Kinkladze 1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 3,181
Un
Unheard of!!!…..
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fulham (H) | PL | Post Match Thread
- Thread starter MCFC1993
- Start date
the blue panther
Well-Known Member
Back to Sheff Utd on loan for the season.McAtee has left?
Good result today and yes the second goal should have been offside but after last week and last season at the dump if had to be given but the rules need changing . Thought ake and arkanji were very rocky throughout the game and Walker was caught out a couple of times . Phil foden is really on his game atm and he is covering for Kev brilliantly and kovacic for me is our best player so far . Doku looks good and with nunes getting ready we are looking ominous and skein good to see Kalvin bobb abd gomez coming on . We are gonna take sone stopping .
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
Mate, the bbc stats show that we conceded 4 shots on target in the Fulham game alone! Where are you getting your stats from?!
Apparently the PL website isn't live, so my count for the Fulham game was as of half-time not full-time.
Still that doesn't change too much, we conceded 1 SoT in each of our first three games according to FBRef. So it is in fact 7 shots on target in 4 games. That's still ridiculously low - less than 2 per game.
The debate about the second goal and Akanji's part in it is interesting. TBH I thought it would be flagged as offside..... and in my view it probably was offside. However, you think about that diabolical decision against utd last season and in my opinion that was offside as well......but it wasn't given. So if you're going to allow that goal to stand then you have to allow this goal to stand. Eddie didn't know whether to go left, right or stand still with Rashford and Fernandes bearing down on him - and either player could have taken a shot. Was Akanji interfering with play more than Rashford? No. Sometimes these refs and VAR make a rod for their own back with inept decisions......and then it comes back to bite them in the arse.
Yep we have some diabolical decisions regularly but if it was 1-1 at half time any one city fan thinking we don't come out second half play better and win that game haven't watched us under pep! So they can shut up moaning about a bad decision!
Doctor Jimmy and Mr Jim
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2020
- Messages
- 418
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Agree!Yep we have some diabolical decisions regularly but if it was 1-1 at half time any one city fan thinking we don't come out second half play better and win that game haven't watched us under pep! So they can shut up moaning about a bad decision!
East Level 2
Well-Known Member
I don't think it was a reckless or dangerous challenge so the penalty is deemed sufficient punishment.Wasn’t he clean through and about to shoot when he was clipped from behind?
If it was deemed the defender wasn’t playing the ball, he should have been sent off, shouldn’t he? Like Cancelo last season.
At the time I thought he'd have got the shot off before the other defender got there but having seen it again I'm not sure. It still took a bloody long time to take the pen, but it was worth waiting for.
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
A result either way…The Viking is lucky Pep is away on sick leave. He would have pulled him off before he could have got a hat trick
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 60,120
Fair enough. I thought JA was in the process of shooting and his foot got clipped. I’m side on at that end, so not the best view.I don't think it was a reckless or dangerous challenge so the penalty is deemed sufficient punishment.
At the time I thought he'd have got the shot off before the other defender got there but having seen it again I'm not sure. It still took a bloody long time to take the pen, but it was worth waiting for.
The rule is if the defender doesn’t attempt to play the ball, then it’s a red card and penalty, but a yellow if they had tried to get the ball.
As Diop was on a yellow anyway, he should have walked. Imho.
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,143
- Team supported
- City
The debate about the second goal and Akanji's part in it is interesting. TBH I thought it would be flagged as offside..... and in my view it probably was offside.
So did I but that was because I see VAR as a mechanism for cheating some clubs for the benefit of others. I couldn't see WHY it should be disallowed. Certainly Akanji was in an offside position but he was not attempting to play the ball (indeed he made every effort to ensure he didn't), at no point was in Leno's line of sight and Leno never hesitated in his attempt to save the ball. I accept the VAR decision was controversial (because many don't agree wit it but the reasoning behind the decision to allow the goal was in accordance with all directives on offside. I accept that sometimes it would be disallowed but by the same token Fulham must accept that the referee can allow the goal without any qualms. It is one of those cases where the question should be not "is it offside?" but rather "what is offside?" and "did it make any difference?" This is entirely different from the "goal" in last season's derby for which all the directives on offside screamed that the goal shold be ruled out!
So did I but that was because I see VAR as a mechanism for cheating some clubs for the benefit of others. I couldn't see WHY it should be disallowed. Certainly Akanji was in an offside position but he was not attempting to play the ball (indeed he made every effort to ensure he didn't), at no point was in Leno's line of sight and Leno never hesitated in his attempt to save the ball. I accept the VAR decision was controversial (because many don't agree wit it but the reasoning behind the decision to allow the goal was in accordance with all directives on offside. I accept that sometimes it would be disallowed but by the same token Fulham must accept that the referee can allow the goal without any qualms. It is one of those cases where the question should be not "is it offside?" but rather "what is offside?" and "did it make any difference?" This is entirely different from the "goal" in last season's derby for which all the directives on offside screamed that the goal shold be ruled out!