[Football] Turf Moor Thriller Tonight

[LamieRobertson]

If that was our keeper being taken out like that, there wouldn’t be one of us not raging

Wrong…I wouldn’t so that’s one

 

[Eeyore]

No, not for me. I really despair at this stuff when they get away with it, regardless of who’s doing it. Pedro has made me wince and tut a few times.

Differing views. For me, Adebayo is holding onto a Burnley player in the first instance. Twists him round and then backs into the keeper. I wouldn't have allowed it.

 

[AZ Gull]

Got to love the resilience of low budget Luton. Burnley despite being at home were nothing special at all.

Probably because they WERE at home - didn't they have the worst home record of any top-flight side in the history of the league (not just Premier League) going into today's match?

 

[Colonel Mustard]

If that was our keeper being taken out like that, there wouldn’t be one of us not raging

And what if we were in Luton's position, where we scored, but had the goal disallowed? I’d feel far more aggrieved in that situation.

 

[London Irish]

Wrong

Well I’m with Jules and she’s prettier than you

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Wrong…I wouldn’t so that’s one

Me too. I would be looking for a reasonable expanse of water to invite him to get into.

 

[jcdenton08]

Just seen the highlights, agree with the consensus, not a foul. Keeper went walkabouts, got nowhere near it. Fair goal

 

[Justice]

Inconsistently again Allison hardly got touched the other week and the goal was disallowed. If Trafford had been nearer or touched the ball it would of been ruled out he was weak and in no man’s land so the goal was correctly awarded IMO.

 

[Milano]

The 6 yard box is actually called the ‘goalkeepers area’. The reason it even exists was to stop centre forwards bundling the keeper into the goal with the ball, in the same way the offside rule was introduced to stop goal hanging.
The rule states that no opposition player is allowed to touch the keeper in his area if he has the ball. The goalkeeper’s area NOT the penalty area. It pisses me off a lot when refs blow up because a keeper gets jostled inside the penalty area but outside the ‘goalkeepers area’ because that’s not against the rules, however in the goalkeeper area it is a foul but only if the keeper has the ball, otherwise he’s just another player.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

If Carlsburg did detestable and loathsome football clubs then this would be the fixture.

 

[Algernon]

In basketball vernacular that was half way to being a "pick and roll".

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Subjective decision - another example of why the VAR system isn't fit for purpose.

I was interested to see the ex-footballers and Jules convinced it was a foul. The cynic in me reckons that they just went against the VAR to undermine it. If the decision was overturned, maybe the post-match chat would be about how THAT was the wrong call.

 

[Bozza]

Subjective decision - another example of why the VAR system isn't fit for purpose.

I was interested to see the ex-footballers and Jules convinced it was a foul. The cynic in me reckons that they just went against the VAR to undermine it. If the decision was overturned, maybe the post-match chat would be about how THAT was the wrong call.

I'm no fan of VAR, but I'm struggling to see what it did wrong here.

The on-field official gave the goal and the subsequent VAR review decided there was no clear and obvious error worthy of the referee taking another look.

Many think it was a foul, and a roughly equal number think it was a valid goal. As you say - a subjective decision that was allowed to stand as originally called. That's what we want, isn't it?

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I'm no fan of VAR, but I'm struggling to see what it did wrong here.

The on-field official gave the goal and the subsequent VAR review decided there was no clear and obvious error worthy of the referee taking another look.

Many think it was a foul, and a roughly equal number think it was a valid goal. As you say - a subjective decision that was allowed to stand as originally called. That's what we want, isn't it?

Yes, but BECAUSE it's subjective, you end up with endless debate about whether it was 'right' or 'wrong'. So it doesn't 'solve' the problem (I'm not sure it can actually be solved because of the different interpretations).

I agree with you in this instance - correct decision. But Vinny Cap-botherer and the TNT trio? Not so much.

 

[Bozza]

Yes, but BECAUSE it's subjective, you end up with endless debate about whether it was 'right' or 'wrong'. So it doesn't 'solve' the problem (I'm not sure it can actually be solved because of the different interpretations).

I agree with you in this instance - correct decision. But Vinny Cap-botherer and the TNT trio? Not so much.

I get the angst from some quarters, but we're just back where we've always been with football: The ref gave a decision that could have gone either way. If it goes for you, it was the right decision, if it goes against you it was the wrong decision and neutrals are roughly torn down the middle.

(I'm not sure it was the right decision. I was out in the car listening to the commentary on the radio, where they (can't recall who the commentator and pundit were) thought it was a valid goal, suggested the forward was just standing and Trafford piled into him. When I subsequently saw it later on, I'm not sure I agreed with that interpretation!)

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I think it should be quite a good game.

Wasn't long ago we were a team in this kind of position, and could quite easily be there again if things go slightly wrong.

Point of order several hours after the game has finished, we have never been in this position in seven years in the premier league

Anyway, for me it's a foul on the keeper and the ref should have given that. VAR did the right thing by not over ruling though.

 

[Easy 10]

Thanks for the update.

You're welcome.

It was great x

 

[kevo]

I do think it was a foul - albeit a soft one. It would also normally be given - usually the slighest touch on a goalkeeper is enough, so that is probably why Burnley feel aggrieved.

However, was it a 'clear and obvious error'? No. So the original decision should stand.

I still detest VAR though.

 

[nickjhs]

So glad that goal stood, keepers get away with so much usually. Nothing wrong with the challenge, just strong striker play and weak goalkeeping.

I haven't seen it yet but from what I have read there is a lot of dispute for and against the decision. This means it was not a "clear and obvious error" by the ref and I am glad his decision was upheld. I never wanted VAR to give perfect refereeing, but rather a stop to howlers like "the hand of God" and other CLEARLY wrong decisions

 

[seagullwedgee]

In my view Trafford misjudged the flight of the ball, it was much longer than he calculated. If the striker with whom he had contact was not there, Trafford would still have under judged the ball’s destination by 2 or 3 metres. Morris who headed home was a long way beyond Trafford. In my view, Trafford has realised this mid flight, and tried to manufacture impeding contact, to buy a fouls, to cover his blushes. Goal all day long, correct decision on field, and correct decision not to over-rule it. I know normally refs over protect keepers, but I’m really glad the ref has seen exactly what has happened here. Trafford would not have got anywhere near the ball.

I’ve circled the ball in flight in red, high up centre, and another red circle to mark the point where Morris headed it. The blue line taken by Trafford clearly shows he has miscalculated the length of the cross, there is no way on earth that he could have reached the circled yellow ball from that position, no chance. He should have taken the yellow line, and he knows it.