Forget the 2 handball what about the elbow in Rodaks chin!
1 Foul on Rodak
2 Offside when ball hit forward
3 Hand ball.
Goal should not have been given 092.gif
Definitely several reasons to disallow. Sky not even mentioned the block on Rodak, which would be a foul in 90% of games.
Quote from: Ronnief on November 27, 2021, 02:43:11 PM
1 Foul on Rodak
2 Offside when ball hit forward
3 Hand ball.
Goal should not have been given 092.gif
Your right, didn't even think about the fact it was offside the minute it hit the first arm. Fulham did not have anybody on the line.
But who was marking Evans
Quote from: Nero on November 27, 2021, 02:47:16 PM
But who was marking Evans
Evan's was playing like a total winker all game once he came on... didn't think I'd dislike him so much.
Foul on Rodak
One handball
Offside
Second handball.
How could the Officials miss all those offences?
Quote from: ChesterTheTabby on November 27, 2021, 02:50:15 PM
Quote from: Nero on November 27, 2021, 02:47:16 PM
But who was marking Evans
Evan's was playing like a total winker all game once he came on... didn't think I'd dislike him so much.
Yes I've heard he likes to get involved
Just watched the goal replays. Reasons why VAR would have disallowed it: Foul on Rodak. Handball (not the scorer - the previous one that was obviously deliberate). Scorer offside (there have to be TWO defenders playing him onside, normally one is the goalkeeper so linos just look for one other. In this case the goalie was taken out of the equation leaving the scorer with only one defender -so offside
Quote from: grandad on November 27, 2021, 02:51:39 PM
Foul on Rodak
One handball
Offside
Second handball.
How could the Officials miss all those offences?
because it happens at the speed of light and so many bodies in line of vision.
I know it's a million miles away from football league refereeing but when I reffed only up to Athenian league — butwatch where the refs stand -out on the edge of the pen area with too many bodies in the way - at corners/ free kicks they should Stand a foot off the pitch on the far post , you'll see it all then. Still think the ref was better than most today . I guess they're instructed to stand where they do.
Quote from: bobbo on November 27, 2021, 03:16:03 PM
Quote from: grandad on November 27, 2021, 02:51:39 PM
Foul on Rodak
One handball
Offside
Second handball.
How could the Officials miss all those offences?
because it happens at the speed of light and so many bodies in line of vision.
I know it's a million miles away from football league refereeing but when I reffed only up to Athenian league — butwatch where the refs stand -out on the edge of the pen area with too many bodies in the way - at corners/ free kicks they should Stand a foot off the pitch on the far post , you'll see it all then. Still think the ref was better than most today . I guess they're instructed to stand where they do.
I refereeed some combined counties games, and I think the referee today is possibly one of the worst I've seen at any levels. The handballs were obvious, he let the crowd referee the game in the 2nd half, and lost control of it very early into the 2nd half.
The handball I rule was changed over the summer, so Lemina's last year would have stood now so that was never going to be cancelled.
I thought the main thing was a foul, Chris Kavanagh has been sent out to do championship games as people were unhappy with his prem reffing
Quote from: junior white on November 27, 2021, 04:08:07 PM
The handball I rule was changed over the summer, so Lemina's last year would have stood now so that was never going to be cancelled.
I thought the main thing was a foul, Chris Kate=a agh has been sent out to do championship games as people were unhappy with his prem reffing
[/quote
That doesn't excuse the offside either...
Is it possible for the club to send in a protest?
I mean is it even possible to have so many errors at once?
Rodak has to get a defender between him and the guy who obstructs him. We can't really complain about players blocking at corners, we do it all the time and have scored several goals because of it.
Then Rodak has got to be stronger and railroad his way to that ball, floating in the six yard box.
Quote from: WestSussexWhite on November 27, 2021, 04:09:33 PM
Quote from: junior white on November 27, 2021, 04:08:07 PM
The handball I rule was changed over the summer, so Lemina's last year would have stood now so that was never going to be cancelled.
I thought the main thing was a foul, Chris Kate=a agh has been sent out to do championship games as people were unhappy with his prem reffing
[/quote
That doesn't excuse the offside either...
