Dortmund (H) - CL QF | Post-Match Thread

Don't get me wrong, if it had happened to us I'd be fuming, but does anyone else think that Jude Bellingham's disallowed goal was the correct decision (in the modern game)?

He does get the ball first, but it was a dangerous 'tackle'. Studs showing, stamping motion and clearly makes contact with Ederson. It was one of those that you'd expect to see a foul given if it was on the halfway line. Even if you win the ball,it doesn't give you freedom to stamp on your opponent with your stoods?

I didn't think it was a penalty either, but Can definitely made contact with Rodri's thigh. We've seen penalties given for far less!
 
Manchester33 said:
Don't get me wrong, if it had happened to us I'd be fuming, but does anyone else think that Jude Bellingham's disallowed goal was the correct decision (in the modern game)?

He does get the ball first, but it was a dangerous 'tackle'. Studs showing, stamping motion and clearly makes contact with Ederson. It was one of those that you'd expect to see a foul given if it was on the halfway line. Even if you win the ball,it doesn't give you freedom to stamp on your opponent with your stoods?

I didn't think it was a penalty either, but Can definitely made contact with Rodri's thigh. We've seen penalties given for far less!
Click to expand...

I more or less said this, but got shouted down by lots of people. For me it was a foul at the time. If you are that high and your follow through catches the player, then that's that. Especially when it's the keeper.
 
Manchester33 said:
Don't get me wrong, if it had happened to us I'd be fuming, but does anyone else think that Jude Bellingham's disallowed goal was the correct decision (in the modern game)?

He does get the ball first, but it was a dangerous 'tackle'. Studs showing, stamping motion and clearly makes contact with Ederson. It was one of those that you'd expect to see a foul given if it was on the halfway line. Even if you win the ball,it doesn't give you freedom to stamp on your opponent with your stoods?

I didn't think it was a penalty either, but Can definitely made contact with Rodri's thigh. We've seen penalties given for far less!
Click to expand...
Bellinghmas goal was a good challenge,it was not dangerous,it was Eddies fuck up and the goal should have stood.

As for the penalty,it was fucking embarrassing seeing one of ours doing what we have slammed Salah and Fernandes for.Had he gone down claiming the thigh contact,then the legitimacy may have carried some weight.
 
Manchester33 said:
Don't get me wrong, if it had happened to us I'd be fuming, but does anyone else think that Jude Bellingham's disallowed goal was the correct decision (in the modern game)?

He does get the ball first, but it was a dangerous 'tackle'. Studs showing, stamping motion and clearly makes contact with Ederson. It was one of those that you'd expect to see a foul given if it was on the halfway line. Even if you win the ball,it doesn't give you freedom to stamp on your opponent with your stoods?

I didn't think it was a penalty either, but Can definitely made contact with Rodri's thigh. We've seen penalties given for far less!
Click to expand...
Being honest, because the ref blew the whistle immediately, there was no possibility of a VAR review. There should have been a VAR review. Looked like a fair challenge to me. In truth, we should have won 5 - 2 - maybe 5 - 3 at a stretch. But this was our first ever bit of Ch L luck.
 
Manchester33 said:
Don't get me wrong, if it had happened to us I'd be fuming, but does anyone else think that Jude Bellingham's disallowed goal was the correct decision (in the modern game)?

He does get the ball first, but it was a dangerous 'tackle'. Studs showing, stamping motion and clearly makes contact with Ederson. It was one of those that you'd expect to see a foul given if it was on the halfway line. Even if you win the ball,it doesn't give you freedom to stamp on your opponent with your stoods?

I didn't think it was a penalty either, but Can definitely made contact with Rodri's thigh. We've seen penalties given for far less!
Click to expand...
Ederson's feet were just as high and the contact is the foul by Ederson who completely misses the ball.

Terrible decision but due one after Lyon's 2nd goal.
 
FantasyIreland said:
Bellinghmas goal was a good challenge,it was not dangerous,it was Eddies fuck up and the goal should have stood.

