Rashford ran thirty yards guarding the ball he interred with the actions of Akanji and Ederson of that there is no doubt only Atwell thought otherwise There is no logical connectionSo, applying the same logic to the Rashford goal last season.
He didn’t interfere with Ederson. If he hadn’t been there it would still have gone in Ederson was rigid on the spot.
This is clearly a nonsense as both Rodri and Rashford did change how the keepers tried to save the shots.
Had Rodri not have been there, Henderson would have simply caught the ball.
It was a definite foul..could see it clearly from SS3..wasn't weak as piss either but it was something that would 100% be given against us.As already said, it was weak as piss from Silva who rather than getting rid of the ball turned back into trouble and threw himself to the ground.
The easy test is if the roles were reversed, would the posters on here who claim it was a foul accept the penalty being chalked off. Obviously no, it would be ‘bent’, ‘cheats’ etc etc.
He was literally inches under the ball. He ducked to avoid it hitting his head.Rashford ran thirty yards guarding the ball he interred with the actions of Akanji and Ederson of that there is no doubt only Atwell thought otherwise There is no logical connection
Rodri didn’t have proximity with the ball at any time
Henderson messed up, lost the flight of the ball never moved
I think the keeper was never gonna get a fingernail on the ball regardless of what happened in front of him. The law seems to be that if yer move or are within spitting distance of the goalie then yer fair game for VAR to fuck you over. What never seems to make the slightest difference to the VAR decision is whether the goalie had a snowflake in hell's chance of saving it.He was literally inches under the ball. He ducked to avoid it hitting his head.
The keeper could only react after he did that.
Absolutely a foul. Look at the Palace goal that was disallowed last weak against Liverpool or our goal for the ‘foul’ on Alison. 100% a foul.It was a definite foul..could see it clearly from SS3..wasn't weak as piss either but it was something that would 100% be given against us.
Did you have a clearer view from where you were sat
That’s a valid opinion and one we will never know one way or t’other.I think the keeper was never gonna get a fingernail on the ball regardless of what happened in front of him. The law seems to be that if yer move or are within spitting distance of the goalie then yer fair game for VAR to fuck you over. What never seems to make the slightest difference to the VAR decision is whether the goalie had a snowflake in hell's chance of saving it.
Was it Rodri's head that touched the ball? I couldn't see whose head touched it, or whether it was a defender, but how many times are we told that a goal stands because the offside player didn't play the ball. One week it's a goal, the next week (our goal) it's offside. I still maintain that Henderson had a chance of saving it had he a left arm that was two metres long!That’s a valid opinion and one we will never know one way or t’other.
I think it was quite a clear cut example of an offside player interfering with play. It was given on field and checked quickly as it was so obvious.
Rodri didn’t touch it for the Alvarez free kick that was disallowed.Was it Rodri's head that touched the ball? I couldn't see whose head touched it, or whether it was a defender, but how many times are we told that a goal stands because the offside player didn't play the ball. One week it's a goal, the next week (our gaol) it's offside. I still maintain that Henderson had a chance of saving it had he a left arm that was two metres long!
No chance he had massive messed upRodri didn’t touch it for the Alvarez free kick that was disallowed.
Had he not been there, Henderson would have moved to his left and caught the ball when it arrived.