Agreed. When you get the full backs combining that close together, around the opposition six yard box, Dyche is clearly relying on his typical long ball, focus on set pieces, anti-football.
Winky woo.
-
NOT TWICE!! BUT THRICE!!!!!!!!!
Also i would say our disallowed goal was probably clearer than our first goal which looked like N'Doye (and yes i like the fucking apostrophe), might have been offside.
Igor Jesus was excellent. As was Neco. As Was Morgan. As was Anderson. But come on, Murillo was fucking imperious!
And I have been bigging up Savona of late (just like Taiwo) because I see what kind of potential/talent/use they have. I have decided Zinchenko can fuck off (kind of like Russ with Sangare who I thought was decent today). Delighted for his goal. And hilarious that Neco Salahed Salah for that to happen.
Also I am off the mind that Dom must play in big games because you don't see him impact much but fuck me his workrate is out of this world! Unsung hero.
What really pisses me off though is that the excuses that everyone gives the victims (sorry Scouse scum). They are mourning. Okay, maybe they are but they haven't used that excuse in any other game this season. Maybe just Maybe we played a fucking fantastic game. Also Ian Woan for president if he is responsible for Omar Hutchinson having the impact that he has of late. Brave decision to put him on but great that we did.
I am less Jim Shady nervous now that we are iin deep deep trouble. I am thinking the Ginger Prince has us believing again. Hopefully we don't fuck it against Malmo.
Chicago: In dream land.
-
This comment is looking a little old now.
Chicago: Gaslighting.
-
Sangare's level of engagement and effort has gone up two levels since Dyche joined. If he keeps playing like he has the last two games then I have no issue with him.
-
It certainly should be offside.. but I’m fucked if I know what the rules are anymore. I could probably be a ref now that the ‘running around’ bit is optional.
The Jesus decision is ludicrous to me. I don’t know if there has been an official explanation but it seems that there was basically a lack of conclusive evidence to overrule the on-field decision. Well that’s a fine approach it it’s always the approach.. but it isn’t, as proved by the regular bouts of micro-analysis of decisions. Also.. handball is a factual matter so who gives a shit what the officials think they saw from wherever they were standing.. a slo-mo camera with repeats has a vastly superior view and if that can’t conclusively show a handball then that should be what drives the decision. Otherwise.. what’s the point*.
Jesus has been excellent and it’s good that he’s been recognised for that despite not having a league goal yet.. but I’m really annoyed that one was taken away from him.
* rhetorical, obviously.
-
Hutchinson looks exceptional. My guess is that he's doing exciting stuff in training, so he's being told to play however he wants against tired defenders. It's really working.
-
Also because he wasn’t blocking Allison’s view.
Rooney is so bad on it. Obviously he’s a big name and others (Shearer) have improved but blimey.
-
Green and Rooney really are awful pundits.
-
Agree about Rooney but I quite like Rob Green. Maybe it’s just my memories of that DJ goal.
-
About to watch the highlights for the 4th time
-
Which was bollox because the ball went across N'Doye, so there was a time he was in line of sight.
But as I said, new football, maybe the rules say he's only interfering if he's in line of sight at the time the ball is kicked.
-
Allison had a clear view of Murillo kicking the ball. The fact it went behind Ndoye after that doesn’t count (apparently) - he wasn’t going to get to it regardless. Anyway, it’s not much like the Robertson one where he was between the goalkeeper and the ball and ducked out of the way.
-
No, no, and thrice no.
I said last week, you have to stick with the line. he’s only as good as he is because…Newcastle. It’s nothing to do with Forest. Newcastle never wanted to sell him. It’s all that nasty PSR. They were forced to give us an England-ready player for peanuts.
-
You’ll love this then. The official explanation is that it was “accidental handball” whatever that means. I think it means “accidental” in that it didn’t at any point touch his hand.
-
I did hear this morning, I think it was that henry winter fraudster but it might have been that sean custis bluffer, say that you had to contextualise nuke hassles variable start to the season because of the players that they lost - of which Anderson was quoted as an example. A player that eddie howay wasn't playing.
I think we can agree that a lot of comment from professional contributors to the disourse around football, is largely hindsight based logic free bollocks talk at the highest level.
I was asked yesterday what was going wrong for liverpool when they play. so I did a quick paragraph on pattern of play and why that has led to a change in outcomes from last season. Off the top of my head. I've seen nothing in the traditional media even approaching the level of analysis that obvious description of what I can see with my eyes. 12 games in and all they churn out is Good! Bad! Crisis! Sack! Credit in the bank!
It's like there's rules against providing genuine insight.
The sky post-match analysis and other premium charging providers might do better. I haven't been able to sell a kidney to buy that sort of coverage yet.
-
They've gone to the laws of the game, and picked the only excuse for the decision that they gave that could possibly apply. It's unfortunate that it didn't actually hit his arm, but thems the breaks. It's all they've got.
HANDLING THE BALL
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.
It is an offence if a player:
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
- scores in the opponents' goal:
- directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
- immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