It doesnt but for a Lino i think with bodies across th box wa sharper to see than the foul. The ref should have spotted that in my opinion
Obviously goal should have been disallowed - both handballs in themselves (even if unintended/above 'teeshirt line'/arm in a 'natural' position handball) results in no goal. Off side as well of course.
Obstructing Rodak - always a contentious point.
However most refs would have sent off Robinson for excessive force / feet off ground even if he did not go through Barkhuizen to get the ball. We would have expected a red if a PNE player had committed a similar tackle!
In the round a red card probably would have resulted in a defeat and today's poor performance was not down to poor refereeing.
Mind you if I was a betting man I would be tempted to bet on Ched Evans getting a ref card in the next match he starts!
Quote from: copthornemike on November 27, 2021, 04:44:06 PM
Obviously goal should have been disallowed - both handballs in themselves (even if unintended/above 'teeshirt line'/arm in a 'natural' position handball) results in no goal. Off side as well of course.
Obstructing Rodak - always a contentious point.
However most refs would have sent off Rodak for excessive force / feet off ground even if he did not go through Barkhuizen to get the ball. We would have expected a red if a PNE player had committed a similar tackle!
In the round a red card probably would have resulted in a defeat and today's poor performance was not down to poor refereeing.
Mind you if I was a betting man I would be tempted to bet on Ched Evans getting a ref card in the next match he starts!
Just seen the incidents on Sky sports news. My view is Robinson only a yellow as he was on the ground when making contact, he tried for the ball and did not really catch the player more on the follow through and the player went over him. As for the goal, couldn't see the offside but Rodak was definitely impeded, the PNE player made no attempt to play the ball and his elbow caught Rodak round the head. As for handball the first was as it was being used to block Rodak so not by his side, the second not really as Evans arm was across his chest. So unless there is a rule that you cannot score with a rebound off your arm which I am not sure about it is a goal if you ignore the earlier fouls. As for the pundit Alex Neil ex PNE manager he said that is what they deserved. You get what you deserve by sticking the ball in the net and if you don't do that you deserve nothing.
Quote from: junior white on November 27, 2021, 04:08:07 PM
The handball I rule was changed over the summer, so Lemina's last year would have stood now so that was never going to be cancelled.
I thought the main thing was a foul, Chris Kavanagh has been sent out to do championship games as people were unhappy with his prem reffing
Lemina's handball was completely different, his arm was down by his side exactly like he was standing to attention. This one was with his hands up in the air and outside the line of his body if anything making his body shape bigger. If you compare the way defenders try to block a cross they have the hands behind their backs. As they know if their arms are outside the line of their body it is handball, so what is the difference.
Quote from: Bill2 on November 27, 2021, 06:39:37 PM
As for the goal, couldn't see the offside but Rodak was definitely impeded, .
Regarding the offside, it wasn't the scorer it was the other guy, Emile Riis Jakobsen: with no player on the line, he was level with Rodák and interfered with play when he obstructed Rodák and then again when the ball hit his arm. So even if the officials could not see the arm contact through the crowd, and even if they didn't think he fouled Rodák, they should still have seen that he was in an offside position throughout the sequence of events!
Luck wasn't with us on that goal but I'm if we had var in this league some of our goals from corners with the way we block defenders would have been disallowed.
Swings and round abouts we are still top .
COYW
It looked to me that Che thingy actually leaned forward and nudged the ball over the line with his arm.
He knows what he did, but what footballer would admit "Yes I nudged it in with my left arm ?
The first handball knocked the ball into Evans path, it wasn't as if the ball was fired in at the first player it hit.
Sky commentary is a 'joke'.
Quote from: rogerpbackinMidEastUS on November 27, 2021, 08:18:28 PM
It looked to me that Che thingy actually leaned forward and nudged the ball over the line with his arm.
He knows what he did, but what footballer would admit "Yes I nudged it in with my left arm ?
I think it was arm, then I'm sure it flicked of his hand. It 'bizarre' that everyone on the touchline saw it, but the 3 officials missed it.
Quote from: rebel on November 27, 2021, 08:21:14 PM
Quote from: rogerpbackinMidEastUS on November 27, 2021, 08:18:28 PM
It looked to me that Che thingy actually leaned forward and nudged the ball over the line with his arm.
He knows what he did, but what footballer would admit "Yes I nudged it in with my left arm ?
