| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:19 - May 16 with 2419 views | Illinoisblue |
Angry Mogga just then. Looked like he was saying “Lino, do your fking job” |  |
|  |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:22 - May 16 with 2419 views | gainsboroughblue |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:19 - May 16 by Illinoisblue |
Angry Mogga just then. Looked like he was saying “Lino, do your fking job” |
Listening on Talk Sport. Matt Holland summarising. Just been mention of the rule change on away goals c/o Sheepy.
Sunderland had a massive hand ball shout, anything in it? |  |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:24 - May 16 with 2387 views | Illinoisblue |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:22 - May 16 by gainsboroughblue |
Listening on Talk Sport. Matt Holland summarising. Just been mention of the rule change on away goals c/o Sheepy.
Sunderland had a massive hand ball shout, anything in it? |
Looked a nailed on handball. If they had VAR it would have been surely given. | |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:44 - May 16 with 2289 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:24 - May 16 by Illinoisblue |
Looked a nailed on handball. If they had VAR it would have been surely given. |
Co Commentator was certain that it wasn't a penalty, not sure what he is smoking, blatant penalty as you say. |  |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:45 - May 16 with 2274 views | gainsboroughblue |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:44 - May 16 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
Co Commentator was certain that it wasn't a penalty, not sure what he is smoking, blatant penalty as you say. |
2-0 now so it sounds a costly mistake. | |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:47 - May 16 with 2251 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:45 - May 16 by gainsboroughblue |
2-0 now so it sounds a costly mistake. |
Tbf to the ref I think his view may have been impeded, but this is the EFL so its equally likely he just messed up. | |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:48 - May 16 with 2245 views | SitfcB |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:44 - May 16 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
Co Commentator was certain that it wasn't a penalty, not sure what he is smoking, blatant penalty as you say. |
Andy Hinchcliffe is disgustingly bad, has been for years. Sky could do so much better but imagine he’s cheap. |  |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:55 - May 16 with 2179 views | strikalite |
How the hell are Luton doing this, 10k capacity ground, their wage bill must be bottom three of the Championship |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:57 - May 16 with 2158 views | Ftnfwest |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:55 - May 16 by strikalite |
How the hell are Luton doing this, 10k capacity ground, their wage bill must be bottom three of the Championship |
What mick tried to do with us, trouble is it’s got a limited shelf life and they will lose a number of players to better paying championship sides over the summer if they don’t make it. Teams will have also worked them out largely by next season |  | | |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 21:00 - May 16 with 2140 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:55 - May 16 by strikalite |
How the hell are Luton doing this, 10k capacity ground, their wage bill must be bottom three of the Championship |
Solid ownership. Work well within their budget, great scouting, good managerial appointments, replacing Jones with Edwards when the team they had was already well suited to Edwards style of play with Wing backs and two strikers. They just improve year on year. For a club like Plymouth coming up, Luton are the blueprint. | |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:17 - May 16 with 2068 views | Garv |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:44 - May 16 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
Co Commentator was certain that it wasn't a penalty, not sure what he is smoking, blatant penalty as you say. |
In what world was that handball? |  |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:20 - May 16 with 2053 views | Garv |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:24 - May 16 by Illinoisblue |
Looked a nailed on handball. If they had VAR it would have been surely given. |
If that's any kind of handball, let alone a nailed on one, we might as well not bother anymore. It was volleyed at him from no more than 5 yards away while his arm was by his side.
See that given against ITFC next season and I'd like to see you say it was a nailed on handball. | |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:23 - May 16 with 2036 views | Lord_Lucan |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:57 - May 16 by Ftnfwest |
What mick tried to do with us, trouble is it’s got a limited shelf life and they will lose a number of players to better paying championship sides over the summer if they don’t make it. Teams will have also worked them out largely by next season |
Maybe but Luton were well worth it tonight.
I came down the pub to watch the game but they put Milan on in the main bar, had to go with the oldies to watch the Luton game. Would normally root for Luton as I was born there by mistake but wanted Sunderland because of Mogga.
