The West Ham Thread

[Brett Angell Delight]

It was a bizarre decision,how many corners end up going out of play with nobody getting a touch yet a few end up on the ground. Goal keepers get blocked at most corners,wonder how many more of those will be given this season.

Absolutely. There’s also the long throw renaissance happening now, so the precedent set with this decision (not that I’m genuinely kidding myself there’ll be any actual consistency applied) could/should mean multiple pens per game, per team.

 

[Brett Angell Delight]

I dont think it happens that often though where a keeper comes off his line, gets nowhere near the ball and hits an attacker on the head.

I have no problem at all with a penalty being given. Its a bad piece of goalkeeping.

You know what? Fair enough on that first point. It’s defo not the sort of thing you “see every week” and isn’t given.

Again, though, had that same scenario played out with a defender trying to head the ball, is it a pen? If not then we’re saying we hold keepers to a different standard to defenders in terms of how obligated they are to win the ball *if* they challenge for it. Again, fine, but shouldn’t that then be balanced out with more fouls given against outfield players for blocking keepers at set pieces?

I get why there was a question - as stated my initial shout was foul - but I think it’s very, very messy to deem that a foul and ultimately all it will lead to (as opposed to a change in interpretation/application of the rule) is weekly cryarsing from fans of other teams when defenders miss the ball, attackers block keepers and their team score, etc.

 

[Rita_Poon]

It's a bit of a blur but I think at least one shirt pull has resulted in a penalty in the Afcon. So far as player behaviour goes though, shirt pulls are the least of the problems in that tournament.

 

[Thomasc]

Flat cap sales will plummet if the cheeky, cocknee wide boys get relegated

Pie and mash sales will actually be destroyed. Don’t get me started on jellied eels!

Bloody Starmer!

 

[DualityNSNO]

I can’t bring one to mind at all, but I bet you a tenner it was against us

You know what, probably
I think I started noticing that more after one was given against us for Mina (maybe?) pushing someone, then up the other end the same situation happened where either him again or DCL were proper hugged and held to the ground on a header they'd 100% reach due to being 10 feet tall and it wasn't even looked at

 

[Brett Angell Delight]

It's a bit of a blur but I think at least one shirt pull has resulted in a penalty in the Afcon. So far as player behaviour goes though, shirt pulls are the least of the problems in that tournament.

They blow for full time on 86 minutes in AFCON mate, not sure that’s the tournament to be taking cues from.

 

[Old Blue 2]

might just start jumping into goalies like a headless chicken at every set piece then

Actually, the opposite happened! Did the Forest player pile into the opposition 'keeper? NO! Put yer brain in gear before posting...

 

[Rita_Poon]

They blow for full time on 86 minutes in AFCON mate, not sure that’s the tournament to be taking cues from.

improvised timing irregularities neither. There's players not even booked for stuff out of Bruce Lee movies. I expect whoever has insured the players for injury has been bankrupted 100 times over already.

 

[wandyr79]

That is not the point. Good attempt at deflection, though. What you (and everyone else) can see is the 'keeper striking the Forest player's head with his hand, and he also piled into him. Missed the ball completely, ergo penalty. It's not difficult to understand...

And to answer your point: if a clash of heads is 50/50, you cannot award a penalty. But your comment is moot, because what you say did not actually happen...

The context in this case though is that both players were going for the ball and both missed the ball. The ball was deflected over both their heads. If Gibbs-White headed the ball and then the keeper smashed into him then your point is valid.

The hypothetical situation of an outfield player is relevant because goalkeepers should not be held to different rules, just because they are going for the ball with their hands. If 2 outfield players are going for the same ball and the ball is deflected away from them, they are more than likely going to be making contact with each other, this is what happened here. The only difference is that is was made to look worse because it was a hand, which the keeper has the right to use, that made contact with the outfield player.

 

[jazzy]

Wolves, West Ham and Forest going down is the dream. I do think Forest will survive though on account of Burnley being so poo.

Exactly my thoughts too.

Would be made up to see Dyche relegated . Think they will stay up now but taking solace from the fact that the longer he stays at Forest the more damage he can do.

 

[jazzy]

The context in this case though is that both players were going for the ball and both missed the ball. The ball was deflected over both their heads. If Gibbs-White headed the ball and then the keeper smashed into him then your point is valid.

The hypothetical situation of an outfield player is relevant because goalkeepers should not be held to different rules, just because they are going for the ball with their hands. If 2 outfield players are going for the same ball and the ball is deflected away from them, they are more than likely going to be making contact with each other, this is what happened here. The only difference is that is was made to look worse because it was a hand, which the keeper has the right to use, that made contact with the outfield player.

Can't agree mate.

Gibbs White ( I can't stand ) makes no physical contact with keeper.

Areola on the other hand punches GW in the head.

It's a pen ever day of the week except if it's one of our players getting punched

 

[Old Blue 2]

The context in this case though is that both players were going for the ball and both missed the ball. The ball was deflected over both their heads. If Gibbs-White headed the ball and then the keeper smashed into him then your point is valid.

The hypothetical situation of an outfield player is relevant because goalkeepers should not be held to different rules, just because they are going for the ball with their hands. If 2 outfield players are going for the same ball and the ball is deflected away from them, they are more than likely going to be making contact with each other, this is what happened here. The only difference is that is was made to look worse because it was a hand, which the keeper has the right to use, that made contact with the outfield player.

Jeez! An attacking player DOES NOT have to play the ball! The 'keeper fouled him independent of anything else going on around in the play. Is that so feckin' hard for you, and several others, to understand about what constitutes a foul. I despair of the stupidity of some on here, you included...

Hypothetical situations do not come into it...

 

[RomanReigns]

Jeez! An attacking player DOES NOT have to play the ball! The 'keeper fouled him independent of anything else going on around in the play. Is that so feckin' hard for you, and several others, to understand about what constitutes a foul. I despair of the stupidity of some on here, you included...

Hypothetical situations do not come into it...

 

[RomanReigns]

Can't agree mate.

Gibbs White ( I can't stand ) makes no physical contact with keeper.

Areola on the other hand punches GW in the head.

It's a pen ever day of the week except if it's one of our players getting punched

Punch (noun & verb)


As a noun:

1. A forceful blow made with a clenched fist.
   Example: He threw a punch.

I don't see a clenched fist, its more a pat than a punch imo

 

[jazzy]

Punch (noun & verb)


As a noun:

1. A forceful blow made with a clenched fist.
   Example: He threw a punch.

I don't see a clenched fist, its more a pat than a punch imo

You may be right but the same principle applies