angieram Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 20 minutes ago, Rampant said: I'm old school @angieram - you're safe with 'he' 🙂 I'll sort the thread for Northampton out tomorrow (Mon) night. You can't be too careful these days - but noted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 1 hour ago, angieram said: They were asking when, not who. 🍻 Yes I know they were... But what I hadn't noticed... despite even quoting them(!)... was that it was actually @Rampant themselves that was asking the question! I thought it was someone else, trying to muscle in on Rampant's tip-top run! It was at this point, that I cannot deny, I felt quite the fool! 🤣 I'm gonna claim diminished concentration. It's been "one of those weekends"! Apologies all round! 🙄 😊 ck-, archram, Foreveram and 2 others 2 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europia Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 55 minutes ago, SSD said: Fingers crossed we can have a natural striker fit to get us to the end. Looks like it might be a case of hoping Waggy can 'roll back the years' 🤞 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 SKRam and Walkley Ram 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadAmster Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Thoroughly entertained by this one. proper football, not the boring stuff you see in most PL games. Two teams wanting to win. Some good attacking from both sides. Both defences looked good. Wildsmith pulled off 2 worldies. Some interesting MF battles. Good interplay going forward falling down mainly thanks to good defending. Our approach to handling their #19, Maghoma, frightened me. The lad looks mustard, a proper footballer and we gave him the freedom of Pride Park. Fortunately, he was never able to fashion a good shot or set up a team mate. We gave him way too much time and space. We were very happy when he was replaced. Well happy with the win but over the 90, a draw was probably the right result, IMO. Especially considering Waggy's handball for the goal. Ian Evatt is quoted as saying nobody at the stadium could leave thinking Derby deserved the win. I agree. A draw would have been a better reflection. Having said that, what goes around comes around. 2 nailed on penalties at theirs not given plus the one they got was from a Smith foul outside the box SKRam and David Graham Brown 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 26 minutes ago, MadAmster said: Thoroughly entertained by this one. proper football, not the boring stuff you see in most PL games. Two teams wanting to win. Some good attacking from both sides. Both defences looked good. Wildsmith pulled off 2 worldies. Some interesting MF battles. Good interplay going forward falling down mainly thanks to good defending. Our approach to handling their #19, Maghoma, frightened me. The lad looks mustard, a proper footballer and we gave him the freedom of Pride Park. Fortunately, he was never able to fashion a good shot or set up a team mate. We gave him way too much time and space. We were very happy when he was replaced. Well happy with the win but over the 90, a draw was probably the right result, IMO. Especially considering Waggy's handball for the goal. Ian Evatt is quoted as saying nobody at the stadium could leave thinking Derby deserved the win. I agree. A draw would have been a better reflection. Having said that, what goes around comes around. 2 nailed on penalties at theirs not given plus the one they got was from a Smith foul outside the box People keep referring to this still taken from a video as if it's conclusive evidence that Waghorn handled the ball (maybe it also hit the hand of the Bolton defender that is 'obviously' immediately behind Waghorn and in the path of the ball 😄) but at full speed Waghorn lifts his arm to let the ball pass. Odd that no-one from Bolton has produced a slo-mo clip that would show frame-by-frame what actually happened, isn't it? 😏 I'm now more than ever convinced that the goal wouldn't have been disallowed even under VAR, because whatever faint touch the ball got on Waggy's arm (it certainly wasn't vice-versa) didn't affect the outcome. Kathcairns, SKRam, angieram and 4 others 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Just now, Crewton said: People keep referring to this still taken from a video as if it's conclusive evidence that Waghorn handled the ball (maybe it also hit the hand of the Bolton defender that is 'obviously' immediately behind Waghorn and in the path of the ball 😄) but at full speed Waghorn lifts his arm to let the ball pass. Odd that no-one from Bolton has produced a slo-mo clip that would show frame-by-frame what actually happened, isn't it? 😏 I'm now more than ever convinced that the goal wouldn't have been disallowed even under VAR, because whatever faint touch the ball got on Waggy's arm (it certainly wasn't vice-versa) didn't affect the outcome. If the ball hit his arm and went in, it would be disallowed on VAR regardless of affecting the outcome. That's just how that rule works. It was clearly so subtle that no one really appealed for anything. Is what it is, just unusual for us to be on the right side of things 2 games running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Derby's No.1 Crewton, David Graham Brown, Steve How Hard? and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ap04 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 18 hours ago, FlyBritishMidland said: Secondly, ignore the result. What world does that happen. You mean because the ball sneaked past Waghorn's armpit the tactics and players were a small triumph, but had it not they would have been a mild letdown. Makes perfect sense. G STAR RAM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 17 minutes ago, Crewton said: People keep referring to this still taken from a video as if it's conclusive evidence that Waghorn handled the ball (maybe it also hit the hand of the Bolton defender that is 'obviously' immediately behind Waghorn and in the path of the ball 😄) but at full speed Waghorn lifts his arm to let the ball pass. Odd that no-one from Bolton has produced a slo-mo clip that would show frame-by-frame what actually happened, isn't it? 