Kelechi Iheanacho

[Collymore]

I loved it when he just started striding towards goal and the Norwich players seemed in shock and didn't move at first! 

 

Does anybody remember that time when Paul Gallagher smashed it in the top corner from about 50 yards when he should have played it to the opposition keeper ? The ref disallowed it due to bad sportsmanship and he was asked retake.... so he put it top corner again!  

[Manwell Pablo]

8 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I expect MOTD will have a good look at cantwell’s reaction ..... should have been a red but that would have exacerbated an already difficult situation for Madley 

I mean I’m not excusing cantwells reaction but would of hated winning like that should he have seen red.

[Filbert_Ross]

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

The referee could have defused the situation by calling it back for a foul throw as soon as Nacho made the move to take a player on, no one would have questioned the call, Norwich get the throwing.

 

Why would he do that? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Plastik Man]

1 hour ago, cal21212121 said:

Gray was getting instructions before the incident even happened, we needed to change shape and Nacho was the unfortunate sacrifice. 

That's  interesting, I didn't notice that at the game.

 

In my opinion with the controversy  I think Iheanacho simply didn't realise he was expected to return the ball to Norwich. He is a complex character.

 

Once he was fouled though I thought Cantwell was out of order and very lucky not to see red. 

 

After all that he attracted too much attention, was getting booed, seemed a bit rattled and I could see him getting involved in something and getting sent off.

 

I did hear Chris Sutton, briefly, on the radio suggesting Leicester were out of order, but we know he's a Nottingham born, Norwich supporting, ex Celtic, Rodgers hating, arrogant, sociopathic, WUM, who loves the sound of his own voice.

 

At least someone does.

[Kopfkino]

It's a shitty thing to do given it's now a convention and it's what Norwich were expecting. 

 

But it just shouldn't be a thing, either the ref stops it or you accept you lose possession if you kick it out

[January47]

And it’s a convention that should change. As I said earlier the supposedly injured player didn’t need any and turned down any treatment. That’s because then he would have to leave the pitch. The referee should control the game. Norwich got away with these negative tactics from 30 seconds onwards.

 

Having said that I actually thought they played well and deserved the point.

[coolhandfox]

23 minutes ago, Filbert_Ross said:

Why would he do that? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Because it's a easy way to avoid what was always going to cause a incident! As after Nacho decided he wasn't returning the ball there was always going to be trouble. 

[whoareyaaa]

Bit harsh to pull him off when you consider his ability to actually find the net compared to the other players I would have took Praet off

 

*edited just for highpeakfox

Edited 14 December 2019 by whoareyaaa

[HighPeakFox]

Every time someone writes 'Preat', I have bad flashbacks. 

[Manwell Pablo]

51 minutes ago, January47 said:

What treatment on the restart though

Something you can only say with hindsight, three players were on the deck it was best the game was stopped. 
 

There is no excuse for not giving them the ball back.

[Yes N'Didi]

50 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

But literally ashamed so many of our fans think he was right to do that. They were right to kick the ball out with three players down, it’s an etiquette in football that has been there for years. You kick the ball out so players can get treatment you get it back on the restart. And Ricardo was one of those three players.

 

Embarrassing to think otherwise, the shoes on the other foot you’d be screaming blue murder. 

I have to disagree, as many have pointed out it’s becoming a regular feature of time wasting to drop on the floor and hold the game up before getting up just before needing treatment.

 

The Bristol City manager (Lee Johnson?) wrote to all other championship clubs before the start of the season stating that their players are coached to play to the whistle and let the referee manage the game. Unless the referee stopped the game because of a serious or head injury, his team would not stop nor put the ball out of play, and ensure that they expected the same if one of their players were down.

 

Let the referee manage the game. If a team want to put the ball out, fine, but if it’s for their own player then there is no obligation to return the ball. There was obviously the high profile Leeds Villa incident which based around looking as though they would put it out before playing on, and other examples where teams put the ball out for an injured opponent and then the other team play on, but this was neither. This was a team taking a decision to put the ball out for their own player which did not require treatment and then kicked off when we took the resulting throw in and tried to score.

 

No doubt MOTD will find it unsporting but personally I think it’s better that we let the referee control the game.

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, Yes N'Didi said:

I have to disagree, as many have pointed out it’s becoming a regular feature of time wasting to drop on the floor and hold the game up before getting up just before needing treatment.

 

The Bristol City manager (Lee Johnson?) wrote to all other championship clubs before the start of the season stating that their players are coached to play to the whistle and let the referee manage the game. Unless the referee stopped the game because of a serious or head injury, his team would not stop nor put the ball out of play, and ensure that they expected the same if one of their players were down.

 

Let the referee manage the game. If a team want to put the ball out, fine, but if it’s for their own player then there is no obligation to return the ball. There was obviously the high profile Leeds Villa incident which based around looking as though they would put it out before playing on, and other examples where teams put the ball out for an injured opponent and then the other team play on, but this was neither. This was a team taking a decision to put the ball out for their own player which did not require treatment and then kicked off when we took the resulting throw in and tried to score.

 

No doubt MOTD will find it unsporting but personally I think it’s better that we let the referee control the game.

