Nottingham Forest v Derby County

[Chester40]

18 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

I agree, it's stupid, but there you go. Was only trying to shed some light on why.

It wasn't the interpretation of the law...it was just the ref bottling it.

Keeper fell, Derby player was in the area..goal scored. Easier to just give a foul than to go with his eyes and say there was no foul. 

[rynny]

18 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

It wasn't the interpretation of the law...it was just the ref bottling it.

Keeper fell, Derby player was in the area..goal scored. Easier to just give a foul than to go with his eyes and say there was no foul. 

Johnson was the reason whybthe ball came out of the keepers hands though. He fell on top of Johnson and the ball hit him and knocked it of his hands.

[toddy]

A typical game of 2 halves, how many times over the last few seasons have we seen the same type of performance ?

Absolute dire in the first half and after a bit of home truths by GR at HT we come out a different team!

The points in the game once again were lost by lack of marking by the defence, namely Keogh and Pearson going missing for both their goals.

I do hope GR throws some bloc@king around this week regarding the poor defending, its not the first time we have gone missing at the back, hopefully it is the last!

 

[VulcanRam]

38 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

It wasn't the interpretation of the law...it was just the ref bottling it.

Keeper fell, Derby player was in the area..goal scored. Easier to just give a foul than to go with his eyes and say there was no foul. 

With the greatest of respect, that's just a ridiculous assumption/allegation. Why would the referee "bottle" it? Again, if the keeper has the ball in his hands and an opposition player knocks it out of his hands, it's a foul. Johnson knocked the ball out of his hands. Doesn't matter whether it was intended or not.

[rynny]

1 hour ago, toddy said:

A typical game of 2 halves, how many times over the last few seasons have we seen the same type of performance ?

Absolute dire in the first half and after a bit of home truths by GR at HT we come out a different team!

The points in the game once again were lost by lack of marking by the defence, namely Keogh and Pearson going missing for both their goals.

I do hope GR throws some bloc@king around this week regarding the poor defending, its not the first time we have gone missing at the back, hopefully it is the last!

 

So who wasn't doing their job properly of marking Pillinos? Keogh or Pearce? Or were they marking another player?

[toddy]

1 hour ago, rynny said:

So who wasn't doing their job properly of marking Pillinos? Keogh or Pearce? Or were they marking another player?

Two goals conceded and both times the centre backs were not in position gapping gaps on both accounts.

Keogh and Pearce both went out to the edge of the 6 yard box? Why, the two centres should be central and Keogh shough be then marshalling who should be picking up who in the box.

Both goals related to central gaps in the central area of our defence.

[eddie]

13 hours ago, ossieram said:

I wish I could claim the credit for this, but I read it earlier and just double checked before I posted.

Yes, I saw it on FB - Bernie, perhaps?

[rynny]

Just now, toddy said:

Two goals conceded and both times the centre backs were not in position gapping gaps on both accounts.

Keogh and Pearce both went out to the edge of the 6 yard box? Why, the two centres should be central and Keogh shough be then marshalling who should be picking up who in the box.

Both goals related to central gaps in the central area of our defence.

I was on about the second goal. You have your biggest/best at heading marking their best/tallest. Keogh and Pearce are marking players that have made runs away from the centre to the near post, are they supposed to leave their man and hope that the ball doesn't go to them?

Whenever I have played it is the goalkeeper that does the organising, whether it has been me or anyone else in goals. They should be the eyes, they need to take control of what is happening in their box. Again, something I always drill into my keepers, it is their box, they control, they are the boss of the area. Also Johnson and Butterfield need to be saying that they had a man that was free. When the corner goes in Butterfield does not follow his man, and Johnson has 3 players around him. To say it is Keogh and Pearce's fault for the 2nd goal is just wrong.

First goal, there are too many errors to put it down to one or 2 players, at least 4 players could have done better.

[Chester40]

4 hours ago, VulcanRam said:

With the greatest of respect, that's just a ridiculous assumption/allegation. Why would the referee "bottle" it? Again, if the keeper has the ball in his hands and an opposition player knocks it out of his hands, it's a foul. Johnson knocked the ball out of his hands. Doesn't matter whether it was intended or not.

Why? It's at Forest, they are desperate for the points...

There is a coming together of players and we score ...safest thing is to just say 'keeper was impeded' and disallow.

How anyone could interpret that as a foul and not give a goal is beyond me. He didn't 'knock it out' of his hands. The keeper bumped into HIM. Greatest respect, but totally disagree with you!

 

[Animal is a Ram]

Mutters something about 'keepers getting too much protection..

[DRBee]

4 hours ago, VulcanRam said:

With the greatest of respect, that's just a ridiculous assumption/allegation. Why would the referee "bottle" it? Again, if the keeper has the ball in his hands and an opposition player knocks it out of his hands, it's a foul. Johnson knocked the ball out of his hands. Doesn't matter whether it was intended or not.

