| Congratulations to Palace & their fans 18:42 - May 17 with 2484 views | ArnieM |
They so deserve it and this result is SO good for football. |  |
| |  |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 18:44 - May 17 with 2103 views | jasondozzell |
So pleased for them. And great for the cup too.
Imagine if we ever got back to this level. When we get back to this level!!! |  | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 19:30 - May 17 with 1991 views | wischip |
Yes congratulation to their fans. I had to laugh at their owner Steve Parish though, too busy scrolling through his smartphone screen. I remember seeing him doing that at a previous big game Palace had a few years ago. Steve, your club has just won it's biggest game ever. Get off your phone, the messages can wait until tomorrow. Look around Wembley right now and savour it, FFS. |  | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 19:40 - May 17 with 1942 views | algy |
Proof that when your first choice for new manager turns you down a well run club can find a previously unknown alternative outside the UK who brings success in his first full season. |  |
| I was there when McKenna's ITFC won in the Premier League at Home. Fewest home wins and equal most home defeats in a season in ITFC history. |
| |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 19:51 - May 17 with 1880 views | blueprint |
I’m really happy for them . They’re a team with proper fans supporting their local side and no plastics. |  | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 19:55 - May 17 with 1853 views | TheBoyBlue |
Brilliant result for football, gives hope to the smaller teams that you can win trophies these days. | |
| |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:01 - May 17 with 1826 views | Swansea_Blue |
The elephant in the room is pointing out they probably didn’t deserve it due to escaping a sending off which could have completely changed the game.
Despite that it’s good to see a team that hasn’t won a major trophy finally get one. Their fans were immense. It was almost a done deal as you could feel so much more energy coming from
Palace and their fans. Man C were pretty flat. |  |
| |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:05 - May 17 with 1785 views | nrb1985 |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:01 - May 17 by Swansea_Blue |
The elephant in the room is pointing out they probably didn’t deserve it due to escaping a sending off which could have completely changed the game.
Despite that it’s good to see a team that hasn’t won a major trophy finally get one. Their fans were immense. It was almost a done deal as you could feel so much more energy coming from
Palace and their fans. Man C were pretty flat. |
Genuine Q - is it a sending off if it's not a goalscoring opportunity?
Stuff like this always reminds me of Richard Wright cleaning out Darren Eadie in the first few mins of the Bryan Gunn game and just getting a yellow. [Post edited 17 May 20:06]
| | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:06 - May 17 with 1788 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:01 - May 17 by Swansea_Blue |
The elephant in the room is pointing out they probably didn’t deserve it due to escaping a sending off which could have completely changed the game.
Despite that it’s good to see a team that hasn’t won a major trophy finally get one. Their fans were immense. It was almost a done deal as you could feel so much more energy coming from
Palace and their fans. Man C were pretty flat. |
Everybody is saying it was handball and a sending off but I thought that if the keeper is inside the area, it is not handball regardless of the ball being in the air outside the area. I can't find the rule, though! Did it change at some point? Or does the fact that he has a foot on the line of the area mean he is actually outside the area? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:16 - May 17 with 1764 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:06 - May 17 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Everybody is saying it was handball and a sending off but I thought that if the keeper is inside the area, it is not handball regardless of the ball being in the air outside the area. I can't find the rule, though! Did it change at some point? Or does the fact that he has a foot on the line of the area mean he is actually outside the area? |
It’s where the ball and the keepers hand is, not the keeper’s feet or body. So on the BBC freeze frame they showed Henderson’s hand a good foot outside of the area. I think there’s some uncertainty around where the contact took place, but that wasn’t mentioned. You couldn’t see ball hitting hand in the side on view as the ball was behind his hand. It looked as though he handled it outside of the area, but there’s no watertight proof (maybe that came into the decision?).
And then yes there’s the goal scoring opportunity side of it. The BBC were saying that VAR thought it wasn’t an obvious opportunity because Haaland was going away from goal. Which raises another issue, because the word ‘obvious’ isn’t apparently in the Laws of the Game. Plus I think we all know that if Haaland gets round Henderson there, he’s got a relatively easy tap in for him.
It’s a mess. | |
| |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:18 - May 17 with 1750 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:16 - May 17 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s where the ball and the keepers hand is, not the keeper’s feet or body. So on the BBC freeze frame they showed Henderson’s hand a good foot outside of the area. I think there’s some uncertainty around where the contact took place, but that wasn’t mentioned. You couldn’t see ball hitting hand in the side on view as the ball was behind his hand. It looked as though he handled it outside of the area, but there’s no watertight proof (maybe that came into the decision?).
