Leicester goal

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

5 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Also, none of us complained when Madders did the same when he took corners for us, every other team does it, we probably do it sometimes and what does it actually gain?

Complaint is not the point. Indeed if it had been a City corner we would have been incensed to a man if it had been denied.

The point is rules are rules and, rather like that Brexit thread on this forum, once the floodgates are opened all sorts of abuse arise.

How near to the penalty box can the ball now be placed before the officials react? As the tv man asked, "Why bother with a quadrant in the first place then?"

You know the saying: "Give them an inch and they take a mile."

[ZLF 274]

13 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Yep, Kenny was on his heels and let Vardy slip in front of him. 

Not for the first time kenny was not switched on, if he attacks the ball he at least makes it difficult for Vardy.   That front post position is definitely targeted by teams now as a result.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

 

 

 

1

54 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Yeah, I've slept on it and can of course understand why people would want to applaud him, so maybe I was a bit too provocative, but I do think people underestimate sometimes the power of a group of fans to affect what happens in a game.

Maybe the best thing would have been to applaud him as he approached and then started barracking him as he shaped up to take the corner......

Good stuff, glad we could meet in the middle.

I don't mean this in a provocative way, but if you'd been there on Saturday you'd have seen that our fans influenced the game positively over 90 minutes, despite being outnumbered 10 to 1! It was a brilliant atmosphere, and I think that's why your comments riled me so much. Let's hope we can get that kind of atmosphere going again on Saturday...

 

[Nuff Said 5,119]

What’s up with your quoting Wolfie?

[king canary 7,603]

Are we seriously suggesting at this point that if the crowd hadn't applauded Maddison they wouldn't have scored?

 

Bizzare. 

[Mason 47 1,376]

Frankly this is a total non-issue. We know JM well enough to know his set piece delivery is outstanding and he would have delivered the same ball even if it was placed half an inch closer to the corner flag. We didn't defend it well and Krul got caught out.

All this issue really highlights for me is the toxic effect of VAR, baiting fans into searching for the most miniscule justifications for 'why we were hard done by'. It isn't entirely undeserved either, as the consistency of what VAR does and doesn't scrutinise with clinical precision just isn't there.

This won't change however until officials stop hiding behind Big Brother and use the technology properly.

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

Sticking to the rules of the game is a "total non-issue then."

Fair enough.

 

I agree with your observations re-VAR though.

[lake district canary 4,531]

45 minutes ago, king canary said:

Are we seriously suggesting at this point that if the crowd hadn't applauded Maddison they wouldn't have scored?  Bizzare. 

Who knows? 

If it had been any other Leicester player, fans, especially those near the front, would be hopefully shouting things at him to try and put him off.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I'm sure the one inch difference made a major difference to Kenny and threw him right off from his defensive duties. Considering free kicks and throw ins are very rarely taken from the exact spot, I think it matters little.

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

Rules don't matter then when it makes no difference if they are broken.

As for painting in those quadrants. What a waste of time and whitewash.

[Mason 47 1,376]

33 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Sticking to the rules of the game is a "total non-issue then."

Fair enough.

 

I agree with your observations re-VAR though.

Not at all, we all want to see the laws of the game upheld properly. My point was more towards that because a few VAR decisions have been made based on a striker having an errant long elbow hair in an offside position, we're now developing this attention, almost obsession, with microscopic infractions to try and garner an advantage. I think it's ridiculous.

Speaking within the laws of the game, most of Liverpool's players this season would be asked to leave the pitch as they violate kit rules, for example. We should see scores of indirect free kicks per game for the keepers holding onto the ball too long, but we don't.

Either every decision needs to be dealt with to the letter, or we accept the little 'common sense' grey areas in-between the rules that let the game flow. Personally if a game of football starts lasting 6 and a half hours, the majority of which is microscopic analysis, I'll probably stop watching.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Mason 47

[cornish sam 951]

Little common sense grey areas such as a toe being in the penalty box being encroachment? That half a shoe was really the make or break on Aarons getting to the ball first obviously...

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

@M47. OK.

But, placing the ball inside the quadrant according to the rules of the game needs no microscopic analysis. You do not even need to go to Specsavers to see clearly enough where the ball is put.

If it's obviously placed outside then it's supposed to be illegal.

Edited December 16, 2019 by BroadstairsR

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

What’s up with your quoting Wolfie?

I wondered if everyone else could see it or not. Not sure if @Pete Raven can shed any light on it? I'm not doing anything other than clicking on the 'Quote' button, so I'm not sure where these numbers are coming from.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

And, sod's law, it didn't do it that time! 😂

[Mason 47 1,376]

3 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

Little common sense grey areas such as a toe being in the penalty box being encroachment? That half a shoe was really the make or break on Aarons getting to the ball first obviously...

