Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×

westcoastcanary

Members
  • Content Count

    2,437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

westcoastcanary last won the day on March 7

westcoastcanary had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

172 Excellent

About westcoastcanary

  • Rank
    Long distance plastic

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. westcoastcanary

    An arm away from losing

    My pleasure Fuzzar. And my thanks in particular to Parma, nutty, ricardo and one or two others whose always balanced and knowledgeable posts have provided me with what I was looking for.
  2. westcoastcanary

    An arm away from losing

    https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/sport/norwich-city/justin-fashanu-belter-gets-your-vote-as-the-best-carrow-road-goal-from-a-norwich-city-player-1-3134871 Which stand is that in the background? The old wooden main stand, or the then South Stand? wcorkanary, I have no sense of "football knowledge superiority"'; on the contrary, the reason I'm on here is in the hope of improving my knowledge and understanding of the game. Unfortunately what I find is that few posters are actually interested in improving their knowledge and understanding of the game, they think they know it all already.
  3. westcoastcanary

    An arm away from losing

    If that Justin Fashanu goal was scored at the Barclay end not the River End, then my memory is evidently so defective that I'd better stop posting altogether.
  4. westcoastcanary

    Team Vs Wednesday

    Couldn't agree more regarding control, which is why, during the international break, I tried to get a discussion going about what actually constitutes control and how you measure it. If I remember correctly, the only contributor was king canary whose measure of our control was how nervous he felt when the opposition had the ball! I've been saying for ages that I think we need to shift the balance back somewhat towards more solidity in defence. But what we think is neither here nor there; it's what DF thinks. DF has continually stressed his commitment to entertaining attacking football. I think the key to why McLean has been keeping Leitner and Vrancic out of the team lies in those xG figures i posted. The second half of the season has seen the balance shifting to better chance creation at a relatively small cost in terms of defensive performance. Unless DF thinks we need to shift back towards more of an early part of the season balance, I wouldn't envisage much in the way of change for Friday. If he wants some but not too marked a shift then we might see Vrancic in for McLean, but I suspect it will be same again with change in the form of substitutions if needed.
  5. westcoastcanary

    Team Vs Wednesday

    Leaving aside the first 5 games, where the team was far from settled, I've done a quick count of our cumulative xG when each of Leitner, Vrancic and McLean have played: Leitner: 14 games, cumulative xG 19.6, an average xG of 1.4 per game Vrancic: 12 games, cumulative xG 19.3, an average xG of 1.6 per game McLean: 11 games, cumulative xG 24.2, an average xG of 2.2 per game Since I did this quickly I can't vouch for those figures being absolutely 100% accurate, but the general picture is absolutely clear. What does need to be added though, is that Godfrey's coming in for Klose has contributed significantly to the improvement witnessed over that time.
  6. westcoastcanary

    An arm away from losing

    Standing behind the Barclay End goal (don't recall what it was called in those days) with a group of friends ribbing Sandy Kennon. SK was a window cleaner and when he let a goal in we would politely suggest he brought his ladder next match! I'm not Norwich born and bred; I moved there in 1961, which is when I began actively supporting. My first season ticket was in the old main stand. I had a seat behind the Directors box, near the then press box, very central. Those seats were priced the same as seats in the blocks either side of the Directors box, in my case Block C.The view of the pitch was great, but you used to lose sight of lofted balls, of which there were rather a lot in those days! Having that seat meant I was right in line with Justin Fashanu's great volleyed goal against Liverpool. After the old stand burned down I had to be content with a seat in the South stand; not nearly as good. At that time I was able to follow the team away, usually by coach, which left from outside the travel agents in Castle Meadow. The farthest trip that I can recall was the FA Cup replay against Blackburn Rovers in 1966. The away support nowadays don't realise how easy they have it ..........
  7. westcoastcanary

    An arm away from losing

    Answer my question and I'll answer yours Ian.
  8. westcoastcanary

    An arm away from losing

    JF, I am happy to admit that, being in my mid-eighties, my sight is not as good as it once was. If you want to believe it is so bad that I can't see detail in a video I have further enlarged, that's up to you. At this rate someone will soon be on here asking if I suffer from dementia. Why don't you guys grow up and leave the personal stuff out, eh Hairy?
  9. westcoastcanary

