[Football] World Cup - Day Twenty Four - The First Semi Final

[dsr-burnley]

I agree. Anywhere else on the field, it’s a foul.

I don't agree. If it was, then no winger would ever have to beat his man; all he would have to do would be to klck it past him and run into him.

I just don't see the school of thought that says a goalkeeper must not get between the forward and the goal because it will be a foul if he doesn't make the save. If you're saying that a keeper must save it or it's a penalty, then it makes saving anything pretty hard to do. Presumably if the second goal hadn't gone in, that would have been a second penalty and a second yellow for the Croatia keeper, because that forward ran into him as well.

 

[Swansman]

A very Maupay/Welbeck/Lallana kinda miss.

Not to forget Connolly, March, Moder, Bissouma and so forth...

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I don't agree. If it was, then no winger would ever have to beat his man; all he would have to do would be to klck it past him and run into him.

I just don't see the school of thought that says a goalkeeper must not get between the forward and the goal because it will be a foul if he doesn't make the save. If you're saying that a keeper must save it or it's a penalty, then it makes saving anything pretty hard to do. Presumably if the second goal hadn't gone in, that would have been a second penalty and a second yellow for the Croatia keeper, because that forward ran into him as well.

The keeper got nowhere near the ball, let alone make a save.

 

[schmunk]

I don't agree. If it was, then no winger would ever have to beat his man; all he would have to do would be to klck it past him and run into him.

I just don't see the school of thought that says a goalkeeper must not get between the forward and the goal because it will be a foul if he doesn't make the save. If you're saying that a keeper must save it or it's a penalty, then it makes saving anything pretty hard to do. Presumably if the second goal hadn't gone in, that would have been a second penalty and a second yellow for the Croatia keeper, because that forward ran into him as well.

As explained by Peter Walton last night, if the keeper had actually played the ball (i.e. got a touch), then there'd be no foul because he'd just be standing his ground thereafter. As he instead just ran infront of Alvarez and flapped his arms about, he's impeding and thus caused a foul - that he *tried* to play the ball saved him from receiving a red card.

 

[Bodian]

As explained by Peter Walton last night, if the keeper had actually played the ball (i.e. got a touch), then there'd be no foul because he'd just be standing his ground thereafter. As he instead just ran infront of Alvarez and flapped his arms about, he's impeding and thus caused a foul - that he *tried* to play the ball saved him from receiving a red card.

I suppose the thing is, he's not 'impeding' as such - because the attacker had already got his shot off (such as it was) - so he hasn't changed the flow/outcome, etc.

 

[One Love]

It's weird how everyone is so split on the penalty. I didn't think it was a penalty in real time and I was certain it wasn't after watching the replay.

The ref is obviously in the penalty camp but I guarantee that if it was an England attack it wouldn't have been given.

 

[Swansman]

It's weird how everyone is so split on the penalty. I didn't think it was a penalty in real time and I was certain it wasn't after watching the replay.

The ref is obviously in the penalty camp but I guarantee that if it was an England attack it wouldn't have been given.

Poor England only got two penalties in the quarter-final

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I just don't see the school of thought that says a goalkeeper must not get between the forward and the goal because it will be a foul if he doesn't make the save.

He impeded the player though. That’s a penalty. The attacker was running in a clear path and the goalkeeper got right in front of him and with no, or little, attempt to play the ball.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

As explained by Peter Walton last night, if the keeper had actually played the ball (i.e. got a touch), then there'd be no foul because he'd just be standing his ground thereafter. As he instead just ran infront of Alvarez and flapped his arms about, he's impeding and thus caused a foul - that he *tried* to play the ball saved him from receiving a red card.

I didn’t think reds were given now, as a penalty and a yellow is sufficient punishment?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I didn’t think reds were given now, as a penalty and a yellow is sufficient punishment?

Reds are given if there is no attempt to play the ball, when it's a penalty offence that denies a clear goal scoring opportunity.

Yellow card if they are clearly going for the ball, but outside the box it's a red regardless.

 

[dsr-burnley]

He impeded the player though. That’s a penalty. The attacker was running in a clear path and the goalkeeper got right in front of him and with no, or little, attempt to play the ball.

That's what goalkeepers do. They get between the man and the ball and try to stop the ball. If they aren't to be allowed to do that, what's the point of them?

The keeper didn't move after the ball had been kicked. If it was a foul, the foul was done when the goalkeeper moved in front of the man in hopes of blocking the shot.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

That's what goalkeepers do. They get between the man and the ball and try to stop the ball. If they aren't to be allowed to do that, what's the point of them?

The keeper didn't move after the ball had been kicked. If it was a foul, the foul was done when the goalkeeper moved in front of the man in hopes of blocking the shot.

It’s my view, from viewing replays last night, the player was impeded by the actions of the ‘keeper. He got his shot in, then was impeded. That’s a pen.

Happy to review this position if someone can post a replay.

 

[jackanada]

The eventual rather slow shot is cleared off the line. If not impeded by the keeper I think he had a chance of poking it in ahead of the defender.
Anyhow ref gave it and there's definitely not enough to overturn the original decision.

 

[Icy Gull]

I don't agree. If it was, then no winger would ever have to beat his man; all he would have to do would be to klck it past him and run into him.

Exactly, and as Albion fans we know when that happens a free kick is pretty well never given to us, let alone a booking. Burnley players we know would run over the defender like a tank

 

[One Love]

Poor England only got two penalties in the quarter-final

Hardly England's fault they got so blatantly fouled that they had to give them.

They managed to get away without giving one.