😏 I'm now more than ever convinced that the goal wouldn't have been disallowed even under VAR, because whatever faint touch the ball got on Waggy's arm (it certainly wasn't vice-versa) didn't affect the outcome. Waghorn was claiming it as his goal in the changing room, which confirms some contact was made. That could be his arm or his torso 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 minute ago, ap04 said: You mean because the ball sneaked past Waghorn's armpit the tactics and players were a small triumph, but had it not they would have been a mild letdown. Makes perfect sense. SKRam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 11 minutes ago, Srg said: If the ball hit his arm and went in, it would be disallowed on VAR regardless of affecting the outcome. That's just how that rule works. It was clearly so subtle that no one really appealed for anything. Is what it is, just unusual for us to be on the right side of things 2 games running. I suppose it's foolish to second-guess what VAR would say 😄 but if what you say is true, it would seem iniquitous that the defending team should benefit from a faint 'ball brushes arm' incident where the 'offender' is moving his arm away from the ball to avoid contact and the goal would have been scored had his arm not been involved anyway, since there was no deliberate action to help the ball into the net. Anyhow, thank goodness VAR wasn't put to the test. DavesaRam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 2 minutes ago, ap04 said: You mean because the ball sneaked past Waghorn's armpit the tactics and players were a small triumph, but had it not they would have been a mild letdown. Makes perfect sense. Teams have been known to go on open-top bus tours on the basis of a lucky deflection, as you well know. SKRam and Mucker1884 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: Waghorn was claiming it as his goal in the changing room, which confirms some contact was made. That could be his arm or his torso 😉 Looked more like his torso, but there could have been a bit of both. I'm guessing he wasn't telling one way or the other? 😅 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnero Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 26 minutes ago, Crewton said: People keep referring to this still taken from a video as if it's conclusive evidence that Waghorn handled the ball (maybe it also hit the hand of the Bolton defender that is 'obviously' immediately behind Waghorn and in the path of the ball 😄) but at full speed Waghorn lifts his arm to let the ball pass. Odd that no-one from Bolton has produced a slo-mo clip that would show frame-by-frame what actually happened, isn't it? 😏 I'm now more than ever convinced that the goal wouldn't have been disallowed even under VAR, because whatever faint touch the ball got on Waggy's arm (it certainly wasn't vice-versa) didn't affect the outcome. Spot on. This straight on picture has a foreshortening effect, so can end up showing what certain people want it to show. Very much like the disputed catches that can happen in cricket, that look different front on as opposed to side on. SKRam and Kathcairns 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ap04 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 25 minutes ago, Crewton said: People keep referring to this still taken from a video as if it's conclusive evidence that Waghorn handled the ball (maybe it also hit the hand of the Bolton defender that is 'obviously' immediately behind Waghorn and in the path of the ball 😄) but at full speed Waghorn lifts his arm to let the ball pass. Only last week you produced a still as evidence -regardless of what happened at full speed and if it merited a foul- there might be contact with Hourihane's foot. You couldn't write it, man. G STAR RAM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 24 minutes ago, Crewton said: I suppose it's foolish to second-guess what VAR would say 😄 but if what you say is true, it would seem iniquitous that the defending team should benefit from a faint 'ball brushes arm' incident where the 'offender' is moving his arm away from the ball to avoid contact and the goal would have been scored had his arm not been involved anyway, since there was no deliberate action to help the ball into the net. Anyhow, thank goodness VAR wasn't put to the test. The rule for handball is simply if it hits the arm in the act of scoring a goal, whether that's to bring the ball down or directly put the ball in the net. Doesn't even matter if it was deliberate or egregious these days, rightly or wrongly. VAR is very hot on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 3 minutes ago, Srg said: The rule for handball is simply if it hits the arm in the act of scoring a goal, whether that's to bring the ball down or directly put the ball in the net. Doesn't even matter if it was deliberate or egregious these days, rightly or wrongly. VAR is very hot on it. Give the goal to Waggy then, that'll add more salt. 😄 Srg and David Graham Brown 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Graham Brown Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) Did the Bolton centre half have some sort of force field surrounding him, how many times did he stand with his foot on the ball, and no one put a tackle on him? I feared he could just walk the ball into the net if he’d wanted to. Edited March 18 by David Graham Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreveram Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 27 minutes ago, ap04 said: Only last week you produced a still as evidence -regardless of what happened at full speed and if it merited a foul- there might be contact with Hourihane's foot. You couldn't write it, man. Shouldn’t you be looking out for your points deduction today 👀 SKRam, Comrade 86, Kathcairns and 2 others 1 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now