Premier League Gameweek 21

Samid

He's no Bilal Ilyas Jhandir
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
51,729
Location
Oslo, Norway
Friday 12 January 2024
19:45 Burnley v Luton Town (TNT Sports)

Saturday 13 January 2024
12:30 Chelsea v Fulham (TNT Sports)
17:30 Newcastle v Man City (TNT Sports)

Sunday 14 January 2024
14:00 Everton v Aston Villa (Sky Sports)
16:30 Man Utd v Spurs (Sky Sports)

Saturday 20 January 2024
12:30 Arsenal v Crystal Palace (TNT Sports)
17:30 Brentford v Nott'm Forest (Sky Sports)

Sunday 21 January 2024
14:00 Sheff Utd v West Ham (TNT Sports)
16:30 AFC Bournemouth v Liverpool (Sky Sports)

Monday 22 January 2024
19:45 Brighton v Wolves (TNT Sports)
 
Anybody listening to Robbie Savage here? Jesus Christ. He just spent a minute making the same point in the same exact way for about a minute straight.
 
Absolutely fair challenge. Rate Trafford highly, but that's a huge error on his part, he's not even looking :lol:
 
De Gea levels of being a massive fanny from Trafford.
 
Honestly not sure why people were calling it a foul or a tight call. Strange, but that's where we're at I guess, well done VAR for doing something right, especially when it was involving a keeper.
 
That was a nailed on foul. Can't believe it's been given. One of those that if the ref disallows on pitch VAR won't overturn. Crazy decision.
 
Zen said:
Honestly not sure why people were calling it a foul or a tight call. Strange, but that's where we're at I guess, well done VAR for doing something right, especially when it was involving a keeper.
Click to expand...
He looks up at the keeper then moves towards him to obstruct him. I don't know how people think it wasn't a foul! If that went against us I'd be livid.
 
Glad that VAR didn't overturn that. I'm biased but keepers get too much protection at set pieces. He knows what he's doing but Adebayo doesn't do enough for that be a foul. Stands his ground and moves slightly towards the keeper when tussling with the CB. It's not his responsibility to move out of the way for the keeper.
 
DJ Jeff said:
He looks up at the keeper then moves towards him to obstruct him. I don't know how people think it wasn't a foul! If that went against us I'd be livid.
Click to expand...

If the keeper makes an actual attempt to go for the ball and the forward blocks him off like that, I think they'd give the foul, but he's just crumpled like a paper bag as soon as he's been touched. He's done himself absolutely no favours.
 
V.O. said:
If the keeper makes an actual attempt to go for the ball and the forward blocks him off like that, I think they'd give the foul, but he's just crumpled like a paper bag as soon as he's been touched. He's done himself absolutely no favours.
Click to expand...
But he is moving towards the ball, and the forward does look up at him then move towards him to deliberately block him off.
 
You see them given in a keeper's favor all the time, but I'm not sure it was a foul. I don't think that Trafford had even readied himself to catch the ball or even started his jump and his arms only came up once contact was made. If he was in the air and arms out ready for the catch I think it would be given though.
 
DJ Jeff said:
But he is moving towards the ball, and the forward does look up at him then move towards him to deliberately block him off.
Click to expand...
It's deliberate but I don't think the movement towards the keeper is all that significant. No use of the arms, nor was there excessive or significant force, think the keep just made a meal of it. That said if the ref gave the foul, VAR wouldn't overrule it either, which would be fair enough.
 
Don't care if it was a foul or not, We've been screwed by VAR so many times this season and it's nice to be on the right end of a decision from them for once. feck you Vincent Kompany you utter twat. It's 5.55am. I better go sleep :lol:
 
DJ Jeff said:
He looks up at the keeper then moves towards him to obstruct him. I don't know how people think it wasn't a foul! If that went against us I'd be livid.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. The keeper is very very weak for me and seemingly just collapses expecting the foul. I hate keeper protection to that level that a keeper can casually just collapse and be bailed out far too often. But again, they'll be one instantly given as a foul tomorrow, which I get... wildly inconsistent, but isn't everything with this.

