unclej Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 11 hours ago, Derby_EnglandLoyal said: Where was our defences or our player who supposed to deal with Clough. ? Rowett will have a look at this and hopefully try to resolve the issues. He was on the right wing. Forest v Derby and he chased after a player like an under 10 school boy. That's your captain for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 37 minutes ago, sage said: Johnson was standing still. He didnt knock the ball out of Smith's hands as he was inert. Smith fell on him. Never a foul. 33 minutes ago, Paul71 said: The thing that makes it worse for the ref is he has a clear line of sight.. Think to much emphasis is being put on why he fell. How many times do we see a keeper fall after collecting a high ball when no one is around? If Johnson is not there he doesn't drop it. He has it in 2 hands, and although Johnson does not do anything he has still taken the ball out of the goalkeepers hands. Like I said if that was Carson falling on Cohen and knocking the ball out of his hands I would want the same decision given. I am surprised @Mafiabob isn't backing the ref. This feels weird, roles being reversed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazloW Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 It's all my fault. I texted a mate with a couple of minutes to go to say I would've been happy with a point anyway. Then the inevitable happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 4 minutes ago, rynny said: Think to much emphasis is being put on why he fell. How many times do we see a keeper fall after collecting a high ball when no one is around? If Johnson is not there he doesn't drop it. He has it in 2 hands, and although Johnson does not do anything he has still taken the ball out of the goalkeepers hands. Like I said if that was Carson falling on Cohen and knocking the ball out of his hands I would want the same decision given. I am surprised @Mafiabob isn't backing the ref. This feels weird, roles being reversed I dont agree, had the Forest play not taken his legs from under him he wouldnt have fallen into Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernow Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 7 hours ago, rynny said: I think I must be the only one that thinks that it was the right call to disallow the goal. Don't think it is given for taking the keeper out think it is because he has 2 hands on the ball and as he fell onto Johnson he inadvertently knocks the ball out of his hands. I certainly wouldn't be happy if it was the other way round and the ref gave the goal. Definitely not. The keeper is falling because his own player gets in his way. Johnson is ducking out the way of the keeper and not even facing that way. He's not tried to get in the keepers way or knock the ball out of his hands. If that constitutes a foul then keepers will start running into attacking players and dropping the ball to get free kicks and waste some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 @bigbadbob and @Big Bad Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, Paul71 said: I dont agree, had the Forest play not taken his legs from under him he wouldnt have fallen into Johnson. Fair enough. Agree to disagree? Football and opinions, gotta love it at times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arch Deacon Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 14 hours ago, Ninos said: I'd only question two things: the insertion of Butterfield into any game where we are leading narrowly. He gets dispossessed too easily and is pretty much a zero defensively. the omission of Hughes - which makes me wonder if he's on the way out please no otherwise there was a certain feel to this team - like they are winners - Rowett has brought something special to the mentality. Nugent interview was very indicting of Mcclaren - talking about sideways possession Football Versus the desire to be incisive under GR. Plus he clearly wants us pressing and GR seems to be saying that we can press all the time now he's seen us. That's music to this fans ears. Vydra Bryson Nugent Johnson all wreak havoc on the other team when we don't have the ball ... Yawn frickin Yawn!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 4 minutes ago, Kernow said: Definitely not. The keeper is falling because his own player gets in his way. Johnson is ducking out the way of the keeper and not even facing that way. He's not tried to get in the keepers way or knock the ball out of his hands. If that constitutes a foul then keepers will start running into attacking players and dropping the ball to get free kicks and waste some time. As I said in post at the top, if Johnson isn't there he doesn't drop it. I know Johnson hasn't done anythimg wrong technically aa he is just standing there. But the ball has been taken out of the keepers hands and the ref has to blow for it, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, rynny said: Fair enough. Agree to disagree? Football and opinions, gotta love it at times Yes of course, everyone has their opinion. Although it cannot be proven i dare bet had it been a derby player that had taken his legs then he had fallen against a forest player and lost the ball the outcome would have been the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernow Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 4 minutes ago, rynny said: As I said in post at the top, if Johnson isn't there he doesn't drop it. I know Johnson hasn't done anythimg wrong technically aa he is just standing there. But the ball has been taken out of the keepers hands and the ref has to blow for it, in my opinion. Then the game moves into an absolutely no contact game with regards to goalkeepers. It's a corner kick with 15+ players in a small area. Contact is very likely and unless Johnson has made an active effort to knock the ball out of his hands, then it shouldn't be a foul. In my opinion the referee would have seen the keeper drop the ball through contact and panicked. It was probably the easier choice to make in a local Derby. Forest fans would've been on his back all game if that had counted, and I think that's why the foul was given. I'd be surprised if the referee would still give a foul after watching it back personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 8 hours ago, rynny said: I think I must be the only one that thinks that it was the right call to disallow the goal. Don't think it is given for taking the keeper out think it is because he has 2 hands on the ball and as he fell onto Johnson he inadvertently knocks the ball out of his hands. I certainly wouldn't be happy if it was the other way round and the ref gave the goal. i am with you, i think it was the right call......but only because i have a vested interest in Jordan making it to the top as a goalie....he is the first pro goalie to wear out Glu Pro gloves. ((if anyone else knows any goalies let me know) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEL Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 1 hour ago, unclej said: He was on the right wing. Forest v Derby and he chased after a player like an under 10 school boy. That's your captain for you. Keogh wasn't at fault and it was Bryson that lost his man for their first goal but yeah carry on blaming Keogh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 6 minutes ago, Derby_EnglandLoyal said: Keogh wasn't at fault and it was Bryson that lost his man for their first goal but yeah carry on blaming Keogh. For me Keogh was probably the least culpable of our defence, Baird could have done better in closing down before the cross came in, Pearce could have been positioned better, Carson could have done better, Bryson could have done better in tracking his man. As a team we failed, not down to a single individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 57 minutes ago, Kernow said: Then the game moves into an absolutely no contact game with regards to goalkeepers. It's a corner kick with 15+ players in a small area. Contact is very likely and unless Johnson has made an active effort to knock the ball out of his hands, then it shouldn't be a foul. In my opinion the referee would have seen the keeper drop the ball through contact and panicked. It was probably the easier choice to make in a local Derby. Forest fans would've been on his back all game if that had counted, and I think that's why the foul was given. I'd be surprised if the referee would still give a foul after watching it back personally. To be fair the official ruling is; A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when: the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save holding the ball in the outstretched open hand bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 1 minute ago, rynny said: To be fair the official ruling is; A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when: the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save holding the ball in the outstretched open hand bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hands. I still dont think falling into a player who is stood still having had your legs taken from you by your own player constitutes a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 24 minutes ago, MuespachRam said: i am with you, i think it was the right call......but only because i have a vested interest in Jordan making it to the top as a goalie....he is the first pro goalie to wear out Glu Pro gloves. ((if anyone else knows any goalies let me know) You may want to reformulate the glu, doesn't seem to work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Having seen the highlights looks like we murdered them second half, disappointing to only draw that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 31 minutes ago, Paul71 said: I still dont think falling into a player who is stood still having had your legs taken from you by your own player constitutes a challenge. Absolutely correct. The goal keeper lost control of the ball when not being challenged. Ref bottled it and bottled the simulation at the end by their player creating contact with our player with the attempt to con the official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkFruitsRam7 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 35 minutes ago, reveldevil said: You may want to reformulate the glu, doesn't seem to work! He did probably prevent us from winning the game with that save from Pearce though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.