Countryfox Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 It hasn't really been highlighted but don't you think that giant carrot playing in goal for Villa should have been booked for flooring Dyer ? He damn near took his head off and if you say he was going for the ball that would be stretching it. Its something that happens a lot and keepers seem to be able to get away with it .... to me thats (very) dangerous play and if an outfield player did it the ref would have a card out faster than you could say "keepeeeeers !" ..... It wouldn't have looked out of place on a rugby pitch ....
MPH Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 He was absolutely entitled to go for the ball. It was a 50-50 challenge. Good grief... Goalkeepers no longer allowed to go for the ball. Whatever next?
Finnaldo Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 It hasn't really been highlighted but don't you think that giant carrot playing in goal for Villa should have been booked for flooring Dyer ? He damn near took his head off and if you say he was going for the ball that would be stretching it. Its something that happens a lot and keepers seem to be able to get away with it .... to me thats (very) dangerous play and if an outfield player did it the ref would have a card out faster than you could say "keepeeeeers !" ..... It wouldn't have looked out of place on a rugby pitch .... He was last man so if he was going to get a card it should have been red really.
Finnaldo Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 He was absolutely entitled to go for the ball. It was a 50-50 challenge. Good grief... Goalkeepers no longer allowed to go for the ball. Whatever next? An outfield player's entitled to get the ball but if you miss and catch an opposition player your odds on to get punished. If he got the ball fair enough, but they seem a little overprotected compared to players in the other areas of the pitch, in my opinion.
MPH Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 An outfield player's entitled to get the ball but if you miss and catch an opposition player your odds on to get punished. If he got the ball fair enough, but they seem a little overprotected compared to players in the other areas of the pitch, in my opinion. In goal scoring opportunities, it's called ' play on'
stix Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 He was absolutely entitled to go for the ball. It was a 50-50 challenge. Good grief... Goalkeepers no longer allowed to go for the ball. Whatever next? But he missed the ball completely. Surely you have to use the same principles as outfield players do? If you go for the ball, miss the ball and play the man it's a foul. Guzan went for the ball, missed the ball and played Dyers head instead. Foul.
MPH Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 But he missed the ball completely. Surely you have to use the same principles as outfield players do? If you go for the ball, miss the ball and play the man it's a foul. Guzan went for the ball, missed the ball and played Dyers head instead. Foul. See above answer
Finnaldo Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 In goal scoring opportunities, it's called ' play on'I'm not arguing that, I'm saying Guzan got away with missing the ball and taking out a player which should be punished with a yellow at least.Even in the case you play on, the referee is still entitled to book a player once the ball is out of play.
Bayfox Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 Graham poll actually brought this up on talksport this morning, he actually suggested it was a foul and could have walked from what snippets i heard, he said it was double standards that keepers want fouls for everything and yet come out and clatter a fellow professional like that.
Countryfox Posted 14 September 2015 Author Posted 14 September 2015 Having spent a bit of time between the sticks diving at someones feet when studs are flying is one thing but seeing a small bloke coming towards you and flattening him is another ...
filbertway Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 I was actually thinking this myself, seeing as he appears to have missed the ball, there is an argument for it being a red card. Pretty sure if a defender mistimed a tackle and flattened him it would have been a straight red.
stix Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 See above answer Yeah, of course the ref was correct to play on, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a foul.
Father Ted Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 It was dangerous play and should have warranted a red card. Look at the replays and once Guzan knows he isn't going to make it, he turns his body side-on, clattering Dyer.
Countryfox Posted 14 September 2015 Author Posted 14 September 2015 Graham poll actually brought this up on talksport this morning, he actually suggested it was a foul and could have walked from what snippets i heard, he said it was double standards that keepers want fouls for everything and yet come out and clatter a fellow professional like that. The bugger beat me to it ! ... Didn't hear it myself
MPH Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 I'm not arguing that, I'm saying Guzan got away with missing the ball and taking out a player which should be punished with a yellow at least. Even in the case you play on, the referee is still entitled to book a player once the ball is out of play. His injury was nothing to do with the goalkeeper being reckless, He simply went for the ball.. it was all about how ridiculously brave Dyer was in winning a ball he was not at all favorite to win..
Countryfox Posted 14 September 2015 Author Posted 14 September 2015 His injury was nothing to do with the goalkeeper being reckless, He simply went for the ball.. it was all about how ridiculously brave Dyer was in winning a ball he was not at all favorite to win.. Yes it was
Finnaldo Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 His injury was nothing to do with the goalkeeper being reckless, He simply went for the ball.. it was all about how ridiculously brave Dyer was in winning a ball he was not at all favorite to win.. Yeah but if you apply that to an outfield player, who 'simply went for the ball' and missed, studs up whilst being the last man then he'd be walking. Shouldn't be any different because in the end, he didn't get the ball but got the player.
MPH Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 Yeah but if you apply that to an outfield player, who 'simply went for the ball' and missed, studs up whilst being the last man then he'd be walking. Shouldn't be any different because in the end, he didn't get the ball but got the player. Not if there was a goal. And the goalkeeper, of course, didnt go in with studs up
Finnaldo Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 Not if there was a goal. And the goalkeeper, of course, didnt go in with studs up No, he went fists in. Dyer was brave to go in for it but Guzan was reckless and most of the Villa forum's match day thread said such.
stix Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 Not if there was a goal. And the goalkeeper, of course, didnt go in with studs up What do you mean not if there was a goal??? Are you saying that if a player was through on goal, the last defender absolutely clatters into him, breaking his leg, but the ball rebounds from the resulting tackle in to the back of the net, that the defender wouldn't be sent off?
MPH Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 The problem is that alot of people are basing their thoughts on the severity of the injury which is widely different to the intent. Look up the FIFA rules on 'careless' and 'wreckless'
MPH Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 also pretty sure the rules state that being in the way of an opponent is different to moving into the way.
Countryfox Posted 14 September 2015 Author Posted 14 September 2015 The problem is that alot of people are basing their thoughts on the severity of the injury which is widely different to the intent. Look up the FIFA rules on 'careless' and 'wreckless' He went in knees up like some orange ninja turtle
stix Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 The problem is that alot of people are basing their thoughts on the severity of the injury which is widely different to the intent. Look up the FIFA rules on 'careless' and 'wreckless' You don't have to 'intend' to foul a player, to foul them.
Hollism Posted 14 September 2015 Posted 14 September 2015 Could the ref still give the goal and a red card? Since you can't play advantage when you want to send someone off.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.