    An arm away from losing

    Simply because I don't agree that the video footage you posted definitively shows that there was no deflection. Indeed I think it is a rather good example of how VAR will fall short of providing definitive answers in many cases. (That's not to say I am against VAR; quite the opposite. But it won't provide definitive answers to every question.) A question for you Ian. If the video clearly establishes that the ball didn't deflect of Kimpembe's thigh, what is your explanation for the fact that neither Dalot nor any other Man Utd player close to the incident appealed for a penalty? Was it because they thought, perhaps correctly, that the ball deflected off Kimpembe's thigh?
  10. westcoastcanary

    An arm away from losing

    Failing to include the original "intended" might be seen as a serious omission if I hadn't already quoted your exact wording (in your original blue font) immediately above. More to the point, exactly what difference does it make to either your point or mine whether the destination of the ball is described as intended or not? In both cases the defending player deliberately set out to block a shot at goal. The destination, or, if you insist, intended destination, of the shot in both cases was the goal. The initial trajectory of the shot in both cases was towards the goal. Your real point is not actually about what destination was intended, but about the extent to which the shot was diverted from its original trajectory by the initial contact with the player's leg. My point is that how much the ball was diverted from its original trajectory by initial contact with the player's leg is neither here nor there.The salient factor is simply that, in both cases, contact with the arm, in the position it was, contributed to the shot being blocked. The referee is not required to judge whether the trajectory of the ball immediately prior to hitting the arm is still "as intended" by the player shooting. Nor is it a requirement that the shot must be on target. All that matters is that the ball strikes the away-from-the-body arm in the course of a deliberate attempt to block the shot. I cannot for the life of me understand why current guidance concerning application of the Laws governing e.g. handball, under which our referees operate, is not made public. It must surely be in the interest of the officials themselves that those who are only too ready to accuse them of having made a mistake are as well-informed as possible about the factors governing refereeing decisions.
  11. westcoastcanary

    An arm away from losing

    Clearly? Not clear at all. Was it you who accused me of "seeing what I wanted to see"?
  12. westcoastcanary

    An arm away from losing

    Ron, I'm perfectly happy to admit I'm wrong if somebody actually produces a reasoned argument that shows I'm wrong. Ill-informed opinion, however many times repeated, by however many different posters, doesn't meet that requirement. Incidentally, there are two quite different issues. One is whether I am right in thinking that Dalot's shot struck Kimpembe's thigh before hitting his arm in the PSG/Man Utd match. Whether it did or didn't is irrelevant to the correctness or otherwise of the penalty awarded against Godfrey, which is the second issue. I really don't see any point in contributing to a forum like this if people are so convinced about the truth of their own opinions that anyone who suggests reasons for thinking otherwise is simply shouted down. Those (like Purple in this instance) who are prepared to engage seriously with me in trying to mutually improve our understanding of what happens on the pitch, will find me happy to engage with them. Those who simply keep repeating what I've suggested they need to think again about, are welcome to continue in the comfort of their own certainty. As for those who descend to making things personal, I simply feel sorry for them.
  13. westcoastcanary

