StanSP Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 3 minutes ago, Facecloth said: They'll have checked it. The game continued, so no delay, so no big screen but they still check. When the balls goes dead and the restart is delayed for the check then it's on the screen Did they check the Kelechi one? That went straight out of play but I don't recall a check being confirmed on the screen.
Jimothy Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 2 minutes ago, StanSP said: Did they check the Kelechi one? That went straight out of play but I don't recall a check being confirmed on the screen. I suppose it wasn't delaying the restart and he was on the floor for a while, the check was going on during the treatment. I believe the screens are used to inform fans why the game is being delayed, not to inform everytime theres a check.
Fox92 Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Man City are the biggest cheats out of the lot. Definitely biggest cheats out the top 6. Diving (the way Mahrez went down against Chilwell was laughable), constantly in the referee's face, cynical fouls to stop opposition getting away. I've never seen a team look like they're going to cry when it doesn't go their way as much as them.
Mike Oxlong Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 2 hours ago, Facecloth said: Facing the ball? Really? You sure about that? 2 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said: Struggling here, the balls in front of his face. Only if Huth has just taken that free kick
TheCryptoPoet Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 7 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4524354.stm Your allowed to protect yourself (face and groin if you look into it further) He’s moved his head and literally has his hands in a cross shield in front of his face facing the ball, the balls been whacked from 10 yards at a high speed. He’s closed his eyes as soon as he thinks it’s going to hit him, It’s all good you sat there with the slow motion replays, unless you’ve been in a wall with some ****er he can strike a ball you’ve got no idea what it is like. If he’s intentionally done that to divert the shot whilst making it look like he’s protecting his face he needs testing to make sure he’s not a descendant of skywalker. it’s clear but even with your best pair of blue tinted spectacles on, it’d be quite something to call it a clear and obvious error. Quite why you’ve all got your tin foil hates on about this when Ederson committed just shy of common assault on Nacho is quite beyond me but there we are. Agree. Surely this one is more beyond debate than the handballs, or have I missed something? I haven't seen many replays to be honest. I couldn't believe that wasn't given. Collision being inevitable doesn't change anything, if the GK isn't first to the ball it's still a foul and a completely reckless one at that.
Manwell Pablo Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 2 hours ago, Facecloth said: You're over complicating it. He moves out the way and fills the gap with his arms. Simple as that. Either move, or let it hit you. He's already work out the trajectory as he's moved out the way of it. The deflection would be a different matter all together. But it didn't take one, it was straight at him. And it would have been a talking point because it was pretty easy to spot even without VAR. Yes we were outplayed in large periods, but being outplayed doesn't mean you can't be on the end of poor decisions. And don't call me knob, your mate @FIF is on a long term ban for less, personal insults are against forum rules are they not. You're better than that. I’m not over complicating anything, and he’s not worked anything, out as someone who’s had a ball twatted at them from 10 yards it’s a natural reaction, he knows the balls been pelted roughly at him at wall height, it’s highly unpleasant and ho w you can stop the shot is the last thing on your mind as you have a bigger problem, impending pain. Natural human reaction. it was a generic insult not a personal one more aimed at the subject of the thread “institutionalised cheating” which frankly is ridiculous, and given on balance we’ve not done badly out of VAR over the season I stand by it. It wasn’t aimed at you, if I wanted to call you personally I’d of done so, but you’ve done nothing to warrant it so I haven’t. Unfortunately I live in FIF’s head rent free, can’t remember the last time I quoted him, yet he still follows me around. Strange. It is what it is.
StanSP Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 3 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: I’m not over complicating anything, and he’s not worked anything, out as someone who’s had a ball twatted at them from 10 yards it’s a natural reaction, he knows the balls been pelted roughly at him at wall height, it’s highly unpleasant and ho w you can stop the shot is the last thing on your mind as you have a bigger problem, impending pain. Natural human reaction To play devil's advocate, could the same not be said for Praet then? Ball has been whacked at him at speed from short distance, he gets out the way and his arms go up and blocks the ball. De Bruyne does the same. (Praet's was a penalty 100%). Just think if you give one, the other has to be given. The inconsistency in this game and across the season is very frustrating. For all teams.