I think it was arm, then I'm sure it flicked of his hand. It 'bizarre' that everyone on the touchline saw it, but the 3 officials missed it.
I think our lot saw it on an ipad they were looking at and not in real time. It beggars belief that there is not more tech in the championship. Given the change in the laws i do not think the handball decision would have changed but the foul or ffside would have been spotted
This is going to annoy people, but as a devils advocate exercise, I think can justify the goal being given!
1) Riis doesn't really foul Rodak through most of the move, he mostly just stands his ground. I think he does throw an elbow or forearm at Rodak at the end, but given the speed it happened and how much was going on, it is hardly surprising that this was missed. We have probably done worse in our basketball routines
2) The Riis handballs are accidental, obviously. It makes no sense that a player would save a goal for his own team with his arm. The first contact is with his left arm, which is tucked into his body, and the second touch is with his right hand, which is away from his body, but in a natural position given he is in a physical tussle with the goalkeeper.
3) Last year it did not matter if the handball was accidental, if the ball struck hand leading to a chance for you or a teammate, the goal could not stand. But thanks to the Mario Lemina incident against Spurs, that rule was changed. So if the Riis handballs are accidental, as per point 2 above, then it should not lead to the goal being ruled out
4) Ched Evans is not allowed to score with his arm, whether accidental or not but doesnt it hit him on the sleeve? And isnt that regarded as 'shoulder' now?
5) As for the offside, does Rodaks foot extend back past Riis as he is falling, and that make him onside?
Anyway...I feel like it should have been disallowed for the forearm on Rodak, but hardly surprising that was missed!
Evans' "finish" was the least illegal part of the goal. It may technically have been legal. Hard to say.
The other parts, though?
1. Riis backs into Rodak, obstructing him, and then elbows him. Obvious foul.
2. When Evans heads the ball, Riis is actually closer to the goal than Rodak, meaning there needed to be two Fulham defenders between Riis and the goal at the time. There were not. So when the header hit his arm, he was offside.
3. Riis handled the ball with his arm, and then handled it again with his hand, batting the ball back to Evans to score with his own arm. Clearly a handball.
Anyone can miss one call, but how do you miss three -- ON THE SAME PLAYER, NO LESS -- in the same sequence? That's pathetic.
(Anyway, we didn't deserve more than a draw ... but sometimes you get results you don't deserve both ways, and PNE didn't deserve to score.)
Quote from: Craven_Chris on November 27, 2021, 10:48:43 PM
This is going to annoy people, but as a devils advocate exercise, I think can justify the goal being given!
1) Riis doesn't really foul Rodak through most of the move, he mostly just stands his ground. I think he does throw an elbow or forearm at Rodak at the end, but given the speed it happened and how much was going on, it is hardly surprising that this was missed. We have probably done worse in our basketball routines
2) The Riis handballs are accidental, obviously. It makes no sense that a player would save a goal for his own team with his arm. The first contact is with his left arm, which is tucked into his body, and the second touch is with his right hand, which is away from his body, but in a natural position given he is in a physical tussle with the goalkeeper.
3) Last year it did not matter if the handball was accidental, if the ball struck hand leading to a chance for you or a teammate, the goal could not stand. But thanks to the Mario Lemina incident against Spurs, that rule was changed. So if the Riis handballs are accidental, as per point 2 above, then it should not lead to the goal being ruled out
4) Ched Evans is not allowed to score with his arm, whether accidental or not but doesnt it hit him on the sleeve? And isnt that regarded as 'shoulder' now?
5) As for the offside, does Rodaks foot extend back past Riis as he is falling, and that make him onside?
Anyway...I feel like it should have been disallowed for the forearm on Rodak, but hardly surprising that was missed!
the foul on rodak, and that is what ir was was a 100% rehearsed foul that they hope will not be seen. the keeper's movement is in the opposite direction to the way he wants to travel, It is a cynical foul, and part of what is wrong with football.
Mr kavanagh has a track record as a pathetic excuse for a referee and that makes him sound better than he is.
Quote from: Craven_Chris on November 27, 2021, 10:48:43 PM
This is going to annoy people, but as a devils advocate exercise, I think can justify the goal being given!
I appreciate you're just putting forward the case for the opposition, but with all due respect you don't seem to understand the offside rule, or the handball rule for that matter.
