4-1 Hoodezfield Post Match Thread

[mancunianfox]

Impressed with Brendan telling Maguire not to worry about the game and to be with his Mrs. That’s the kind of thing big Nige used to do, and little things like that helped develop the togetherness that it felt we had lost a bit of the last few years.

[Phube]

7 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

This is lovely

 

 

 

I’m actually glad he scored his penalty... that little girl was made up when he did. 

[CyprusFox]

10 hours ago, BenTheFox said:

I must admit I really like the northern town away games. Barnsley, Huddersfield and Burnley all amongst my favourites. 

Apart from the result, didn't particularly enjoy burnley. Right sh##thole, p##sed it down all day, then took us nearly 5 hours to get back to Leicester. Yesterday was great though. Brilliant atmosphere, nice town and home in just over two hours. Happy days. 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

Lovely stuff

[Corky]

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

I like Huddersfield as a club, wish them all the best in the future however its hard to see them doing a Burnley and unexpectedly coming straight back up.

They were really good when we played there in 2014 just after clinching the title.

 

Been three times over the years and it is a very warm place with no hint of aggression in the stands.

[Apollo]

Not that it mattered, but why wasn’t their defender sent off for bringing down Vardy? No attempt to play the ball. Personally preferred the old rule - you foul as last man, you’re off. No grey areas

[Leeds Fox]

7 minutes ago, Apollo said:

Not that it mattered, but why wasn’t their defender sent off for bringing down Vardy? No attempt to play the ball. Personally preferred the old rule - you foul as last man, you’re off. No grey areas

 

‘Last man’ has never been a rule. The rule was tweaked in the past couple of years with regards to fouls inside the penalty area but it’s always been denying a goal scoring opportunity.

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, Apollo said:

Not that it mattered, but why wasn’t their defender sent off for bringing down Vardy? No attempt to play the ball. Personally preferred the old rule - you foul as last man, you’re off. No grey areas

 I haven’t seen it since the replay Iive but it appeared to me that he tripped over hamer and fell across Vards leg - had it been outside the box then would have been a maguire type unfortunate red but with the pen being given the ref exercised some commonsense. Strictly speaking he could have sent him off 

[Jattdogg]

Little late with the yesssssssssssss you lovely bunch of men well done!

 

 

[ozleicester]

20 hours ago, Swarles Barkley said:

Anyone know how to listen to radio leciester on the internet?

 

going on bbc and it starts talking about some contractual agrrement over broadcasting sports events??

Dunno if other have replied, but simply put, you canNOT listen online, you can only listen over the radio. Has been this way for 10+ years now.

 

They used to make it available through the old 'Player" app..but these days your best bet is to go to the LCFC site ..i think they live commentate now?

[Blue ROI]

19 hours ago, richardsfoxes said:

 

[Sampson]

4 hours ago, FoxInTheBirstallBox said:

Have you not watched football for the last 3 years, it's a triple punishment

 

Penalty

Red card

Banned for the next 2/3 games 

 

Thays why it's no longer a red

Yes but the rule change is ludicrous.

 

A penalty is not an acceptable punishment for stopping a clear goal. Penalties are far from certainties.

 

Whereas a defender should be more harshly punished for stopping a certain goal as an equal or even lesser punishment than a goal just encourages the defender to stop certain goals illegally.

 

I don't understand why "triple punishment" has worked itself into lexicon, the punishment needs to be just enough that it is considered to the defender the lesser evil to not deliberately and illegally stop a goal.

 

Take Suarez deliberately handballing off the line in the World Cup quarter final. The penalty, red card and ban together still were the far better deal than letting the goal off and Suarez and Uruguay got the much better end of deal than Ghana by deliberately stopping a certain goal.

 

The more lenient rule is a nonsense. If anything the rule needed to be harsher to discourage defenders from illegally stopping goals - like the goal still bring awarded with a red card and ban on top, rather than a penalty, red card and a ban.

 

The Huddersfield defender stops a certain goal illegally - how is a penalty alone, if which there's about 75% chance of scoring, a worthwhile punishment for a defender illegally stopping an open goal of which there was about 99.99% chance of Vardy scoring? 

 

A penalty alone is absolutely no punishment at all for stopping a clear goalscoring opportunity. At least the red card and ban somewhat made it fairer to the attacking team.

Edited 7 April 2019 by Sampson

[Gerard]

16 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Yes but the rule change is ludicrous.

 

A penalty is not an acceptable punishment for stopping a clear goal. Penalties are far from certainties.

 

Whereas a defender should be more harshly punished for stopping a certain goal as an equal or even lesser punishment than a goal just encourages the defender to stop certain goals illegally.

 

I don't understand why "triple punishment" has worked itself into lexicon, the punishment needs to be just enough that it is considered to the defender the lesser evil to not deliberately and illegally stop a goal.

 

Take Suarez deliberately handballing off the line in the World Cup quarter final. The penalty, red card and ban together still were the far better deal than letting the goal off and Suarez and Uruguay got the much better end of deal than Ghana by deliberately stopping a certain goal.

 

The more lenient rule is a nonsense. If anything the rule needed to be harsher to discourage defenders from illegally stopping goals - like the goal still bring awarded with a red card and ban on top, rather than a penalty, red card and a ban.