Manwell Pablo Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 1 minute ago, StanSP said: To play devil's advocate, could the same not be said for Praet then? Ball has been whacked at him at speed from short distance, he gets out the way and his arms go up and blocks the ball. De Bruyne does the same. (Praet's was a penalty 100%). Just think if you give one, the other has to be given. The inconsistency in this game and across the season is very frustrating. For all teams. But his arm is out stretched far more and this is why your playing devils advocate because you know that’s the case. Praet, who had an excellent game otherwise, is making himself bigger, De Bruyne is just trying to guard his face, his arms are literally across his face. The two sets of circumstances are talk sport drivel level of if you give that why didn’t you give that let’s stir up a talking point for biased fans to loose their shit over. Your better off arguing the KDB incident in isolation than bringing Praet into it as you totally invalidate any point you are making.
Jimothy Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Just now, Manwell Pablo said: But his arm is out stretched far more and this is why your playing devils advocate because you know that’s the case. Praet, who had an excellent game otherwise, is making himself bigger, De Bruyne is just trying to guard his face, his arms are literally across his face. The two sets of circumstances are talk sport drivel level of if you give that why didn’t you give that let’s stir up a talking point for biased fans to loose their shit over. Your better off arguing the KDB incident in isolation than bringing Praet into it as you totally invalidate any point you are making. But they aren't across his face, they are to the side, the image earlier proves that.
StanSP Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 3 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: But his arm is out stretched far more and this is why your playing devils advocate because you know that’s the case. Praet, who had an excellent game otherwise, is making himself bigger, De Bruyne is just trying to guard his face, his arms are literally across his face. The two sets of circumstances are talk sport drivel level of if you give that why didn’t you give that let’s stir up a talking point for biased fans to loose their shit over. Your better off arguing the KDB incident in isolation than bringing Praet into it as you totally invalidate any point you are making. 2 minutes ago, Facecloth said: But they aren't across his face, they are to the side, the image earlier proves that. Happy to discuss the KDB incident by itself hence why I said I was playing devil's advocate. De Bruyne actually moves his face out the way. So if he's not blocking his face, he's blocking the ball going through towards the goal...
filbertway Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Yeah, they're not between ball and face, hes making himself bigger. Unless you think that the ball would have hit his face if it didnt hit his hands Pabs? If he had stayed facing forwards i wouldnt have had a problem. As soon as he turns side ways hes just making himself bigger. Whether on purpose or by accident, it doesn't really matter.
Manwell Pablo Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 3 minutes ago, Facecloth said: But they aren't across his face, they are to the side, the image earlier proves that. His hands are literally in front of his face.
Jimothy Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 1 minute ago, Manwell Pablo said: His hands are literally in front of his face. But the ball isn't hitting his face as he's moved it out the way.
Guest ttfn Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 1 minute ago, Manwell Pablo said: His hands are literally in front of his face. But his arm (which is what the ball strikes) is not.
Vestan Pance Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 16 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: I’m not over complicating anything, and he’s not worked anything, out as someone who’s had a ball twatted at them from 10 yards it’s a natural reaction, he knows the balls been pelted roughly at him at wall height, it’s highly unpleasant and ho w you can stop the shot is the last thing on your mind as you have a bigger problem, impending pain. Natural human reaction. I can understand not wanting to get hit in the face, but I'm afraid that it a possibility at any freekick. The easiest way of protecting your face in that situation is not standing there by choice.
Manwell Pablo Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Just now, Facecloth said: But the ball isn't hitting his face as he's moved it out the way. Great, asking totally the wrong question, does he know the ball is going to miss his head and therefore doesn’t have the right to protect his face, absolutely not, he’s got no idea of curl, trajectory or potential deflections. He’s got 0.5 seconds to react at best. The day you start giving pens that don’t clear the head height of the wall we are in for issues.
Fox92 Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 If he doesn't want the ball to hit his head then he shouldn't stand in the wall. Simple as that. Walker isn't jumping with his hands up, Laporte and Rodri have turned their backs so aren't jumping with arms either.