It's astounding on so many levels that this goals was given. It's hard to think of many other levels of football where this would have been allowed.
Quote from: simplyfulham on November 27, 2021, 11:30:28 PM
Quote from: Craven_Chris on November 27, 2021, 10:48:43 PM
This is going to annoy people, but as a devils advocate exercise, I think can justify the goal being given!
I appreciate you're just putting forward the case for the opposition, but with all due respect you don't seem to understand the offside rule, or the handball rule for that matter.
It's astounding on so many levels that this goals was given. It's hard to think of many other levels of football where this would have been allowed.
Are there any particular misunderstandings there? I did look up the rule definitions, but keen to ensure I get it right!
If 5here had been more technology Robinson might have walked
Quote from: Craven_Chris on November 27, 2021, 10:48:43 PM
This is going to annoy people, but as a devils advocate exercise, I think can justify the goal being given!
1) Riis doesn't really foul Rodak through most of the move, he mostly just stands his ground. I think he does throw an elbow or forearm at Rodak at the end, but given the speed it happened and how much was going on, it is hardly surprising that this was missed. We have probably done worse in our basketball routines
2) The Riis handballs are accidental, obviously. It makes no sense that a player would save a goal for his own team with his arm. The first contact is with his left arm, which is tucked into his body, and the second touch is with his right hand, which is away from his body, but in a natural position given he is in a physical tussle with the goalkeeper.
3) Last year it did not matter if the handball was accidental, if the ball struck hand leading to a chance for you or a teammate, the goal could not stand. But thanks to the Mario Lemina incident against Spurs, that rule was changed. So if the Riis handballs are accidental, as per point 2 above, then it should not lead to the goal being ruled out
4) Ched Evans is not allowed to score with his arm, whether accidental or not but doesnt it hit him on the sleeve? And isnt that regarded as 'shoulder' now?
5) As for the offside, does Rodaks foot extend back past Riis as he is falling, and that make him onside?
Anyway...I feel like it should have been disallowed for the forearm on Rodak, but hardly surprising that was missed!
Rodak when down as if he'd been shot, and it was Evans upper arm, rather than shoulder, he used to push it into the net, I think.
"For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit."
Quote from: grandad on November 27, 2021, 02:51:39 PM
Foul on Rodak
One handball
Offside
Second handball.
How could the Officials miss all those offences?
Must be a World record for incompetence.
At least four solid reasons why the goal should have been disallowed and yet referee Kavanagh couldn't see any of them. He cannot blame his assistant, who's view was blocked, but he really needs to get his eyes tested for the sake of the game. Kavanagh was poor throughout as the handbags in the dugouts suggested.
Quote from: toshes mate on November 28, 2021, 07:52:00 AM
At least four solid reasons why the goal should have been disallowed and yet referee Kavanagh couldn't see any of them. He cannot blame his assistant, who's view was blocked, but he really needs to get his eyes tested for the sake of the game. Kavanagh was poor throughout as the handbags in the dugouts suggested.
When it comes to 'handbags' it appeared only Silva and his team lost their tag, McAvoy was more measured and calm, and that includes the post match interviews! I didn't expect Silva to be all brightness and light afterwards but an acknowledgement that PNE' s fighting spirit was the main reason for not winning was a bit miserable
Mind you I guess I would have been miserable standing out in the open for an interview in this weather conditions :016:
Quote from: andyk on November 27, 2021, 04:17:55 PM
Rodak has to get a defender between him and the guy who obstructs him. We can't really complain about players blocking at corners, we do it all the time and have scored several goals because of it.
Then Rodak has got to be stronger and railroad his way to that ball, floating in the six yard box.
your right he needs the defender in front of him. I actually think refs should make it clear to the players before the game ( I used to ) just two or three things not acceptable and standing in front of the keeper with no other intention other than obstructing him is one of them . They need to blowup the second the free kick/ corner is taken and award the free kick . It would soon puta stop to it . When do you ever see indirect free kicks ever gin for obstruction , the law still exists though.
At the end of the day the moment the ball hits the guy on the goal line from Evans header ITS OFFSIDE. Forget any handball it's offside.
Even more galling is listening to the Sky 'experts' who, with dozens of slo mo replays, couldn't see any of the points being raised by so many on here.
