Goal or Foul?

I'm surprised it was allowed given that you can't breathe on a keeper generally without them getting a free kick. That being said, the keeper was trying to be a clever **** and deliberately fell over to try and win a free kick and waste more time. The fact he couldn't hold on to the ball is entirely down to his own incompetence and therefore the goal rightly stands IMO.
 
Well done referee.

Goalkeeper, you are a clown 🤡 and deserve everything that comes your way from the club and fans.

You could see his soul leave his body as the ball squirmed free. This was the moment he knew he'd fvcked up
 
WilliamMunny said:
I'm surprised it was allowed given that you can't breathe on a keeper generally without them getting a free kick. That being said, the keeper was trying to be a clever **** and deliberately fell over to try and win a free kick and waste more time. The fact he couldn't hold on to the ball is entirely down to his own incompetence and therefore the goal rightly stands IMO.
Click to expand...
Like you, I am surprised it was allowed to stand and feel as if he hadn't been spoken to by the ref moments earlier he would have got the decision. I'm not sure that should be allowed to cloud the ref's judgment though.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
Like you, I am surprised it was allowed to stand and feel as if he hadn't been spoken to by the ref moments earlier he would have got the decision. I'm not sure that should be allowed to cloud the ref's judgment though.
Click to expand...
VAR would have changed the decision of course.
 
The Ref was right to award the goal, particularly in light of some apparently outrages time wasting by the keeper prior to this. (I know that doesn't mean he can't be fouled).

What surprises me is that the ref was brave enough to give a goal.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
It is not what we think should happen but what the rules are and the ref bent the rules because he wasn't happy with the behaviour of the keeper. How would you feel if that happened to the Boro?
Click to expand...
If that happened to the Boro, I think I would be annoyed at the ref and goalkeeper equally.
It's one that would be usually given as a foul to the keeper but the goalkeeper should never have given the referee that decision to make, He was then very weak to drop the ball. It was totally avoidable by the keeper if he wasn't being a pr1ck.
 
B_G said:
If that happened to the Boro, I think I would be annoyed at the ref and goalkeeper equally.
It's one that would be usually given as a foul to the keeper but the goalkeeper should never have given the referee that decision to make, He was then very weak to drop the ball. It was totally avoidable by the keeper if he wasn't being a pr1ck.
Click to expand...
Correct on accounts.
 
You are allowed to touch players, otherwise it'd be a non contact sport.

Assuming the ref has made made the judgement the contact was so minor that it didn't constitute a foul.

The fact the keeper dramatically threw himself to the floor is neither here nor there.

I think there's a decent argument it's a perfectly legitimate goal. It's also a common sense decision and absolutely F***ing hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top