Match of the Day - 2022/23

[Cellarite]

Yes. It was his forearm that made contact with his face. Nicely timed photo to try to push the elbow agenda though.

Literally nobody thought it was an elbow barring a few on here.

Nicely timed photo to show the moment that the elbow hit the face when our player wasn’t hit in the face with an elbow?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Nicely timed photo to show the moment that the elbow hit the face when our player wasn’t hit in the face with an elbow?

No, as per my post immediately below.

Here’s Ric’s tweet showing the video clip where it shows it’s forearm contact, not elbow.

 

[paulchapo]

It was definitely a foul and a possible red. The ref missed it and I'm not sure var can get involved at that point.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It was definitely a foul and a possible red. The ref missed it and I'm not sure var can get involved at that point.

All VAR can do is decide whether it’s a red card or not.

The fault was with the assistant referee. He needs his short sight vision tested.

 

[SWP's back]

You can actually see the skin of his cheek displaced as the forearm hits his face here
View attachment 54129

Have the gif. That’s never not a foul.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Have the gif. That’s never not a foul.

Thanks for posting the gif I posted 2-3 posts above.

At no point have I suggested it’s not a foul.

It‘s not an elbow thrown with force, it’s a forearm pushed into Cancelo’s face, which is definitely a foul and probably a yellow card.

 

[paulchapo]

Have the gif. That’s never not a foul.

There's no doubt it's a foul. If the ref or linesman didn't see it fair enough as var don't get involved in everything but he stuck one on him..

 

[johnnytapia]

So MoD highlight the Ederson and Haaland "incidents" as both controversially going in City's favour whereas they chose to ignore the forearm smash into Cancelo's face ( which led to the second goal ) But why no comment about CP's first goal ? The ball comes in from the free kick and it appears to be deflected onto Stones's knee off the CP forward's hand and so on into the net . All the City defenders claim a "handball" but evidently VAR sees no need to investigate. The commentator says it deflected off Walker's elbow. Looking at it many times in slow-mo , I'd certainly vote for the CP's player hand ( the City defenders certainly thought so )

And following the novel interpretation of offside for St Marcus's goal against the Dippers it was equally bizarre how the experts interpreted McTominay playing "keepy-uppy" of the ball with his arms , in the Southampton game, as not being a penalty. I rather think we'll see a lot of VAR and PIGMOL keeping the Rags relevant this season !

Forearm smash? Ha ha , you’d be brilliant as a lawyer. Every fucker would be on death row. He got tickled.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Forearm smash? Ha ha , you’d be brilliant as a lawyer. Every fucker would be on death row. He got tickled.

Do you think we should have an XR stat?

Expected rolls when touched in the face?

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Still waiting for Sky to jump on it.... personally it's a big fat red for me, there's even movement.

When you think back to the yellow ticker red Kun had against Villa to miss the raggy game....it's almost like it's fixed.

Because no media, at least from what I've seen are making it an issue or even mentioning it does not mean nothing happened.

*For the record their third should have counted but had proper action been taken around the Cancelo incident a 1-0 lead and 10 men the chances are the 'third' wouldn't have happened anyway

 

[old blue]

Did not the CP player scream for a foul just a few minutes earlier which was not given, rightfully. I thought that Ayew was giving a bit back.

 

[34yearsandstillgoingstrong]

Forearm smash? Ha ha , you’d be brilliant as a lawyer. Every fucker would be on death row. He got tickled.

Crikey! I hope you don't playfully "tickle" the wife tonight . You could be joining Giggsy and Mason on "death row" .

 

[Saddleworth2]

It was definitely a foul and a possible red. The ref missed it and I'm not sure var can get involved at that point.

surely VAR should be checking for serious foul play?

 

[Blue Mist]

It was definitely a foul and a possible red. The ref missed it and I'm not sure var can get involved at that point.

The linesman was yards away. For him to miss/ignore it is disgraceful. He should have informed VAR who could then look at it for a possible red (although imo, it wasn't but to simply ignore it !)

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Still waiting for Sky to jump on it.... personally it's a big fat red for me, there's even movement.

When you think back to the yellow ticker red Kun had against Villa to miss the raggy game....it's almost like it's fixed.

Because no media, at least from what I've seen are making it an issue or even mentioning it does not mean nothing happened.

*For the record their third should have counted but had proper action been taken around the Cancelo incident a 1-0 lead and 10 men the chances are the 'third' wouldn't have happened anyway

You don’t know the rules if you think the third should have stood.
Keepers must be allowed to release the ball unimpeded.

 

[johnnytapia]

You don’t know the rules if you think the third should have stood.
Keepers must be allowed to release the ball unimpeded.

He wasn’t impeded. It was a perfectly good goal.

 

[TheBlueDune]

You don’t know the rules if you think the third should have stood.
Keepers must be allowed to release the ball unimpeded.

Law 12.
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body).

Keeper is in control of the ball when between hand and ground.
Impeding the keeper while in control of the ball is a foul.

Ederson released the ball but the ball hit the palace player's outstretched foot before rolling on the ground. Therefore still in ederson's control and a foul.
Ref blew whistle as soon as happened before other palace player kicked it. Play stopped before being kicked.
Correct decision by ref.
Stopped play meant kick at goal invalid.
No goal.

Pundits as often not knowing the laws of the game they are allegedly experts in.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Yep, it's been against the rules since that time Thierry Henry nicked it off a goalkeeper and scored. How can anyone not know that rule?

 

[chesterbells]

Law 12.
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body).

Keeper is in control of the ball when between hand and ground.
Impeding the keeper while in control of the ball is a foul.

Ederson released the ball but the ball hit the palace player's outstretched foot before rolling on the ground. Therefore still in ederson's control and a foul.
Ref blew whistle as soon as happened before other palace player kicked it. Play stopped before being kicked.
Correct decision by ref.
Stopped play meant kick at goal invalid.
No goal.

Pundits as often not knowing the laws of the game they are allegedly experts in.

Take a bow.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

He wasn’t impeded. It was a perfectly good goal.

Plank