Luton demolished them though. |  |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:25 - May 16 with 2027 views | SitfcB |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:17 - May 16 by Garv |
In what world was that handball? |
Well the ball hit his hand. | |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:32 - May 16 with 1995 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:17 - May 16 by Garv |
In what world was that handball? |
For me his arm wasn't completely by his side and the ball struck the arm when it was crossing in to a dangerous area. | |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:43 - May 16 with 1964 views | Garv |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:32 - May 16 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
For me his arm wasn't completely by his side and the ball struck the arm when it was crossing in to a dangerous area. |
Sadly again we're in the territory of punishing players for simply being human and having arms and hands. As you've said, the ball struck the arm.
You're basically suggesting that unless players play the whole match with their arms 'completely' by their side, then they're at risk of being penalized for handball because someone can volley it at them from 3 yards away.
It's mind-blowing that people want to see penalties given for that. | |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:46 - May 16 with 1952 views | Garv |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:25 - May 16 by SitfcB |
Well the ball hit his hand. |
So it's a free kick or penalty every time that happens now, no matter the circumstances? | |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 23:10 - May 16 with 1936 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:43 - May 16 by Garv |
Sadly again we're in the territory of punishing players for simply being human and having arms and hands. As you've said, the ball struck the arm.
You're basically suggesting that unless players play the whole match with their arms 'completely' by their side, then they're at risk of being penalized for handball because someone can volley it at them from 3 yards away.
It's mind-blowing that people want to see penalties given for that. |
It’s not that deep my brother. | |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 23:21 - May 16 with 1916 views | Lord_Lucan |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 23:10 - May 16 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
It’s not that deep my brother. |
Russell Osman v Everton FAC QF still irks me. | |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 00:00 - May 17 with 1885 views | Sharkey |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 20:57 - May 16 by Ftnfwest |
What mick tried to do with us, trouble is it’s got a limited shelf life and they will lose a number of players to better paying championship sides over the summer if they don’t make it. Teams will have also worked them out largely by next season |
They were in the play-offs last year too. I don't know who they lost to better payers, but they seem to have coped. |  | | |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 00:06 - May 17 with 1881 views | norfsufblue |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:46 - May 16 by Garv |
So it's a free kick or penalty every time that happens now, no matter the circumstances? |
Many years ago when I did my FA preliminary badge ( like I said a long time ago!).... the law as current then was explained by a referee to us that...
Basically if the ball struck or was played by the hand of the defending team in the penalty area AND It gave them an advantage by doing so then the referee should award a penalty...
Now I'm sure the law has changed many times since but to be honest I think it's pretty fair way to judge whether it's a pen or not? |  | | |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 03:47 - May 17 with 1807 views | Illinoisblue |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:20 - May 16 by Garv |
If that's any kind of handball, let alone a nailed on one, we might as well not bother anymore. It was volleyed at him from no more than 5 yards away while his arm was by his side.
See that given against ITFC next season and I'd like to see you say it was a nailed on handball. |
“Arm by his side” lol. Take another look.
| |
| |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 06:53 - May 17 with 1747 views | bluestandard |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 03:47 - May 17 by Illinoisblue |
“Arm by his side” lol. Take another look.
|
Urm, I’m not sure if this actually helps the case for handball. Can see why some might say it is, but I don’t think that’s a pen.
Also, it’s interesting hearing people’s views on the game. I watched the second half and thought both teams played really well, and that if that’s the standard, we’ll have our work cut out for us. |  | | |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 22:12 - May 17 with 1473 views | Garv |
| 1-0 Luton (n/t) on 00:06 - May 17 by norfsufblue |
Many years ago when I did my FA preliminary badge ( like I said a long time ago!).... the law as current then was explained by a referee to us that...
Basically if the ball struck or was played by the hand of the defending team in the penalty area AND It gave them an advantage by doing so then the referee should award a penalty...
Now I'm sure the law has changed many times since but to be honest I think it's pretty fair way to judge whether it's a pen or not? |
Not really no.
The punishment doesn't fit the crime | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