And then yes there’s the goal scoring opportunity side of it. The BBC were saying that VAR thought it wasn’t an obvious opportunity because Haaland was going away from goal. Which raises another issue, because the word ‘obvious’ isn’t apparently in the Laws of the Game. Plus I think we all know that if Haaland gets round Henderson there, he’s got a relatively easy tap in for him.
It’s a mess. |
If that is the rule, I think he did clearly handle it and he didn't deny that he did so after. He simply stated that the ball was travelling so far out it was never a clear goalscroing opportunity which I get.
I seem to recall the rule being where the goalkeeper's feet were but perhaps I remember wrong or it changed. | |
| |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:50 - May 17 with 1660 views | PhilTWTD |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:18 - May 17 by Nthsuffolkblue |
If that is the rule, I think he did clearly handle it and he didn't deny that he did so after. He simply stated that the ball was travelling so far out it was never a clear goalscroing opportunity which I get.
I seem to recall the rule being where the goalkeeper's feet were but perhaps I remember wrong or it changed. |
Not sure why that was said as it very obviously is.
DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO)
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off.
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned.
A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11 |  | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 21:31 - May 17 with 1496 views | Ftnfwest |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:50 - May 17 by PhilTWTD |
Not sure why that was said as it very obviously is.
DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO)
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off.
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned.
A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11 |
As someone mentioned, the reason Haaland was going away slightly towards the corner was that was the direction Henderson swatted it. Incidentally I was a bit puzzled that even if it wasn’t a red, why wasn’t it therefore a free kick? The handball was undeniable whatever the opinion on opportunity [Post edited 17 May 21:32]
|  | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 21:34 - May 17 with 1480 views | PhilTWTD |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 21:31 - May 17 by Ftnfwest |
As someone mentioned, the reason Haaland was going away slightly towards the corner was that was the direction Henderson swatted it. Incidentally I was a bit puzzled that even if it wasn’t a red, why wasn’t it therefore a free kick? The handball was undeniable whatever the opinion on opportunity [Post edited 17 May 21:32]
|
I think he was going away from goal anyway and his touch would have taken him away further but I still think it's difficult to argue it wasn't an obvious goalscoring opportunity. VAR was only ruling on the potential red card, not whether it was a free-kick. | | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:18 - May 17 with 1351 views | Garv |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 20:01 - May 17 by Swansea_Blue |
The elephant in the room is pointing out they probably didn’t deserve it due to escaping a sending off which could have completely changed the game.
Despite that it’s good to see a team that hasn’t won a major trophy finally get one. Their fans were immense. It was almost a done deal as you could feel so much more energy coming from
Palace and their fans. Man C were pretty flat. |
In the name of hating VAR, and everyone re-refereeing everything constantly, and general sanity, have a bloody day off.
Could have been a red, but Haaland was going away from goal on his weak foot and defenders weren't far away, so would have been harsh. |  |
| |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:23 - May 17 with 1340 views | strikalite |
Just found out that the Palace tifo was a picture taken of a guy and his two sons celebrating a Palace goal many years ago, the man has sadly passed, but his two lads were there in the crowd today... |  | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:28 - May 17 with 1315 views | Churchman |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 21:34 - May 17 by PhilTWTD |
I think he was going away from goal anyway and his touch would have taken him away further but I still think it's difficult to argue it wasn't an obvious goalscoring opportunity. VAR was only ruling on the potential red card, not whether it was a free-kick. |
I think it was a deliberate handball outside the area and Haaland was denied a goalscoring opportunity. It was a red card and if it’d been an opposition keeper doing that against us, I doubt too many would disagree.
I didn’t think it was a penalty either. The player touched the ball and the forward dived over his leg.
But it’s all irrelevant. Palace did a great job and so did their brilliant supporters. Well done them! I’ve no doubt they’ve had a well deserved great time. |  | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:32 - May 17 with 1275 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:28 - May 17 by Churchman |
I think it was a deliberate handball outside the area and Haaland was denied a goalscoring opportunity. It was a red card and if it’d been an opposition keeper doing that against us, I doubt too many would disagree.
I didn’t think it was a penalty either. The player touched the ball and the forward dived over his leg.
