current ruling? No. Integral in allowing the player to retain control? Absolutely - watch it again! As such, farcical. EDIT - and I mean the rule, not the application of it on Friday.

Yes we disagree. I don’t even agree with your belief he wouldn’t have had time to get the cross in. How do you know he wouldn’t have had time? Do you know how quickly he might have reacted? No you don’t. But, from your post, you say Varane would have got a tackle in. Would he? He might have slipped. He might have been abducted by aliens. You don’t know, you surmise. You’re guessing… educated guessing but still guessing.

Integral in allowing the player to retain control… he most definitely didn’t seek to retain control with his arm. If he had deliberately done so it would have been handball.

And I have watched it again, both last night and this morning. I think you’re wrong… and so did the ref, VAR, Keane and Wrighty. And I do think it’s in line with the current rule.

This comes back to why I believe the subjectivity needs taking out of it.

 

[Hobbit]

 

[RichA]

3-0
???

Ffs don't screw it up.

 

[Swango1980]

Yes we disagree. I don’t even agree with your belief he wouldn’t have had time to get the cross in. How do you know he wouldn’t have had time? Do you know how quickly he might have reacted? No you don’t. But, from your post, you say Varane would have got a tackle in. Would he? He might have slipped. He might have been abducted by aliens. You don’t know, you surmise. You’re guessing… educated guessing but still guessing.

Integral in allowing the player to retain control… he most definitely didn’t seek to retain control with his arm. If he had deliberately done so it would have been handball.

And I have watched it again, both last night and this morning. I think you’re wrong… and so did the ref, VAR, Keane and Wrighty. And I do think it’s in line with the current rule.

This comes back to why I believe the subjectivity needs taking out of it.

He might have slipped or got abducted by aliens? If you are prepared to accept those reasons seriously, then no player should ever be sent off for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. After all, aliens might stop the attacker at any moment

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Not sure anyone is making excuses for the United players. They should have won easily, and they didn't. That's on them. The manager said it, the pundits said it and most of the United fans I have heard have said it.

That doesn't mean you can't criticise a farcical incident if they occur.

But if they had scored like they should have done, the Boro goal wouldnt have been the issue it is/was.

 

[Billysboots]

Yes we disagree. I don’t even agree with your belief he wouldn’t have had time to get the cross in. How do you know he wouldn’t have had time? Do you know how quickly he might have reacted? No you don’t. But, from your post, you say Varane would have got a tackle in. Would he? He might have slipped. He might have been abducted by aliens. You don’t know, you surmise. You’re guessing… educated guessing but still guessing.

Integral in allowing the player to retain control… he most definitely didn’t seek to retain control with his arm. If he had deliberately done so it would have been handball.

And I have watched it again, both last night and this morning. I think you’re wrong… and so did the ref, VAR, Keane and Wrighty. And I do think it’s in line with the current rule.

This comes back to why I believe the subjectivity needs taking out of it.

No, the referee and VAR applied the (ludicrous) rule. I didn’t see the post match blurb, but read that Keane merely said the (ludicrous) rule was correctly applied. I’ve never said it wasn’t, merely that the ridiculous wording within the current rules allow a goal to be scored which right minded football fans seem to agree should not be allowed to stand within the rules. The co-commentator on Friday, Lee Dixon I believe, said as much himself.

Watch the replay again, Brian, from the camera angle on United’s right touch line. The first touch of the Boro player quite clearly does not bring the ball under control - it deflects it upwards, and it is only when it strikes the outstretched hand that the ball in back under control. If the hand isn’t there I find it really bizarre that you can argue the player doesn’t lose control - what other part of the body regains control of a ball bouncing upwards?

I’m not guessing at all - I’m looking at the incident and assessing what the likely outcome would be had ball not struck hand. And, disregarding an alien invasion, if there is a choice between loss of control, a defender recovering, and the Boro player bringing the ball under control sufficiently to allow him to square it to a team mate, the latter comes a distant third.

None of which, of course, alters the fact that United deserved absolutely everything they got.

 

[Billysboots]

But if they had scored like they should have done, the Boro goal wouldnt have been the issue it is/was.

Why not? If United had run out 10-1 winners the facts surrounding the Boro goal remain precisely the same. The ludicrous rule is an issue, regardless of the scoreline.

 

[Tashyboy]

OMG, shouldnt the direction of dislike be directed at the UTD players who missed the pens, sitters in open play and were just plain rubbish?
Stop trying to find an excuse for their loss, it was down to the players and them only. Everything else is just marginal. The players didn't want it and proved it.

Personally, and being a City fan am devastated Utd have gone out ??. But that handball ruling to allow that being a goal is a shocker. For me it has nowt to do with Utd fans looking for excuses ?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Personally, and being a City fan am devastated Utd have gone out ??. But that handball ruling to allow that being a goal is a shocker. For me it has nowt to do with Utd fans looking for excuses ?

