| What was Goodman on? 13:45 - Apr 19 with 1824 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
How is a foul in the area not a penalty just because he doesn't think he would have got to the ball? |  |
| |  |
| What was Goodman on? on 13:47 - Apr 19 with 1445 views | PacittiJohn |
Clear penalty. Hirst could have slid and got to the ball. |  | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 13:49 - Apr 19 with 1415 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| What was Goodman on? on 13:47 - Apr 19 by PacittiJohn |
Clear penalty. Hirst could have slid and got to the ball. |
It doesn't matter whether he could have or not.
He was fouled very clearly.
That's all that matters. He could have been hauled down on the edge of the area with the ball crossed to the keeper's arms and it's still a penalty for the foul. | |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 13:49 - Apr 19 with 1414 views | brazil1982 |
He hasn't a clue about the rules of the game. |  | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 13:50 - Apr 19 with 1400 views | Swansea_Blue |
He was wrong about the Norwich one too |  |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:03 - Apr 19 with 1298 views | StokieBlue |
He's never liked us.
During his career he would have been at the referee all day long to get that.
SB |  |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:07 - Apr 19 with 1258 views | Blue_Uprising |
| What was Goodman on? on 13:49 - Apr 19 by brazil1982 |
He hasn't a clue about the rules of the game. |
Confusing the rules for a penalty with the rules for a red card.
With Goodman the words ‘thick as mince’ are first that come to mind. |  | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:12 - Apr 19 with 1202 views | iamatractorboy |
| What was Goodman on? on 13:49 - Apr 19 by Nthsuffolkblue |
It doesn't matter whether he could have or not.
He was fouled very clearly.
That's all that matters. He could have been hauled down on the edge of the area with the ball crossed to the keeper's arms and it's still a penalty for the foul. |
Exactly. It only makes a difference in terms of a red card or not for DOGSO. | | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:14 - Apr 19 with 1171 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Chambers and McAnuff both saying it wasn't a penalty. I would love to know the rules because I can't see how a foul inside the box isn't a penalty just because he might not have got the ball if he hadn't been fouled.
Which then poses the question why is the defender fouling him anyway? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| What was Goodman on? on 14:14 - Apr 19 with 1159 views | NthQldITFC |
| What was Goodman on? on 13:47 - Apr 19 by PacittiJohn |
Clear penalty. Hirst could have slid and got to the ball. |
Yup, he'd already been grappled and slowed, before the defender also pulled his left arm around to deny him any chance of stretching out. Very good chance he would have got there, definite pen. |  |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:15 - Apr 19 with 1144 views | Vaughan8 |
It's best to watch it on mute, otherwise just laugh at his awful commentary | | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:15 - Apr 19 with 1098 views | FrimleyBlue |
Dont listen to him. When furlong was taken out inside the first minute it was his fault they made contact after he kicked the ball first. |  |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:20 - Apr 19 with 1085 views | farkenhell |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:14 - Apr 19 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Chambers and McAnuff both saying it wasn't a penalty. I would love to know the rules because I can't see how a foul inside the box isn't a penalty just because he might not have got the ball if he hadn't been fouled.
Which then poses the question why is the defender fouling him anyway? |
For me, the acid test is whether that would have been given as a foul outside the penalty area. I think it would and the defending side would have had little cause for complaint. On that basis, as the foul was inside the area, it was clearly a penalty. | | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:21 - Apr 19 with 1067 views | Len_Brennan |
I don't mind Goodman saying it, but how everyone else follows suit is what gets me. Just goes to show how suggestible people are once somebody speaks with some level authority.
It's a clear foul, in the box, on the forward trying to get to the ball - how can that not be a penalty?
The argument as to the amount of contact & Hirst's reaction is completely separate. | |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:21 - Apr 19 with 1058 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
In the opening minutes when Darnell got hit, he blamed it on Darnell, saying, “it’s the defender that’s initiated contact with his follow through, so let’s just get up and get on with it”
Then said that Nunez had conned the ref for a free kick. |  |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:26 - Apr 19 with 1019 views | Sarge |
Wasn’t a penalty. We’ve certainly had the Leicester and Stoke mistakes repaid in recent games! | | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:27 - Apr 19 with 1004 views | Len_Brennan |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:26 - Apr 19 by Sarge |
Wasn’t a penalty. We’ve certainly had the Leicester and Stoke mistakes repaid in recent games! |
Why wasn't it a penalty? | |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:28 - Apr 19 with 989 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:26 - Apr 19 by Sarge |
Wasn’t a penalty. We’ve certainly had the Leicester and Stoke mistakes repaid in recent games! |
It was a foul, inside the box. | |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:31 - Apr 19 with 946 views | Sarge |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:27 - Apr 19 by Len_Brennan |
Why wasn't it a penalty? |
Because it was the lightest of contact and contact isn’t always a foul. Hirst did well to buy it, he was never getting anywhere near the cross and managed to make a slight touch look more significant. Probably slightly more of a penalty than the one vs Norwich but that’s not saying much. | | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:32 - Apr 19 with 930 views | Sarge |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:28 - Apr 19 by Cheltenham_Blue |
It was a foul, inside the box. |
Once again I’m going to get a flurry of downvotes for not wearing blue tinted goggles but if that was given against us we’d be absolutely furious. Just like we were at Stoke. | | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:34 - Apr 19 with 898 views | Ryorry |
| What was Goodman on? on 13:49 - Apr 19 by brazil1982 |
He hasn't a clue about the rules of the game. |
Not just that, the way he banged on about “the 3 soft/non penalties that ITFC have been given in the last few games” without ever mentioning the stonewall ones we were denied, or the soft ones awarded to our opponents, shows his clear bias and lack of professionalism. |  |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:38 - Apr 19 with 860 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:32 - Apr 19 by Sarge |
Once again I’m going to get a flurry of downvotes for not wearing blue tinted goggles but if that was given against us we’d be absolutely furious. Just like we were at Stoke. |
If you get downvotes they will be nothing to do with you not wearing blue tinted specs, but everything to do with you being wrong. | |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:39 - Apr 19 with 852 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:32 - Apr 19 by Sarge |
Once again I’m going to get a flurry of downvotes for not wearing blue tinted goggles but if that was given against us we’d be absolutely furious. Just like we were at Stoke. |
I would be furious at the defender for committing the foul. Not at the referee for awarding it. | |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:39 - Apr 19 with 837 views | ernie |
Wake up. It wasn’t a pen at all. Extremely light contact. We got lucky with that. | | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:45 - Apr 19 with 785 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:39 - Apr 19 by ernie |
Wake up. It wasn’t a pen at all. Extremely light contact. We got lucky with that. |
Ah, if they were arguing it wasn't a foul I could see why they would say it was the wrong decision.
But all of them admitted it was a foul.
So, by the rules, that is a clear penalty. The defender wrapped both arms round him and held him back. Even their manager acknowledged that. | |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:46 - Apr 19 with 779 views | SouthBucksBlue |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:31 - Apr 19 by Sarge |
Because it was the lightest of contact and contact isn’t always a foul. Hirst did well to buy it, he was never getting anywhere near the cross and managed to make a slight touch look more significant. Probably slightly more of a penalty than the one vs Norwich but that’s not saying much. |
If it wasn’t a penalty, surely Hirst would have sold it not bought it. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