I think it's a nailed on fair goal, Trafford's going out, he has to expect some kind of challenge whenever he's made the decision to do that, he can't just collapse out of fear of that challenge.
 
saivet said:
It's deliberate but I don't think the movement towards the keeper is all that significant. No use of the arms, nor was there excessive or significant force, think the keep just made a meal of it. That said if the ref gave the foul, VAR wouldn't overrule it either, which would be fair enough.
Click to expand...
I see your point but I would still be absolutely fuming if that was against us and I would be screaming for a foul, and even as a neutral I just sympathise with Burnley cause that just looks like robbery to me. The guy has deliberately moved to obstruct the keeper all day long for me.
 
The keeper isn't strong enough for me. He feels the contact from Adebayo then jumps to the floor like he's had both legs taken away. If he's a bit braver and commits to go and claim the ball then he probably gets Harry Kane'd and would get the foul anyway.
 
That's never a foul for me, the keepers come out far, the player didn't do much more than just be in that spot rather than body check the keeper, and it's just standard contact that players should expect. Shouldn't be exempted from that just because you're a keeper. If it's in his 6 yard box where a player deliberately bumps into him, then fair enough. But the keeper is basically trying to get the ball around the penalty spot. If that's what you're trying, then you better be prepared to blow through any player to get to the ball.
 
DJ Jeff said:
I see your point but I would still be absolutely fuming if that was against us and I would be screaming for a foul, and even as a neutral I just sympathise with Burnley cause that just looks like robbery to me. The guy has deliberately moved to obstruct the keeper all day long for me.
Click to expand...
Even if he deliberately moved in front of the keeper, the keeper has no business running out there to go for the ball. Inside his 6 yard box, he can have a shout and keepers get protected. Outside of it, you have to be stronger if you go for it, and you should expect physical contact. The keeper went outside that box and crumbled at first contact.
 
That was a terrible, terrible game of football. I didn't pay for it and I still want my money back for sitting through it.
 
DJ Jeff said:
I see your point but I would still be absolutely fuming if that was against us and I would be screaming for a foul, and even as a neutral I just sympathise with Burnley cause that just looks like robbery to me. The guy has deliberately moved to obstruct the keeper all day long for me.
Click to expand...
Luton are my second team to be fair so I'm biased but I generally get annoyed with keepers getting fouls for most things anyway.

It's kind of like how obstruction/blocks are used as a legitimate tactic at corners or free kicks and as long as the blocking player isn't offside, it's deemed as fair game.
 
Why wasn’t the Burnley game shown on anything? Yet they had a championship game on sky
 
bosnian_red said:
Even if he deliberately moved in front of the keeper, the keeper has no business running out there to go for the ball. Inside his 6 yard box, he can have a shout and keepers get protected. Outside of it, you have to be stronger if you go for it, and you should expect physical contact. The keeper went outside that box and crumbled at first contact.
Click to expand...
Disagree. The keeper had every right to go for it and the fact that he's outside his six yard box has no bearing on anything. The player looked at him then moved backwards to block him without making any attempt to play the ball. I'm amazed anyone is saying that's no foul. Even the pundits were in agreement on it.
 
Pickle85 said:
Disagree. The keeper had every right to go for it and the fact that he's outside his six yard box has no bearing on anything. The player looked at him then moved backwards to block him without making any attempt to play the ball. I'm amazed anyone is saying that's no foul. Even the pundits were in agreement on it.
Click to expand...
It has a bearing on allowable contact, 100%. He left his keeper territory and entered the realm of "any other player" territory. That contact is not a foul if it's a forward on a defender or vice versa, therefore it's not a foul if it's a forward on a keeper.

The keeper can go for it of course. It's a shit and dumb decision to do so and he got punished for it.
 
bosnian_red said:
It has a bearing on allowable contact, 100%. He left his keeper territory and entered the realm of "any other player" territory. That contact is not a foul if it's a forward on a defender or vice versa, therefore it's not a foul if it's a forward on a keeper.

The keeper can go for it of course. It's a shit and dumb decision to do so and he got punished for it.
Click to expand...
Again, disagree. This presupposes that keeper's territory is the six yard box when they can use their hands anywhere in the eighteen. The player actively moves to block the keeper with no intention of playing the ball. It's a clear foul for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.