Ref was unsighted for #penalty#

[nutty nigel 7,509]

You are defending your opinion Wolfie, it's fair enough but not what I was talking about. We all have different opinions. 

Are you trying to say that Todd hasn't had unfair and unbalanced criticism on here?

KIO, my point about sending Todd out on loan is that it's hardly supportive at a time where he's a big part of the squad who are about to achieve something nobody thought possible.

It may be time to move on from the penalty but it's certainly not time to be sending players out on loan next season. We still need Todd this season to help get  over the line.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

You are defending your opinion Wolfie, it's fair enough but not what I was talking about. We all have different opinions. 

Are you trying to say that Todd hasn't had unfair and unbalanced criticism on here?

KIO, my point about sending Todd out on loan is that it's hardly supportive at a time where he's a big part of the squad who are about to achieve something nobody thought possible.

It may be time to move on from the penalty but it's certainly not time to be sending players out on loan next season. We still need Todd this season to help get  over the line.

Waveney's criticism was ridiculous, but you can't take him seriously.

I personally haven't seen else anything I'd deem unfair or unbalanced – I've seen plenty I don't agree with, but nothing beyond the realms of reason. Lots of good debate around the subject, which is healthy. If someone feels that we'd be better off using players other than Todd for the last four games of the season, I would disagree with them. But I wouldn't think their opinion was unreasonable.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

10 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Waveney's criticism was ridiculous, but you can't take him seriously.

I personally haven't seen else anything I'd deem unfair or unbalanced – I've seen plenty I don't agree with, but nothing beyond the realms of reason. Lots of good debate around the subject, which is healthy. If someone feels that we'd be better off using players other than Todd for the last four games of the season, I would disagree with them. But I wouldn't think their opinion was unreasonable.

You put a balanced post on that thread saying that Cantwell, Stiepermann and Hernandez didn't have a great game. You didn't think Leitner or Vrancic should come in for Cantwell but move McLean forward to replace one of the front three.

I disagree and would only put players in to their most effective positions so if Vrancic or Leitner come in it should be for McLean. Or change the system. But for me with us on such a long unbeaten run averaging over 2 points a game for the season doing that would be an overreaction.

So there's two balanced opinions.

But opinions like "Cantwell offered nothing in two games and isn't contributing" are not balanced and are totally wrong. (That wasn't Waveny) 

[AJ 1,218]

Absolutely stupid decision by the ref. Never in a million years did Godfrey deliberately handle the ball as the rules require. Sadly, it is a rule that needs to be looked at and clarified, as too many officials (even with VAR) are making the wrong decisions.

 

but ah well, points a point!

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

19 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

You put a balanced post on that thread saying that Cantwell, Stiepermann and Hernandez didn't have a great game. You didn't think Leitner or Vrancic should come in for Cantwell but move McLean forward to replace one of the front three.

I disagree and would only put players in to their most effective positions so if Vrancic or Leitner come in it should be for McLean. Or change the system. But for me with us on such a long unbeaten run averaging over 2 points a game for the season doing that would be an overreaction.

So there's two balanced opinions.

But opinions like "Cantwell offered nothing in two games and isn't contributing" are not balanced and are totally wrong. (That wasn't Waveny) 

Yes, I agree that the statement you've highlighted is unbalanced. But on the whole – considering it's an internet forum and all – I think the discussion on this subject has been within the bounds of reason. Compared to some of the witch hunts we've seen on here in the past, I think it's pretty tame stuff.

If Waveney hadn't posted his inflammatory bobbins, I doubt we'd even be discussing it. The sooner people block/ignore him the better, he's an absolute stain on this community.

[westcoastcanary 173]

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Whereas my understanding is that you are full of sh it

If your "understanding" of the BBC report you refer to is anything to go by Bill, I suggest you cut out the personal abuse and practice reading comprehension. If after reading it again you can't see what you've misunderstood, come back to me and I'll spell it out for you. 

[ron obvious 1,501]

 

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/handball-laws-norwich-city-penalty-at-wigan-1-5997781

 

[westcoastcanary 173]

6 hours ago, Hairy Canary said:

For West Coast - taken from the An Arm Away from Losing thread which you somehow sidestepped during your defense of the decision.