In that case for me, Aarons' offence was minimal, followed by Amadou who also minimally encroached, followed by Zimmermann who had not encroached, with no Arsenal players even looking half-likely to even challenge for the ball; common sense would be seeing that the ball would have been cleared regardless.

[king canary 7,603]

10 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

And, sod's law, it didn't do it that time! 😂

I get the same thing but mainly if I only quote a bit of a post rather than the whole thing.

[Mason 47 1,376]

12 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

OK.

But, placing the ball inside the quadrant according to the rules of the game needs no microscopic analysis. You do not even need to go to Specsavers to see clearly enough where the ball is put.

If it's obviously placed outside then it's supposed to be illegal.

I can't argue with that, you are correct.

Thing is, if the linesman and ref uphold this rule in this case, all that comes from it is James Maddison has to roll the ball back an inch; it's still a corner, Kenny McLean is still marking the front post, Jamie Vardy will still make the same run. Sure, you could argue that the tiniest difference could lead to a totally different outcome, but that's true of every single action in a football match.

I think it was Linekar who said earlier this season 'if you look closely enough, you can find a reason to disallow any goal'.

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

Yes but putting the ball in the correct place before taking a corner must surely be one of the easiest of rules to implement.

Linekar is probably right, but you didn't have to look very closely at Maddison's placement to notice that he was breaking the rules. 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

18 minutes ago, king canary said:

I get the same thing

If your theory is correct, I'll probably get the weird number thingy again this time.

EDIT: Nope. How strange...

Edited December 16, 2019 by Feedthewolf

[Petriix 2,834]

Back to the original post... 

The same as for crossing any other line on the pitch (particularly obvious for goals given using goal line technology) the ball is 'in' the quadrant if any part of the ball is breaking the vertical plane of any part of the line. It's possibly a little too difficult to explain to most football fans so officials tend to insist that some part of the ball is actually touching the line, but that is not obligated by the rules. It also doesn't help that from the angle of the fans behind the kicker, a clear gap between ball and line can be visible while the ball is legally 'in' the quadrant. I'm not sure where people are getting the alternative interpretation from.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

Good post from Petriix.

I was at the front near the corner flag and plenty of fans felt that ball was outside the quadrant and were very vocal about it including ironic shouts for VAR.

It was a great ball in by Madders BTW, there are not many capable of doing that and making it look so easy.

[hogesar 9,657]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Good post from Petriix.

I was at the front near the corner flag and plenty of fans felt that ball was outside the quadrant and were very vocal about it including ironic shouts for VAR.

It was a great ball in by Madders BTW, there are not many capable of doing that and making it look so easy.

Consistently good deliver-er too, which is even rarer.

[East Rider 549]

I always think guidelines are there for idiots who can't make their mind up 

[Nuff Said 5,119]

2 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

And, sod's law, it didn't do it that time! 😂

Maybe it’s some sort of rating of how irritating the poster you’re quoting is? Clearly I don’t even register! 😉

[Nuff Said 5,119]

4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Good post from Petriix.

I was at the front near the corner flag and plenty of fans felt that ball was outside the quadrant and were very vocal about it including ironic shouts for VAR.

It was a great ball in by Madders BTW, there are not many capable of doing that and making it look so easy.

I was right next to the corner exit to the concourse and it looked as if it was on the limits but acceptable to me, I remember hearing some shouts that it was outside and disagreeing.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Nuff Said

[Lazza 25]

The ball has to be in the quadrant.
The quadrant is defined by the outside edge of the painted line. The ball is defined by any part of the ball.
So if any part of the ball is overhanging any part of the quadrant line then it's fine.

From what I can see in the videos I've seen, it looks either ok or very marginal.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

6 hours ago, king canary said:

Are we seriously suggesting at this point that if the crowd hadn't applauded Maddison they wouldn't have scored?

 

Bizzare. 

'We' aren't,  Lakeyo  was,  hes backed down a bit but I'm sure if someone  wanted to get him going on it again..........on second thoughts,  don't  

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

5 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Yes but putting the ball in the correct place before taking a corner must surely be one of the easiest of rules to implement.

Linekar is probably right, but you didn't have to look very closely at Maddison's placement to notice that he was breaking the rules. 

No  he wasn't , the ball only has to overhang the line, which it did.  The goal was 100% down to poor defending,  not ball placement.  Let it go guys , there was no issue in reality,  just in green and yellow  land. If we get relegated on gd, then this goal will still not be to blame. Defending  set pieces,  we're currently second worst in the league at defending  corners,  will be the culprit. 

[sgncfc 1,227]

We're all ignoring that Vardy didn't actually score are we? His header wasn't on target, hence why it went down as a Krul OG. So it wasn't just Kenny's fault for not challenging the header because without some other interaction it wouldn't have gone in. It was another collection of defensive shambles which got them their goal, not the fact that the ball was in or out of the quadrant, or even that it was such a great cross.