Our own fault

[MPH]

6 minutes ago, LeeTheFox said:

I’m usually first to give us **** when we deserve to lose a game but this time how anyone can’t see we’ve been absolutely done is beyond me, their pen was never a pen and both those goals or atleast one of them should of stood, still winds me up not seeing any passion from Brendan on the sideline 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

 

Did you not see him having a right go at the referee for the penalty?

[DennisNedry]

27 minutes ago, StanSP said:

This isn't factually correct. The 2nd one Barnes definitely isn't in the eyeline of the ball or where Ndidi heads it from. It's more of a joke decision than the first one. 

 

We'd already had one such goal disallowed, so why the hell do it again? I'm baffled. 

[Beechey]

We only really played terribly for like 35 minutes, we dominated the first 10, then was dominated for the rest of the half.

Second half, we didn't really give them a proper sniff, their goal, from a set piece, came against the run of play.

 

Lookman for Maddison was a fantastic change, and now I hope BR sees that Lookman is in a much better position to start than Maddison is.

Edited 19 September 2021 by Beechey

[Nod.E]

33 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

I disagree. First 60 minutes we were poor, no doubt about it. But we turned it around and deserved to win. We can be critical of the team selection, but when our midfielders can't make 10 yard passes to one another, you are always going to be in trouble.

 

For as much as Maddison is getting slated he was nowhere near the worst player in that first half.

It's difficult to be called the worst player when you literally do nothing, though. He's hiding.

[StriderHiryu]

8 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

It's difficult to be called the worst player when you literally do nothing, though. He's hiding.

You have a point there. His confidence seems shredded, hence hiding. Rodgers took him off because although he wasn't the worst player, he wasn't playing the position correctly. When Lookman came on, he was, which is why he stretched the game and made Ricardo more involved as a result.

 

I would start him in the Carabao Cup, and some of the lesser European ties, but bench him for Premier League matches. He's in woeful form at the moment and needs to play his way back in.

[StanSP]

45 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

It isn't factually incorrect. I'm not looking for a fight, Stan, we're all gutted and the last thing I want to do is row with other Leicester fans. 

 

But you need to read the whole law, several lines under the point about a player's eye line is:

 

"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball" 

 

Barnes is directly in the keeper's personal space, he has his arms on the keeper about a second before the ball comes to them and at the point it passes them he's occupying a space in the direction the keeper wants to move in to. 

 

He's obviously interfering. He's practically on top of the keeper. 

 

The law is subjectively written and entirely open to the ref's interpretation and today the interpretation clearly wasn't in our favour. 

 

The penalty incident is ridiculous, the first disallowed goal was immensely harsh, Barnes is far out of the way. But the second disallowed goal, we'd all be absolutely furious if that was given against us. 

Not looking for a fight either mate. For the 2nd one especially there's a view looking at the front of the keeper and Barnes is not blocking his view. I politely suggest you try and find it because the bit in bold you mention  is not satisfied from that view. 

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

It isn't factually incorrect. I'm not looking for a fight, Stan, we're all gutted and the last thing I want to do is row with other Leicester fans. 

 

But you need to read the whole law, several lines under the point about a player's eye line is:

 

"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball" 

 

Barnes is directly in the keeper's personal space, he has his arms on the keeper about a second before the ball comes to them and at the point it passes them he's occupying a space in the direction the keeper wants to move in to. 

 

He's obviously interfering. He's practically on top of the keeper. 

 

The law is subjectively written and entirely open to the ref's interpretation and today the interpretation clearly wasn't in our favour. 

 

The penalty incident is ridiculous, the first disallowed goal was immensely harsh, Barnes is far out of the way. But the second disallowed goal, we'd all be absolutely furious if that was given against us. 

He's not.

He was interfering with the keeper when the corner was taken, but that's irrelevant because:

1. There was 2 defenders between him and the goal then, a Brighton defender stepped up after the corner had been taken.

2. He's standing behind the ball when the corner is taken (as most players usually are at a corner)

3. You cannot be directly offside from a corner anyway.

Barnes was interfering with the keeper when the corner was taken. But he's also onside at that point. There's nothing wrong with touching the keeper or being in his eyeline while you're onside.

It's only when Ndidi heads the ball where Barnes becomes offside and at that point he's stood well clear, behind the keeper, who is looking in the opposite direction.

It's not braindead by Barnes at all, he did nothing wrong. In fact it's good play if anything. It wasn't even a subjective decision, it was objectively a goal, which the officials bizarrely disallowed.

Edited 19 September 2021 by Sampson

[Hales]

1 hour ago, TK95 said:

 

As soon as he gets that notebook out I begin to worry!