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

[Ashleymcduff]

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.

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

 

[Manchester33]

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.

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.

 

[Manchester33]

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

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.

 

[Ashleymcduff]

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.

Ha ha fuck off !!!!
As if kompany’s is the same

 

[Manchester33]

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.

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.)

 

[FantasyIreland]

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.)

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.

 

[jimharri]

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.

Agreed. Leave that nonsense to other teams.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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!

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.

 

[Manchester33]

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.

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.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

The Bellingham one should have been allowed. He got the ball and his studs were not that high.

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.