 

A penalty alone is absolutely no punishment at all for stopping a clear goalscoring opportunity. At least the red card and ban somewhat made it fairer to the attacking team.

 

I've ran out of likes but I completely agree.

 

The Suarez example is a great one. Maybe there should be such things as a penalty goal rather than a penalty when a goal was almost certain before the deliberate foul. I remember that Suarew one well when he did the professional thing but blatantly cheated. An otherwise certain goal was stopped and Ghana had a penalty which was missed and Uruguay only had to play a couple of minutes with ten men. The punishment didn't fit the crime when Uruguay won on penalties when they would have lost if they otherwise played in the spirit of the game. 

[CosbehFox]

Having watched the prolonged Sky highlights this morning, I think I was harsh on us at the game. We generally ran that game bar a couple of errors 

 

The officials will be thankful that their decisions were not decisive. They missed a trip on Vardy, probably Vardy offside on our second, a penalty which was never a penalty and a failure to send off Kongolo

[urban fox]

4 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

I've ran out of likes but I completely agree.

 

The Suarez example is a great one. Maybe there should be such things as a penalty goal rather than a penalty when a goal was almost certain before the deliberate foul. I remember that Suarew one well when he did the professional thing but blatantly cheated. An otherwise certain goal was stopped and Ghana had a penalty which was missed and Uruguay only had to play a couple of minutes with ten men. The punishment didn't fit the crime when Uruguay won on penalties when they would have lost if they otherwise played in the spirit of the game. 

They have penalty tries in Rugby so why not penalty goals in football. It would have to be absolute, such as a goal line hand ball as suarez incident or keeper up ending a player who is going round them in line with the goal. You could not really argue the same for the foul on vardy yesterday as there is always the chance of missing or the attempt being saved where a player would have been through on a one v one with the keeper but taken down by the last defender (still a straight red though).

[PhillippaT]

1 hour ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Having watched the prolonged Sky highlights this morning, I think I was harsh on us at the game. We generally ran that game bar a couple of errors 

 

The officials will be thankful that their decisions were not decisive. They missed a trip on Vardy, probably Vardy offside on our second, a penalty which was never a penalty and a failure to send off Kongolo

Having also re-watched the highlights - I'm not entirely sure if Vardy was offside the moment it was kicked - it was really tight with the defender on the far side - tight enough to give Vardy the benefit of the doubt IMO.

[Gamble92]

5 hours ago, Sampson said:

Yes but the rule change is ludicrous.

 

A penalty is not an acceptable punishment for stopping a clear goal. Penalties are far from certainties.

 

Whereas a defender should be more harshly punished for stopping a certain goal as an equal or even lesser punishment than a goal just encourages the defender to stop certain goals illegally.

 

I don't understand why "triple punishment" has worked itself into lexicon, the punishment needs to be just enough that it is considered to the defender the lesser evil to not deliberately and illegally stop a goal.

 

Take Suarez deliberately handballing off the line in the World Cup quarter final. The penalty, red card and ban together still were the far better deal than letting the goal off and Suarez and Uruguay got the much better end of deal than Ghana by deliberately stopping a certain goal.

 

The more lenient rule is a nonsense. If anything the rule needed to be harsher to discourage defenders from illegally stopping goals - like the goal still bring awarded with a red card and ban on top, rather than a penalty, red card and a ban.

 

The Huddersfield defender stops a certain goal illegally - how is a penalty alone, if which there's about 75% chance of scoring, a worthwhile punishment for a defender illegally stopping an open goal of which there was about 99.99% chance of Vardy scoring? 

 

A penalty alone is absolutely no punishment at all for stopping a clear goalscoring opportunity. At least the red card and ban somewhat made it fairer to the attacking team.

Good post, but handballing it on the line is an exception to the double jeopardy rule isnt it? 

 

Like others have said in that situation a penalty goal would make much more sense. I suppose the reason they dont have it is because sometimes it's impossible to know if its been handballed with intent.

[Mendi]

Stunning result

[yorkie1999]

23 hours ago, Corky said:

They were really good when we played there in 2014 just after clinching the title.

 

Been three times over the years and it is a very warm place with no hint of aggression in the stands.

Apart from Eddie the Eagle the huddersfield ultra offering the four leicester louts out for the entire match!

[jayfox26]

Yeh the inconsistency in refereeing is frustrating. Fortunately it didn't cost us. I dont see how Maguire can be sent when Gudmundson still had kasper to beat (and I reckon he'd have missed anyway) but Kongolo doesn't when vardy had an open goal after going round Hamer. Just because we got a pen and Burnley only got a free kick is irrelevant, both should have been a red card. Like I said, it didn't matter to us against Hudds but refereeing has got to be more consistent going forward. 

[Long Eaton Fox]

Maybe a silly question but as Vardy won and scored the penalty, does he get an assist as well?

[MC Prussian]

6 minutes ago, Long Eaton Fox said:

Maybe a silly question but as Vardy won and scored the penalty, does he get an assist as well?

He did - at least on Fantasy Premier League.

 

Winning a penalty usually counts as an assist, if I'm not mistaken.