As for the penalty,it was fucking embarrassing seeing one of ours doing what we have slammed Salah and Fernandes for.Had he gone down claiming the thigh contact,then the legitimacy may have carried some weight.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure mate, I think with Rodders that it all happened so quickly, the ricochet of the ball and the contact from the player that when the ball has then hit him in the face he’s not been 100% sure what’s gone on so he’s gone for the holding the face, which you have to do to get the ref’s attention nowadays.
 
BillyShears said:
I more or less said this, but got shouted down by lots of people. For me it was a foul at the time. If you are that high and your follow through catches the player, then that's that. Especially when it's the keeper.
Click to expand...
It’s a 50/50, I said to my lad I thought his challenge could easily be classed as dangerous, but on balance should probably have been given. Thank fuck the ref blew his whistle as I wouldn’t have fancied var to help us out on that.
 
Manchester33 said:
Don't get me wrong, if it had happened to us I'd be fuming, but does anyone else think that Jude Bellingham's disallowed goal was the correct decision (in the modern game)?

He does get the ball first, but it was a dangerous 'tackle'. Studs showing, stamping motion and clearly makes contact with Ederson. It was one of those that you'd expect to see a foul given if it was on the halfway line. Even if you win the ball,it doesn't give you freedom to stamp on your opponent with your stoods?

I didn't think it was a penalty either, but Can definitely made contact with Rodri's thigh. We've seen penalties given for far less!
Click to expand...
When you’ve finished on the crack pipe can I have a toke?
 
Rammy Blue said:
I’m not sure mate, I think with Rodders that it all happened so quickly, the ricochet of the ball and the contact from the player that when the ball has then hit him in the face he’s not been 100% sure what’s gone on so he’s gone for the holding the face, which you have to do to get the ref’s attention nowadays.
Click to expand...
Yes the BALL hit him in the face and of course the media overlooked this.Some silly woman on a Guardian podcast suggested we're unlikable ! to who ? United/Liverpool/Chelsea/Arsenal/Spurs fans/ 99% of Journos (fanzine writers) - why wouldn't we be ? The general consensus of fans outside these media darlings can see through it. When Arsensal and Chelsea were Stretfords only rival I became a fan, hate the fuckin lot of em now.
 
Rammy Blue said:
I’m not sure mate, I think with Rodders that it all happened so quickly, the ricochet of the ball and the contact from the player that when the ball has then hit him in the face he’s not been 100% sure what’s gone on so he’s gone for the holding the face, which you have to do to get the ref’s attention nowadays.
Click to expand...
I think we saw it differently then,as i didnt see the ball hit him in the face,and i really cant offer him a defence or excuse.I thought he had more about him.

As i said though,a penalty would not have been the worst decision as there was contact on his leg and in todays climate they are given for such.It was the face holding that deflected the attention and swayed the ref in my opinion.

Happy to be wrong though.
 
FantasyIreland said:
Bellinghmas goal was a good challenge,it was not dangerous,it was Eddies fuck up and the goal should have stood.

As for the penalty,it was fucking embarrassing seeing one of ours doing what we have slammed Salah and Fernandes for.Had he gone down claiming the thigh contact,then the legitimacy may have carried some weight.
Click to expand...
100% all of this .

no way was a foul!! one of the cleanest challenges seen giving as a foul I’ve ever seen.

Also Rodri that was a fucking joke
 
Corky said:
Ederson's feet were just as high and the contact is the foul by Ederson who completely misses the ball.

Terrible decision but due one after Lyon's 2nd goal.
Click to expand...
I don't really disagree - I would argue it's not a foul if it were the other way round. Ederson was in possession, started the motion of kicking the ball. Then Bellingham jumps, both feet off the floor, follows through and his studs hit the top of Edersons boot in a downward motion. It's not a bookable offence, but that type of challenge is more dangerous and I think that's why the referee has given it.

I don't think you can do that in the modern game.

The ref should have waited to check VAR and given himself more time - but I guess that's what you get when you have referees from different associations who all use VAR differently.
 
Ashleymcduff said:
100% all of this .

no way was a foul!! one of the cleanest challenges seen giving as a foul I’ve ever seen.