 

From the Sky half time analysis of our game. Andy Hinchcliff compared a penalty decision at Burnley this weekend which was reversed after the Ref realized the ball had deflected off Ben Mee's head onto his hand. Hinchcliff then made the point that our penalty wouldn't have been given if the Ref had VAR available.

Point he was making is that the distance between Godfrey's knee and his arm at that speed made it impossible for him to avoid and therefore not a 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. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,511]

4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

It's not just Waveney's though. Cantwells been part of a wonderfully successful season covering for Hernandez, Stiepermann and Buendia. His points/starts ratio is right up there. Yet with just four games to play he's getting hammered on here and sent out on loan next season.

With just four left to play we need Todd, and all the squad, to carry on as they have been and get us over the line.

Personally I think Todd will move on. He's nearly out of contract and he's a very promising young, home-grown talent that I'm sure a lot of top-flight clubs will snap up. It's not like he really owes the fans anything after singling him out the last couple of games. 

Edited April 15, 2019 by littleyellowbirdie

[Surfer 1,547]

Oh boo. Why would Todd move on? This is his first season in the first team squad. Next year we will be in the PL, and he'll be part of that setup too. So from the point of view of wanting to be with the club he grew up with what could be better? From the club's point of view, he's young, he's English and he's cheap and so financial burden carrying him as part of the squad. The only question is will he transition from talented player to premier league quality squad player, and on that there isn't enough evidence to say yet. He hasn't scored enough goals from his opportunities in my opinion, and he looks frail albeit he isn't as frail as he looks. So unless he wants out, I believe that he will stay but maybe go on loan in the second half of next season if he isn't getting any playing time.

[Hairy Canary 668]

15 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

👍 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. 

I understand the point you're making WCC but it isn't supported by the laws of the game nor by decisions made of similar incidents in other games. In addition it's not supported by an ex-player explaining that the ball coming off Godfrey's knee is such an important factor that, had the Ref had VAR and seen the deflection, he wouldn't have awarded a penalty.

Fine that you disagree with all the above but it does rather put you out on a limb.

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, Hairy Canary said:

Fine that you disagree with all the above but it does rather put you out on a limb.

I think that's his M.O isn't it?

[Bill 1,788]

18 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

👍 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. 

Arms ?

Outstretched ?

No, that is just you lying again

https://www.pinkun.com/polopoly_fs/1.5997776.1555349574!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg

 

 

[westcoastcanary 173]

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

Arms ?

Outstretched ?

No, that is just you lying again

https://www.pinkun.com/polopoly_fs/1.5997776.1555349574!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg

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! 

Edited April 16, 2019 by westcoastcanary
Typo

[kick it off 1,948]

3 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

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! 

It doesn't make any difference at all, you're still entirely wrong and entirely alone in your belief. Even the Wigan manager said it wasn't a pen ffs. You can stop attention seeking now.

Edited April 16, 2019 by kick it off

[canarydan23 4,060]

No, it makes no difference to the point you're making.

It was wrong. It's still wrong.

Should not have been given as a penalty.

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

Clearly not a pen in super slow-mo, but can understand the ref giving it in real time. 

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

23 minutes ago, Fr. Chewy Louie said:

Clearly not a pen in super slow-mo, but can understand the ref giving it in real time. 

I could understand him giving it in real time if he wasn't standing directly behind a Wigan player and thus actually had any view of the incident whatsoever.

[splendidrush 700]

Have we reached a consensus? 🙏

[JF 694]

13 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

Have we reached a consensus? 🙏

999 voted no penalty, 1 person voted penalty...

[splendidrush 700]

38 minutes ago, JF said:

999 voted no penalty, 1 person voted penalty...

Oh, so not completely unanimous then...... 

[Harry53 207]

On 16/04/2019 at 13:39, Fr. Chewy Louie said:

Clearly not a pen in super slow-mo, but can understand the ref giving it in real time. 

Actually I can't, because I don't believe he saw anything. He reacted to the players shout