Was the previous ruling ok? As going back to last March, when the Fulham goal was ruled out, people on here called that ruling ridiculous.?‍

 

[Billysboots]

Personally, and being a City fan am devastated Utd have gone out ??. But that handball ruling to allow that being a goal is a shocker. For me it has nowt to do with Utd fans looking for excuses ?

Thank you, Tash. I’m certainly not looking for excuses. I’ve never even remotely suggested that I am. If United can’t put away clear cut chances like those created on Friday, they can have no complaints about going out the way they did.

I’m angry about the Boro goal. But far angrier that we couldn’t win by converting our chances.

 

[Hobbit]

No, the referee and VAR applied the (ludicrous) rule. I didn’t see the post match blurb, but read that Keane merely said the (ludicrous) rule was correctly applied. I’ve never said it wasn’t, merely that the ridiculous wording within the current rules allow a goal to be scored which right minded football fans seem to agree should not be allowed to stand within the rules. The co-commentator on Friday, Lee Dixon I believe, said as much himself.

Watch the replay again, Brian, from the camera angle on United’s right touch line. The first touch of the Boro player quite clearly does not bring the ball under control - it deflects it upwards, and it is only when it strikes the outstretched hand that the ball in back under control. If the hand isn’t there I find it really bizarre that you can argue the player doesn’t lose control - what other part of the body regains control of a ball bouncing upwards?

I’m not guessing at all - I’m looking at the incident and assessing what the likely outcome would be had ball not struck hand. And, disregarding an alien invasion, if there is a choice between loss of control, a defender recovering, and the Boro player bringing the ball under control sufficiently to allow him to square it to a team mate, the latter comes a distant third.

None of which, of course, alters the fact that United deserved absolutely everything they got.

Watmore’s first touch doesn’t bring the ball under control, nor does the 2nd touch with the arm. A consequence of the ball hitting his arm means his next touch is to make the pass to Crooks. At that point of making the pass he is in control, not before, and he doesn’t control the ball with his arm.

If the ball hadn’t hit his arm when it bounced up, how much higher would it have gone? I believe not much higher, which suggests there wouldn’t be much time for either the keeper or defender to make much difference to the outcome. I believe he would still have had time to either cross to Crooks or shoot… you think differently. I don’t think my belief is bizarre but I do believe yours is… both wearing rose tinted glasses? And no I’m not going to watch it again. I’m happy with how I see it.

As for your 3 choices and subsequent assumption, it’s exactly that an assumption, nothing more. Is it correct? You assume it is but you don’t know it is.

I think the only think we agree on is the rule is appalling.

 

[Hobbit]

Thank you, Tash. I’m certainly not looking for excuses. I’ve never even remotely suggested that I am. If United can’t put away clear cut chances like those created on Friday, they can have no complaints about going out the way they did.

I’m angry about the Boro goal. But far angrier that we couldn’t win by converting our chances.

Angry about the rule or the goal? The goal is good under the current rule.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Oh gawd...

EDIT: This was when the 4th Forest goal was scored.

 

[Billysboots]

Angry about the rule or the goal? The goal is good under the current rule.

Stop splitting hairs, Brian.

 

[fundy]

Forest giving Leicester a proper hiding in the cup it seems

 

[Hobbit]

Stop splitting hairs, Brian.

Whoa, easy tiger! Methinks you’re too angry.

Utd were by far the better team but football isn’t a game of perfect. They were beaten, get over it.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Forest giving Leicester a proper hiding in the cup it seems

Thoroughly deserve their lead and it could/should have been more. If they can keep this momentum up I think they could come on the rails and be safely in the play off places. Looking very good today.

 

[Billysboots]

Watmore’s first touch doesn’t bring the ball under control, nor does the 2nd touch with the arm. A consequence of the ball hitting his arm means his next touch is to make the pass to Crooks. At that point of making the pass he is in control, not before, and he doesn’t control the ball with his arm.

If the ball hadn’t hit his arm when it bounced up, how much higher would it have gone? I believe not much higher, which suggests there wouldn’t be much time for either the keeper or defender to make much difference to the outcome. I believe he would still have had time to either cross to Crooks or shoot… you think differently. I don’t think my belief is bizarre but I do believe yours is… both wearing rose tinted glasses? And no I’m not going to watch it again. I’m happy with how I see it.

As for your 3 choices and subsequent assumption, it’s exactly that an assumption, nothing more. Is it correct? You assume it is but you don’t know it is.

I think the only think we agree on is the rule is appalling.

I think we’re going to have to draw a line under this as we’re never going to agree, but I am confused by the paragraph highlighted in bold.

At the point of crossing the ball he is in control of it. I agree. But you also say that, whilst not controlling the ball with his arm, a consequence of the ball striking his arm is that his next touch is the cross.

If he is in control of the ball immediately after it strikes his arm to the extent he can cross it, how was it brought under control if not by his arm? What am I missing? Are you suggesting that Watmore controlled the ball accidentally with his arm, rather than deliberately, and that this should be allowed?

EDIT: I’m listing my three assumptions using the balance of probabilities. I agree I don’t know they’re correct, but I do think they’re reasonable based on what I’ve seen. We’ll just have to agree to differ.