Also Rodri that was a fucking joke
Click to expand...
It wasn't a 'clean' challenge. He does catch Ederson with his studs.

The argument for Bellingham is that he wins the ball initially, so should the follow-through matter? A good example was Kompany when he got sent off vs United in the FA Cup a few years ago. Went in with both feet, won the ball cleanly, but gets sent off for the type of challenge. Because it's all part of the same motion, you have to take the contact into consideration which IMO makes it a (very very very soft) foul and arguably the correct decision.
 
Manchester33 said:
It wasn't a 'clean' challenge. He does catch Ederson with his studs.

The argument for Bellingham is that he wins the ball initially, so should the follow-through matter? A good example was Kompany when he got sent off vs United in the FA Cup a few years ago. Went in with both feet, won the ball cleanly, but gets sent off for the type of challenge. Because it's all part of the same motion, you have to take the contact into consideration which IMO makes it a (very very very soft) foul and arguably the correct decision.
Click to expand...
Ha ha fuck off !!!!
As if kompany’s is the same
 
FantasyIreland said:
As for the penalty,it was fucking embarrassing seeing one of ours doing what we have slammed Salah and Fernandes for.Had he gone down claiming the thigh contact,then the legitimacy may have carried some weight.
Click to expand...
I don't like diving/feigning injury to win penalties, but if everyone else is doing it, shouldn't we?

I've been critical of Foden for being too honest in the past. Maybe the players are feeling more pressure to simulate injury because of the number of clear penalties that haven't been given to us in recent years?

(I appreciate I'm playing devils advocate a bit - I just think it was interesting.)
 
Manchester33 said:
I don't like diving/feigning injury to win penalties, but if everyone else is doing it, shouldn't we?

I've been critical of Foden for being too honest in the past. Maybe the players are feeling more pressure to simulate injury because of the number of clear penalties that haven't been given to us in recent years?

(I appreciate I'm playing devils advocate a bit - I just think it was interesting.)
Click to expand...

To an extent we need to be a little less naive,i agree.But to feign injury in such a pathetic manner was a line our players should not cross.

As i said,had that been Fernandes,Lingard or Salah then the forum would have been in meltdown....and rightly so.
 
Manchester33 said:
Don't get me wrong, if it had happened to us I'd be fuming, but does anyone else think that Jude Bellingham's disallowed goal was the correct decision (in the modern game)?

He does get the ball first, but it was a dangerous 'tackle'. Studs showing, stamping motion and clearly makes contact with Ederson. It was one of those that you'd expect to see a foul given if it was on the halfway line. Even if you win the ball,it doesn't give you freedom to stamp on your opponent with your stoods?

I didn't think it was a penalty either, but Can definitely made contact with Rodri's thigh. We've seen penalties given for far less!
Click to expand...
I certainly think the Can challenge on Rodri was a penalty. Can flailed his leg backwards onto Rodri's leg with no attempt to play the ball. A penalty all day. The problem was that the referee didn't like Rodri's theatrical behaviour...and I don't blame him really. The Bellingham one should have been allowed. He got the ball and his studs were not that high.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I certainly think the Can challenge on Rodri was a penalty. Can flailed his leg backwards onto Rodri's leg with no attempt to play the ball. A penalty all day. The problem was that the referee didn't like Rodri's theatrical behaviour...and I don't blame him really. The Bellingham one should have been allowed. He got the ball and his studs were not that high.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree with you on the penalty. I don't disagree with you on the Bellingham one, but I'm not sure.

It shows that all these decisions really are down to interpretation - VAR will never resolve that.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The Bellingham one should have been allowed. He got the ball and his studs were not that high.
Click to expand...

It's considered to be dangerous play in the modern game by some referees (but not all), whether there's contact or not. Right on the limits of interpretation. Could have been given either way. And VAR in itself would not have resolved it.
We would have been livid if that had been given against a goal scored by us. But in the CL we have had quite a few diabolical decisions chalked up against us, most notably against a certain club down the East Lancs Rd. Do two wrongs make a right? Nope. But I can live with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top