    An arm away from losing

    @Purple Canary First of all, thank you for taking my view of the penalty issue seriously enough to reply in kind. Makes a nice change "I have looked at it again and I still cannot see any kind of contact with the PSG's player's thigh, but if it did make contact it was - and I notice the word you use now is "glance" - the merest glance that did not alter the course of the ball significantly. It was still heading where it had been from the time it left the Man Utd player's boot - towards the outstretched arm of the PSG defender." I was watching the match and was convinced from what I saw in real time that the ball struck the leg and then the arm. Having looked at it again, in real time replay and slow motion, that remains my opinion. It was commented on at the time that no Man U player appealed for a penalty. Dalot, whose shot it was, and who was well placed to see what happened, did not appeal. Why not? There was no question that the ball hit Kimpembe, the referee awarded a corner. The lack of any Man U appeal suggests to me that Man U players, including Dalot, believed it had stuck Kimpembe somewhere other than his arm. The images of the incident show that, given the trajectory of the shot, the only part of Kimpembe's body that the ball could have struck other than his arm was his thigh. Dalot in particular was well placed to see that. His failure to appeal for a penalty supports my view that the ball first struck Kimpembe's leg and then his arm. "It was nothing like the significant deflection from Godfrey's leg to his arm." The degree of deflection is not crucial. What's crucial is simply whether the deflected ball strikes the arm in the course of an attempted block. "Another clear difference is that the Man Utd player was five or more yards away from the PSG player, who had time to jump up but also potentially get his arm out of the way, given that it was in the way of the ball. While with Godfrey the ball is hit from a much shorter distance and he instinctively dives to block" This, while true, does not mean that Godfrey wasn't guilty of handball simply because Morsey was closer when he shot. The point is not that Godfrey didn't have time to get his arm out of the way, but that he deliberately dived into a close-quarters block, with his arm extended. " .......... and can have no idea that the one arm of his that is outstretched will end up being where the ball goes after the deflection." No, I agree, Godfrey could not know that the ball would hit his arm after hitting his leg. However, Godfrey could be expected to know that to dive into the block as he did, with his arm extended as it was, laid him open to having the ball strike his arm. This is the point I made previously about the meaning of "deliberate". People seem to think that, for the handball to be "deliberate", it has to be like Egan's handball which got him sent off in Sheffield United's game against Millwall, where the player specifically resorts to using his hand to block the ball. That narrow interpretation of "deliberate" is simply incorrect, and its being so is not "new"; in the operative sense of "deliberate", Godfrey's handball was deliberate simply because of the manner in which he, quite deliberately, dived in, i.e. with his arm extended in the manner it was. "It comes back to the point I made on the match thread about a new interpretation that it is a penalty, irrespective of intentionality" Exactly; what IS new, in David Ellery's words, is changing the rule so as to make handball depend solely "on outcome rather than intent". But that says nothing about how exactly "intent" has been interpreted hitherto, including currently, prior to this new change coming into effect. My point is that "intentional" or "deliberate", as currently applied, is not restricted to cases like Egan's. The fact that Godfrey did not specifically intend to use his arm to block the ball ("narrow" interpretation) does not mean that his handball was "unintentional" ("wider" interpretation); hence as currently applied, the decision against Godfrey was correct. "The new interpretation is that if the arm is in an "unnatural position" - generally sticking out - then it is a penalty, intentional or not. The logic being that the arm should not be where it is and has stopped the ball from going where it was intended to go. But in this case it wasn't Godfrey's arm that stopped the ball from reaching its intended destination - it was his leg." Not so; it was Godfrey's leg and arm "that stopped the ball from reaching its destination". Since I wrote that it appears the law was in any event going to be "clarified" again, so that the kind of accidental deflection on to the arm we saw with Godfrey will not be penalised, on that basis, that it was a legitimate part of his body that stopped the shot reaching its intended destination. It remains to be seen exactly what this second change involves, and the specific type of incident it is designed to cover. As far as Godfrey's handball goes, it is irrelevant, precisely because it hasn't yet come into effect.
  14. westcoastcanary

    Ref was unsighted for #penalty#

    Perfectly happy to plead guilty to imprecision. Let me correct it: "... dived in with left arm extended from the elbow beyond his body, at an angle approximately 15 degrees above the horizontal". Does that amendment make any difference to the point I'm making? No!
  15. westcoastcanary

    Ref was unsighted for #penalty#

    I missed your post amidst the concerted onslaught Hairy, exacerbated by Harry starting this separate thread. I haven't seen the incident in the Burnley match, so I have no opinion at the moment as to how relevant Hinchcliff's comparison of the two incidents is. But as far as his point about the distance between Godfrey's arm and knee goes, I think that's irrelevant. It's not a question of whether Godfrey had time to withdraw his arm and hence avoid the ball hitting it after it had hit his knee; the salient factor is simply that he dived in with arms outstretched in the first place.
×