But it’s all irrelevant. Palace did a great job and so did their brilliant supporters. Well done them! I’ve no doubt they’ve had a well deserved great time. |
I agree that had it been a Town striker we would generally all be fuming.
I do think it was a clear penalty. There wasn't any dive as far as I saw it. The attacker wasn't going to keep the ball in but that is irrelevant. If the defender fouls, whether the player was going to get the ball isn't a consideration. | |
| |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:34 - May 17 with 1257 views | Pendejo |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:23 - May 17 by strikalite |
Just found out that the Palace tifo was a picture taken of a guy and his two sons celebrating a Palace goal many years ago, the man has sadly passed, but his two lads were there in the crowd today... |
Goal was an Ambrose belter at Old Trafford
Sometimes football really is the beautiful game |  |
| |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:38 - May 17 with 1234 views | ITFC_Forever |
It meant more to Palace which is why they put everything they had into it.
To Man City, it was a meaningless consolation prize.
Football won today. |  |
| |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:45 - May 17 with 1174 views | JakeITFC |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:28 - May 17 by Churchman |
I think it was a deliberate handball outside the area and Haaland was denied a goalscoring opportunity. It was a red card and if it’d been an opposition keeper doing that against us, I doubt too many would disagree.
I didn’t think it was a penalty either. The player touched the ball and the forward dived over his leg.
But it’s all irrelevant. Palace did a great job and so did their brilliant supporters. Well done them! I’ve no doubt they’ve had a well deserved great time. |
I am happy Palace won but it is kind of relevant because VAR has caused minutes of delay and caused an in stadium delay/annoyance (I had a good friend there today as a neutral who has told me how clueless they were to both the potential red card and penalty checks) and in my opinion still ended up with the wrong decision. |  | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:54 - May 17 with 1133 views | PhilTWTD |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:32 - May 17 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I agree that had it been a Town striker we would generally all be fuming.
I do think it was a clear penalty. There wasn't any dive as far as I saw it. The attacker wasn't going to keep the ball in but that is irrelevant. If the defender fouls, whether the player was going to get the ball isn't a consideration. |
It does look like the defender got a touch on the ball, so not a foul. Agree with the other poster, VAR had two decisions to make and got both wrong. Having said that, if there was no VAR, the decisions would have been what they were but there wouldn't have been loads of waiting around, so all rather pointless. | | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:58 - May 17 with 1109 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:54 - May 17 by PhilTWTD |
It does look like the defender got a touch on the ball, so not a foul. Agree with the other poster, VAR had two decisions to make and got both wrong. Having said that, if there was no VAR, the decisions would have been what they were but there wouldn't have been loads of waiting around, so all rather pointless. |
Remember the VAR protocol is clear and obvious though. |  | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 23:03 - May 17 with 1100 views | PhilTWTD |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:58 - May 17 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
Remember the VAR protocol is clear and obvious though. |
Indeed, which makes a mockery of it for me, certainly in terms of the penalty incident. Surely the aim should be to get the right decision, not decide that the wrong one should still stand as it was a difficult one for the referee to get right. | | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 23:05 - May 17 with 1085 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 23:03 - May 17 by PhilTWTD |
Indeed, which makes a mockery of it for me, certainly in terms of the penalty incident. Surely the aim should be to get the right decision, not decide that the wrong one should still stand as it was a difficult one for the referee to get right. |
I agree and I’ll give an example
Today’s penalty - I think it’s fair to stick with call if you’re asking for clear and obvious. However, I think if it’s purely yes or no, then it should be reversed.
Now Jack Clarke against Everton, I’m fine with it being reversed if you’re saying yes or no because I don’t really think that was a penalty but it still could be argued either way. However. They decided that one was clear and obvious. Where’s the threshold? It’s all still super subjective! | | | |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 23:14 - May 17 with 1032 views | Ftnfwest |
| Congratulations to Palace & their fans on 22:32 - May 17 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I agree that had it been a Town striker we would generally all be fuming.
I do think it was a clear penalty. There wasn't any dive as far as I saw it. The attacker wasn't going to keep the ball in but that is irrelevant. If the defender fouls, whether the player was going to get the ball isn't a consideration. |
Had it been a town goalkeeper he’d have gone no question! That said the only times this season I didn’t think we got what we deserved was only really Leicester and maybe a point at Brentford which wouldn’t have made much difference | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