There were three players down, one of them was a Leicester player. There was no time wasting, no faking, they actually had a counter attack on when they put it out.

 

If the referee is forced to take sole ownership of situations like this because players and fans can’t be trusted to accept certain fundamentals about stopping and restarting a game, which is a sorry situation by the way, then so be it. But let’s make it universal, not just the demands of Lee Johnson. Until then we stick to the status quoe.

 

I do wonder if you would still disagree with me had we kicked the ball out under similar circumstances and Norwich had  scored, I doubt it, and that’s the problem.

[January47]

Under the current accepted ‘convention’ it’s wrong but it’s now being used as a tactic. As I said the original supposed injured player turned down treatment. The referee is supposed to control the game. And don’t get me started on drop balls.

[Blue-fox]

 Any chance that Ian genuinely forgot that the ball was put out after the treatment. 

[Leeds Fox]

9 minutes ago, Blue-fox said:

 Any chance that Ian genuinely forgot that the ball was put out after the treatment. 

 

Schlupp-esque 

[Corky]

Was he really substituted because of that incident? I thought we badly needed to change the system as we were all over the place and bringing on a winger and taking off a striker seemed natural, as was Barnes coming on in the second half.

 

I think the ball should've been given back but the way players piled in wasn't good either.

[Leicesterpool]

Yep Kel should gave it back but the Norwich players didn't half overact about it. Wasn't like he scored.

[CityIsBlue]

Shouldn't have been starting, but that was not his fault.

 

We struggled with creativity in our most recent home games, so playing another forward who doesn't really offer that was an odd choice.

 

 

[Chrysalis]

2 hours ago, CityIsBlue said:

Shouldn't have been starting, but that was not his fault.

 

We struggled with creativity in our most recent home games, so playing another forward who doesn't really offer that was an odd choice.

 

 

I agree, the 442 should remain our backup formation and not primary.  Changing things round based on one or two good performances seems hasty.

[Wolfox]

6 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Hauling him off to put Grey there is perhaps an over reaction.

 

But literally ashamed so many of our fans think he was right to do that. They were right to kick the ball out with three players down, it’s an etiquette in football that has been there for years. You kick the ball out so players can get treatment you get it back on the restart. And Ricardo was one of those three players.

 

Embarrassing to think otherwise, the shoes on the other foot you’d be screaming blue murder. 

I clicked on this thread dreading what I was going to read, but, I’m so pleased that this response got the most positive reaction…

 

You play the game the right way…. It was all a bit embarrassing frankly…

[Plastik Man]

5 hours ago, Blue-fox said:

 Any chance that Ian genuinely forgot that the ball was put out after the treatment. 

I think it's more than likely.  Who took the throw-in to him?  (I've not seen any replays, I was going to say Chilwell but it was on our right side). Often when the team returns possession to the opposition it's thrown directly to them, but in this instance they threw it to Iheanacho.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

45 minutes ago, Plastik Man said:

I think it's more than likely.  Who took the throw-in to him?  (I've not seen any replays, I was going to say Chilwell but it was on our right side). Often when the team returns possession to the opposition it's thrown directly to them, but in this instance they threw it to Iheanacho.

Usually depends where the throw-in is. The aim is to give the ball back to the other team far from your own goal, ideally to their goalkeeper. Usually it's easier to just throw it to a teammate, who can then boot it to their keeper.

 

It was just a bit of brain fade from Kelechi. Nothing sinister. If we'd scored from it I'm sure BR would have ordered the team to let Norwich score again. Certainly didn't warrant Captain Bumfluff getting his Alice band in a twist.

Edited 15 December 2019 by SouthStandUpperTier

[MPH]

7 hours ago, Yes N'Didi said:

I have to disagree, as many have pointed out it’s becoming a regular feature of time wasting to drop on the floor and hold the game up before getting up just before needing treatment.

 

The Bristol City manager (Lee Johnson?) wrote to all other championship clubs before the start of the season stating that their players are coached to play to the whistle and let the referee manage the game. Unless the referee stopped the game because of a serious or head injury, his team would not stop nor put the ball out of play, and ensure that they expected the same if one of their players were down.

 

Let the referee manage the game. If a team want to put the ball out, fine, but if it’s for their own player then there is no obligation to return the ball. There was obviously the high profile Leeds Villa incident which based around looking as though they would put it out before playing on, and other examples where teams put the ball out for an injured opponent and then the other team play on, but this was neither. This was a team taking a decision to put the ball out for their own player which did not require treatment and then kicked off when we took the resulting throw in and tried to score.

 

No doubt MOTD will find it unsporting but personally I think it’s better that we let the referee control the game.

 

 

Little bit cringe worthy.

 

One of the players down was a Leicester player.

[SheppyFox]

Was there anything wrong with any of the players rolling around on the floor? I don’t know, but id suspect not. 

[NewquayFox]

No ‘Law’ in football saying you have to put the ball out of play or give it back to the opposition, Iheanacho was hard done by in my opinion and thought the Ref lost the plot, when I played football I hated the opposition and wouldn’t give them an inch, just play on and go for the win....