Spudulike Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 These type of handball incidents never get ruled in our favour (when was the last one?). Why is that?
st albans fox Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 11 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: Great, asking totally the wrong question, does he know the ball is going to miss his head and therefore doesn’t have the right to protect his face, absolutely not, he’s got no idea of curl, trajectory or potential deflections. He’s got 0.5 seconds to react at best. The day you start giving pens that don’t clear the head height of the wall we are in for issues. You will see pienty of refs telling players to keep their arms down - if he isn’t brave enough to stand straight then don’t stand in a wall ....and if you are going to put your hands up to protect your face then stand straight behind and don’t turn sideways - in the end, his arm stops the ball going towards the goal, not his face .....it’s a pen
urban fox Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 For me I think the kdb decision was correct. My issue is why the keeper did not get red for dangerous play. Yes a collision may have been unavoidable as both were watching the ball but he has gone in fists first at chin height. Anywhere else on the pitch and that is a foul all day long. He was reckless. Keepers get away with murder.
Foxin_Mad Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 If it hits a hand in the box it should be a penalty. I dont get why we have the bullshit ambiguity about protecting his precious face. Just make the rules that. If your scared of the ball hitting you face turn your back or get someone who is less of a wimp to go in the wall. I dont mind VAR for offside, if its offside its offside no matter how far. What's annoying is the time taken and the lack of idea what's happening. If they can perfect the technology to monitor offside get it bob on then great. The other issue is it's still the same willy puller refs who cant make decisions right, making VAR calls.
SheppyFox Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 9 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4524354.stm Your allowed to protect yourself (face and groin if you look into it further) He’s moved his head and literally has his hands in a cross shield in front of his face facing the ball, the balls been whacked from 10 yards at a high speed. He’s closed his eyes as soon as he thinks it’s going to hit him, It’s all good you sat there with the slow motion replays, unless you’ve been in a wall with some ****er he can strike a ball you’ve got no idea what it is like. If he’s intentionally done that to divert the shot whilst making it look like he’s protecting his face he needs testing to make sure he’s not a descendant of skywalker. it’s clear but even with your best pair of blue tinted spectacles on, it’d be quite something to call it a clear and obvious error. Quite why you’ve all got your tin foil hates on about this when Ederson committed just shy of common assault on Nacho is quite beyond me but there we are. Unless you’ve been there you don’t know what it’s like.. are we talking about football or war? 😂
Manwell Pablo Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 23 minutes ago, pmcla26 said: Mate, watch it back one more time, please - you will see it’s a penalty all day long. I’ve watched more times than I care if there is a rule that gives him the right to protect his face which I firmly believe there is no way you can give that. Wouldn’t even be a talking point without VAR, now we’ve somehow been robbed by VAR. Why we argue about this while Ederson lands the shot wilder spent most of last night looking for is beyond me. But anyway I am done with this, didn’t even want to get back into it but “institutionalised cheating” was just too much.
Lesta2014 Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Allowed to protect your face, **** off if it hits your face and ****s your nose use your 100k a week to correct it! So much protection for the big boys, tackling in the games dead now saying can put hands infront of face, ridiculous absolutely ridiculous! The games gone and the law makers and referees have ruined it! The are all clueless
joachim1965 Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 54 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: I’m not over complicating anything, and he’s not worked anything, out as someone who’s had a ball twatted at them from 10 yards it’s a natural reaction, he knows the balls been pelted roughly at him at wall height, it’s highly unpleasant and ho w you can stop the shot is the last thing on your mind as you have a bigger problem, impending pain. Natural human reaction. it was a generic insult not a personal one more aimed at the subject of the thread “institutionalised cheating” which frankly is ridiculous, and given on balance we’ve not done badly out of VAR over the season I stand by it. It wasn’t aimed at you, if I wanted to call you personally I’d of done so, but you’ve done nothing to warrant it so I haven’t. Unfortunately I live in FIF’s head rent free, can’t remember the last time I quoted him, yet he still follows me around. Strange. It is what it is. If you don't want to have the ball twatted at you from 10 yards then don't stand in the wall. That's the whole point of a wall, to block the ball, but NOT with your hands, as has been said earlier, either get out if the way or head it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.