And demonstrating their bias further by slating Mitro, saying he had no reason to get involved,for confronting the thug Evans who had just grabbed Harrison who was polaxed on the floor, which to them was feisty!
Quote from: bobbo on November 28, 2021, 10:15:48 AM
Quote from: andyk on November 27, 2021, 04:17:55 PM
Rodak has to get a defender between him and the guy who obstructs him. We can't really complain about players blocking at corners, we do it all the time and have scored several goals because of it.
Then Rodak has got to be stronger and railroad his way to that ball, floating in the six yard box.
your right he needs the defender in front of him. I actually think refs should make it clear to the players before the game ( I used to ) just two or three things not acceptable and standing in front of the keeper with no other intention other than obstructing him is one of them . They need to blowup the second the free kick/ corner is taken and award the free kick . It would soon puta stop to it . When do you ever see indirect free kicks ever gin for obstruction , the law still exists though.
Just found this........
In a longwindedness drive, the offence 'obstruction' was removed from Fifa's Laws of the Game in 1997 and was replaced with "impeding the progress of an opponent."
'Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.'
The penalty for impeding remains an indirect free-kick. So why do we never see one given?
UEFA and Fifa qualified referee Padraigh Sutton tells us why. It's all about contact.
"I can't comment on any particular decision, but if there is contact between two players, and the referee considers it a foul, the referee may only award a direct free-kick or a penalty."
"There is no option to give an indirect free-kick."
So when there's contact between the players, 'impeding' is taken out of the equation.
Quote from: Motspur Park on November 28, 2021, 10:29:46 AMJust found this........
In a longwindedness drive, the offence 'obstruction' was removed from Fifa's Laws of the Game in 1997 and was replaced with "impeding the progress of an opponent."
'Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.'
The penalty for impeding remains an indirect free-kick. So why do we never see one given?
UEFA and Fifa qualified referee Padraigh Sutton tells us why. It's all about contact.
"I can't comment on any particular decision, but if there is contact between two players, and the referee considers it a foul, the referee may only award a direct free-kick or a penalty."
"There is no option to give an indirect free-kick."
So when there's contact between the players, 'impeding' is taken out of the equation.
There is clear contradiction between the law you cited and referee Sutton's interpretation of physical contact. One of them has to be wrong. From the standard of refereeing we witness, I can take a punt on which is correct.
One thing is for sure Rodak and his defenders need to sort the matter in training this week so that he doesn't get himself in a similar position against Bournmouth. Parker will have seen the goal and no doubt try copying the tactics a couple of times.
Quote from: Whitesideup on November 28, 2021, 10:41:24 AM
Just found this........
In a longwindedness drive, the offence 'obstruction' was removed from Fifa's Laws of the Game in 1997 and was replaced with "impeding the progress of an opponent."
'Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.'
The penalty for impeding remains an indirect free-kick. So why do we never see one given?
UEFA and Fifa qualified referee Padraigh Sutton tells us why. It's all about contact.
"I can't comment on any particular decision, but if there is contact between two players, and the referee considers it a foul, the referee may only award a direct free-kick or a penalty."
"There is no option to give an indirect free-kick."
So when there's contact between the players, 'impeding' is taken out of the equation.
There is clear contradiction between the law you cited and referee Sutton's interpretation of physical contact. One of them has to be wrong. From the standard of refereeing we witness, I can take a punt on which is correct.
[/quote]
What I quoted was a question that was posed in respect of a specific incident, but I don't think there is a contradiction. I think the new interpretation of what used to be obstruction is now that this is only applicable if there is no actual physical contact. It used to be interpreted that when a player intentionally put himself in the way of a player attempting to reach the ball and in doing so, the coming together of the players was penalised by the award of a free kick for obstruction and an indirect free kick. The referee is stating that is no longer the case and the contact between the players can NOW only be punishable by a direct free kick to the team the ref has awarded in favour of.
Quote from: Motspur Park on November 28, 2021, 10:29:46 AM
Quote from: bobbo on November 28, 2021, 10:15:48 AM
Quote from: andyk on November 27, 2021, 04:17:55 PM
Rodak has to get a defender between him and the guy who obstructs him. We can't really complain about players blocking at corners, we do it all the time and have scored several goals because of it.
