tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
The thing is though Fabianski didnt deny a goalscoring opportunity.
Today's Football 2014/15
- Thread starter GrandOldTeam
- Start date
- Status
The thing is though Fabianski didnt deny a goalscoring opportunity.
Seamus Colemole
Previously deathbyropeandglass
In this case they didn't.
He was through on goal, got fouled but carried on : had his chance to shoot but missed.
Thats just how the rule is, if he'd have scored Fabianski would still be on the pitch. But he didn't so the ref sent him off as the rules say to do so.
Harsh but correct.
I haven't seen it yet myself but does the ref pull it back for a free kick as well when he sends him off?
Professor Toffee
On and on, over the hill and the craic is good
Yes he did, free for WHU which they blew, Sakho just got their third, 3-1 now
Andy Carroll doing well at the moment
Seamus Colemole
Previously deathbyropeandglass
Well. The commentators insisted he allowed the advantage, then pulled it back after no goal was scored and gave a foul and red card.
However i thought that didn't seem right and they've just shown a replay that makes it look like he actually blew his whistle straight away as soon as the foul was made.
Either way, if you think Fabianski commited a foul and denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity then a red card was correct, whether the foul was awarded immediatly or bought back after advantage was played but no goal scored.
This is what I am saying how can he allow the advantage and because he didn't score bring it back for a free kick and send him off. Why have they been allowed two possible chances to score?
Professor Toffee
On and on, over the hill and the craic is good
Thems the rules, the "advantage wasn't over " so when no advantage accrued he reverted to the previous point, the foul and red card
Playing to Carroll's strengths and he comes up trumps.
Like I said I haven't seen it yet but from what I have heard he messed up the chance. Why is he allowed another chance to score? He had the chance and blew it. Doesn't seem right to me
Seamus Colemole
Previously deathbyropeandglass
I know what you're saying but it's more to punish the keeper for deliberatly fouling a guy and stopping an onvious goalscoring opportunity.
Just because the player gets up and still has a shot (miss or score) doesn't change what the keeper has done. In theory the rule is designed to stop players deliberatly fouling the opposition when they have a good chance to score, and they shouldn't get away with the intent just because the execution is good enough.
Kev The Rat
Player Valuation: £70m
We've laughed at big Sam for years but at least he understands the English game
I got laughed at 18 months ago when I suggested he'd be a better England manager than Hodgson
- Status