rynny Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 54 minutes ago, Ninos said: Rynny, stop with the "he won a league cup at boro and a title at Twente" dog and pony line. I'd use the blind squirrel metaphor but I'd risk upsetting a whole rodent nation. His record as manager especially recently is atrocious and that's putting it nicely. No one finds way to lose like him, no one. Just pointing out that it isn't failure after failure. It isn't atrocious recently either. It is a mixed bag. He has just set a record for home clean sheets for us, equalled the consecutive game clean sheet record 2 seasons ago, he has the 2 bad runs this time and 2 seasons ago, took us to Wembley the year before. Like I said, mixed bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: In this case Johnson will have been deemed to have challenged the goalkeeper when he had the ball in his hands. Therefore it's a foul. Well they would be wrong if Johnson was deemed to have challenged the keeper. Therefore it's a goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 11 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: You're missing the point. I presume the goal is not disallowed for a physical foul by Johnson such as a push. It is disallowed because the goalkeeper has the ball in both hands when he collides with Johnson and therefore technically Johnson knocks the ball out of his hands (albeit unwittingly). Here's the law: 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. In this case Johnson will have been deemed to have challenged the goalkeeper when he had the ball in his hands. Therefore it's a foul. He didn't challenge the keeper. He stood still. He didn't obstruct. He couldn't have moved out of the way. Goal should have stood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Well it didn't, so there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 15 minutes ago, ossieram said: Well they would be wrong if Johnson was deemed to have challenged the keeper. Therefore it's a goal. 11 minutes ago, sage said: He didn't challenge the keeper. He stood still. He didn't obstruct. He couldn't have moved out of the way. Goal should have stood. Ok, by all means just ignore the rules if it helps feed your sense of injustice. Whether the keeper collided with Johnson or the other way round, is a moot point. The goalkeeper still had the ball under control and knocked out of his hands by an opponent. Other than state what the law says and therefore why the referee, in abiding by those laws, disallowed the goal, there's nothing more to add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Ram Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 1 minute ago, VulcanRam said: Ok, by all means just ignore the rules if it helps feed your sense of injustice. Whether the keeper collided with Johnson or the other way round, is a moot point. The goalkeeper still had the ball under control and knocked out of his hands by an opponent. Other than state what the law says and therefore why the referee, in abiding by those laws, disallowed the goal, there's nothing more to add. You must have been watching a different game. The goalkeeper fell on to his own player, lost control of the ball and fell on to Johnson and dropped it. We then put it in the net, goal any day of the week.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavesaRam Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 I was only able to listen to Radio Derby on and off (in Lincolnshire for the day) - dammed away-supporters club! It seems the turn around was because we moved up the pitch and pressed more, but the biggest change was to put Vydra into the middle (where he is at his most productive) with Russell out on the wing. Bingo. But 20 minutes or so later it sounded like Vydra and Russell had swapped positions back to the formation which hadn't worked in the first half. IS this true/ And if so why? Secondly, why the hell do we always sit back and go deep for the last part of the match? All it does is invite the oppositon onto us and put us under pressure. Then the opposition find out that it really is true that we can't defend a lead. Why oh why do we keep on doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 4 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: Ok, by all means just ignore the rules if it helps feed your sense of injustice. Whether the keeper collided with Johnson or the other way round, is a moot point. The goalkeeper still had the ball under control and knocked out of his hands by an opponent. Other than state what the law says and therefore why the referee, in abiding by those laws, disallowed the goal, there's nothing more to add. The ball was not knocked out of his hands by Johnson. He fell onto Johnson and he hit the ball against Johnson and lost control of it. If the law thinks that is cause to disallow the goal, then it's an ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 4 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: Ok, by all means just ignore the rules if it helps feed your sense of injustice. Whether the keeper collided with Johnson or the other way round, is a moot point. The goalkeeper still had the ball under control and knocked out of his hands by an opponent. Other than state what the law says and therefore why the referee, in abiding by those laws, disallowed the goal, there's nothing more to add. I clearly highlighted which part of the rule didn't occur. There was no challenge. Johnson stood still away from the keeper who moved towards him then fell on him.No challenge. No foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Forest 2 - 2 Derby 98/99 Forest Relegated! Forest 2 - 2 Derby 04/05 Forest Relegated! Forest 2 - 2 Derby 16/17 Forest ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, ossieram said: Forest 2 - 2 Derby 98/99 Relegated! Forest 2 - 2 Derby 04/05 Forest Relegated! Forest 2 - 2 Derby 16/17 Forest ???? Mystic Ossie! well done lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Just now, Boycie said: Mystic Ossie! well done lad. I wish I could claim the credit for this, but I read it earlier and just double checked before I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Just now, ossieram said: I wish I could claim the credit for this, but I read it earlier and just double checked before I posted. We'll keep it between ourselves, shhhhh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archied Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 6 hours ago, bigbadbob said: Remember your old milkman? What was his name? Tall bob Was nt it bigladbob the bringer of fresh cream? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archied Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Obviously there can be a few trimmed from our squad in the summer but for a little while now I've wondered whether a biggish spend on a real decent quality midfield general who can tackle and has decent quality with the ball who is able to easily play in a midfield two as well as three would be just about everything we need to spark this squad to a proper top 2 challenge under a manager like rowett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 I wonder if Mel could get someone like Mark Clattenburg on loan for a season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archied Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Just listened to all 3 interviews , rowett ,nugent , vydra and it's cheered me right up as it's clear that the intent under rowett is going to be a total move away from this tippy tappy sslow slow sideways crab position football that seemed to come in under clement and we have not been able to shake off since ,, I know people worry that that means long ball but it doesn't have to , we were very quick on the break under Mac 1 and that was nt long ball ,, it's the intent for me that matters , if you've got the ball then do something with it ,, no point otherwise ,, I'm excited about the future again under rowett , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 4 hours ago, archied said: Just listened to all 3 interviews , rowett ,nugent , vydra and it's cheered me right up as it's clear that the intent under rowett is going to be a total move away from this tippy tappy sslow slow sideways crab position football that seemed to come in under clement and we have not been able to shake off since ,, I know people worry that that means long ball but it doesn't have to , we were very quick on the break under Mac 1 and that was nt long ball ,, it's the intent for me that matters , if you've got the ball then do something with it ,, no point otherwise ,, I'm excited about the future again under rowett , Feel the same way tbh. I don't know why Mac in 2014/15 started obsessing with clean sheets and controlling games with possession In 13/14 and at our best in 14/15 we never sought to control possession. It was always coincidental that we had players like Hughes, Bryson, Thorne, Wisdom, Dawkins etc that would just always find a white shirt. All he had was a "6 pass rule" to get the ball under control and then it was about bursting forward, minimal touches, into Martin asap. Teams used to concede territory to us. They would park the bus at Pride Park far more regularly than they do now. We controlled games like this. Then it became all about patience. Waiting for opportunities that will apparently inevitably come because we have such good forwards. Keeping clean sheets became a top priority. Clement came in and took this to new level. It became more about control than ever before. Always been a big Mac fan. I think he tinkers too much. I think he worries about clean sheets too much and he has become too patient. But for me he's done enough to deserve to build his own squad However now Rowett is here I do hope we worry less about not losing. That we remember clean sheets and winning are different things. That we make the football fun. He talked a good game after the Forest match. And the 2nd half was much more like a Mac 1 performance than anything Mac has produced for a while. We need to address our lack of ability in the air though. Barcelona may be able to play with midgets but Barcelona play with 70% of the ball and give very little away. We are always going to have to put the ball in the sky at some point. And in this league there will always be opponents who put the ball in the air. Accept the fact and make sure we have more than 3 players that can consistently compete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 How many away games have you done this season? 9 hours ago, DavesaRam said: I was only able to listen to Radio Derby on and off (in Lincolnshire for the day) - dammed away-supporters club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 9 hours ago, ossieram said: The ball was not knocked out of his hands by Johnson. He fell onto Johnson and he hit the ball against Johnson and lost control of it. If the law thinks that is cause to disallow the goal, then it's an ass. I agree, it's stupid, but there you go. Was only trying to shed some light on why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.