Then Rodak has got to be stronger and railroad his way to that ball, floating in the six yard box.
your right he needs the defender in front of him. I actually think refs should make it clear to the players before the game ( I used to ) just two or three things not acceptable and standing in front of the keeper with no other intention other than obstructing him is one of them . They need to blowup the second the free kick/ corner is taken and award the free kick . It would soon puta stop to it . When do you ever see indirect free kicks ever gin for obstruction , the law still exists though.
Just found this........
In a longwindedness drive, the offence 'obstruction' was removed from Fifa's Laws of the Game in 1997 and was replaced with "impeding the progress of an opponent."
'Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.'
The penalty for impeding remains an indirect free-kick. So why do we never see one given?
UEFA and Fifa qualified referee Padraigh Sutton tells us why. It's all about contact.
"I can't comment on any particular decision, but if there is contact between two players, and the referee considers it a foul, the referee may only award a direct free-kick or a penalty."
"There is no option to give an indirect free-kick."
So when there's contact between the players, 'impeding' is taken out of the equation.
well done motspur I didn't know about the change but it really isn't a change it's just re worded. And as we both say we never see indirect free kicks given , only when it's offside . When I was running the refs courses at Uxbridge many many years back there were actually 18 offences that warranted indirect free kicks and only 9 penal offences warranting a direct free kick or a penalty if in the area . I probably need to read the up to date versions now.
Quote from: sarnian on November 28, 2021, 10:24:30 AM
At the end of the day the moment the ball hits the guy on the goal line from Evans header ITS OFFSIDE. Forget any handball it's offside.
It's a close call, but is it offside?
Robinson's left foot looks as close as anything to the line. And Rodak seems level with the Preston player.
(https://i.ibb.co/G5FsFX9/131857.jpg)
For me when some players usher balls out they clearly impede the opposing player by not trying to play the ball whilst holding the player off.
Quote from: Stevieboy on November 28, 2021, 03:49:31 PM
For me when some players usher balls out they clearly impede the opposing player by not trying to play the ball whilst holding the player off.
Yes, that's the most common one
Offside or not the ball was put into the net by the upper arm. Therefore it should automatically have been disallowed for handball. That is the new law.
Quote from: SG on November 28, 2021, 06:12:03 PM
Offside or not the ball was put into the net by the upper arm. Therefore it should automatically have been disallowed for handball. That is the new law.
I mean, I'm certainly not on the other side of the fence regarding the goal here, but you're wrong. Part of the upper arm is now allowed, as in the 'T-shirt line'.
Quote from: Jamie88 on November 28, 2021, 06:21:17 PM
Quote from: SG on November 28, 2021, 06:12:03 PM
Offside or not the ball was put into the net by the upper arm. Therefore it should automatically have been disallowed for handball. That is the new law.
I mean, I'm certainly not on the other side of the fence regarding the goal here, but you're wrong. Part of the upper arm is now allowed, as in the 'T-shirt line'.
This is from the laws of the game....
HANDLING THE BALL
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player's hand/arm with the ball is an offence.
The ball was nudged in by his upper arm (under the armpit). In my opinion it was a clear handball and should have been disallowed.
There is even a picture on the FA website and the ball was struck clearly lower than the permissible area (where it is not deemed to be handball).
Quote from: Stevieboy on November 28, 2021, 03:49:31 PM
For me when some players usher balls out they clearly impede the opposing player by not trying to play the ball whilst holding the player off.
The ball is at the players feet when this normally happens and therefore has it under their control and it is their decision to play it. What is a fouls is where the ball is in open play and you deliberately stop an opponent getting to the ball. This is Association Football not the American variety where blocking would appear to be allowed.
I think it is about time that we gave up discussion on this goal . We have had two goals allowed this season when it has been very marginall as to whether a Fulham player clearly impeded an opposing player or not.
These goals were planned tactics as was the infringement on Rodak but they all got away with it.
The goals stood so let's move on.
Quote from: Stoneleigh Loyalist on November 29, 2021, 11:38:56 AM
I think it is about time that we gave up discussion on this goal . We have had two goals allowed this season when it has been very marginall as to whether a Fulham player clearly impeded an opposing player or not.
These goals were planned tactics as was the infringement on Rodak but they all got away with it.
The goals stood so let's move on.
Prefer people not to tell me what we can or cannot discuss. Suggest you don't "read on" and let others discuss what they like.