Because it was Mancienne running into the goalkeeper first that caused the keeper to lose his balance  - Johnson just happened to be there. Johnson didn't knock the ball out of his hands !!!!

 

Of course refs never bottle decisions.

[nottingram]

If Bradley Johnson decided to spend the game lying prone in our penalty area, would we expect the ref to give a penalty if a Forest player decided to run into him and fall over?

I'm not really bothered about it as I don't think it had any effect on the result but it definitely wasn't a foul.

As for the diving decision, that is one he definitely did bottle.

[TuffLuff]

Here's a question about the disallowed goal:

Can you honestly say the goalkeeper is in control of the ball when he hits Johnson? I would say not. Johnson only fouls him if you think the keeper is in control to me. When he's falling forward can you say that he is? Side note: wouldn't have mattered if Ince had laid in Vydra a minute later rather than wildly shooting over!

The bigger crime was not pulling up their player for that dive at the end. That decision effected the final result more than the disallowed goal

 

[rynny]

28 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Why? It's at Forest, they are desperate for the points...

There is a coming together of players and we score ...safest thing is to just say 'keeper was impeded' and disallow.

How anyone could interpret that as a foul and not give a goal is beyond me. He didn't 'knock it out' of his hands. The keeper bumped into HIM. Greatest respect, but totally disagree with you!

 

 

12 minutes ago, DRBee said:

Because it was Mancienne running into the goalkeeper first that caused the keeper to lose his balance  - Johnson just happened to be there. Johnson didn't knock the ball out of his hands !!!!

 

Of course refs never bottle decisions.

The simplified way that the ref has come to his decision is

Does the keeper have the ball in 2 hands? Yes

Does the ball make contact with the attacker whilst the keeper has 2 hands on the ball? Yes

Does said contact remove the ball from the keepers hands? Yes

Therefore by the letter of the law it is a foul.

People are adding too much irrelevant detail into the decision. The referee has a few seconds to make the decision, the above will be what he saw what he will have made his decision on and has to rule out the goal and give a free kick.

Would like to get @Mafiabob opinion, if he has seen it back.

[rynny]

2 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

Can you honestly say the goalkeeper is in control of the ball when he hits Johnson? I would say not. Johnson only fouls him if you think the keeper is in control to me. When he's falling forward can you say that he is?

I think this is what it boils down to, I think for the duration of time he has the ball, he isn't juggling it and that he still has hold of it after the collision means that he is in full control.

[MuespachRam]

So, after 48 hours and countless replays available people still aren't 100% in agreement if it should have been disallowed or not....? Doesn't that say something to you..??

Give the ref a break, he has to make that decision in a second and despite what is often said they don't make bad decisions on purpose and actually they make something like 95% of all decisions totally correctly. 

[tomsdubs]

2 hours ago, rynny said:

I was on about the second goal. You have your biggest/best at heading marking their best/tallest. Keogh and Pearce are marking players that have made runs away from the centre to the near post, are they supposed to leave their man and hope that the ball doesn't go to them?

Whenever I have played it is the goalkeeper that does the organising, whether it has been me or anyone else in goals. They should be the eyes, they need to take control of what is happening in their box. Again, something I always drill into my keepers, it is their box, they control, they are the boss of the area. Also Johnson and Butterfield need to be saying that they had a man that was free. When the corner goes in Butterfield does not follow his man, and Johnson has 3 players around him. To say it is Keogh and Pearce's fault for the 2nd goal is just wrong.

First goal, there are too many errors to put it down to one or 2 players, at least 4 players could have done better.

First goal you can see Bryson run in just after Clough goes in to the box with the "Oh **** I ****** up here" look on his face.

[Big Bad Bob]

8 minutes ago, rynny said:

 

The simplified way that the ref has come to his decision is

Does the keeper have the ball in 2 hands? Yes

Does the ball make contact with the attacker whilst the keeper has 2 hands on the ball? Yes

Does said contact remove the ball from the keepers hands? Yes

Therefore by the letter of the law it is a foul.

People are adding too much irrelevant detail into the decision. The referee has a few seconds to make the decision, the above will be what he saw what he will have made his decision on and has to rule out the goal and give a free kick.

Would like to get @Mafiabob opinion, if he has seen it back.

So if the keeper has the ball in both hands and then decides to smash the ball on to an opposing players head and in doing so knocks the ball out of his hands, it's a foul on the goalkeeper?

[tomsdubs]

If you drop a bad fart near the keeper which inhibits him from catching the ball, is that deemed a foul?

[dcfcfan1]

12 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

So, after 48 hours and countless replays available people still aren't 100% in agreement if it should have been disallowed or not....? Doesn't that say something to you..??

Give the ref a break, he has to make that decision in a second and despite what is often said they don't make bad decisions on purpose and actually they make something like 95% of all decisions totally correctly. 

Tbh I have no complains as forest deserved to be winning at Ht anyway