Stoke fans still mad that they had a goal disallowed- But was it a foul?

[cambridgeshire canary 7,797]

Beacause to be honest even I'm still not sure. Yes, the Stoke player did indeed back into Mcgovern.. But he clearly had his back to him and as far as I can tell he does not seem to know he's there.

[Teemu’s right foot 53]

To be honest when I first saw it on sky sports news I thought that should have stood. Having watched it several times on this clip their player clearly very deliberately backs into the keeper to obstruct him with no attempt to play the ball

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,615]

Let's be honest, if that happened at the other and it was disallowed we'd be furious.

It was very soft.

[Branston Pickle 4,149]

100% a foul these days, no question - and rightly or wrongly would have been given anywhere over the last 20+ years - their player knew it, I think it was Zimbo who was our nearest player who didn’t even challenge as he knew it.

...it is odd how we seem to spend so much time naval gazing like this when something goes our way - I doubt Man U or Liverpool fans do the same.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Branston Pickle

[sgncfc 1,330]

But it's a foul.

[Bill 1,788]

I don't think the Stoke player had an intention of fouling McGovern, just as with Buendia and his high kick

and there is a thought that the Stoke player who was penalised, was actually offside at the point where his player heads the ball

Edited November 26, 2020 by Bill

[lake district canary 4,830]

They can complain, but they can't do anything about it. They need to get over it and move on.

 

[daisy 145]

Didn`t see too many Stoke players complaining, that`s usually a sign the Refs got it right.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,615]

26 minutes ago, Bill said:

and there is a thought that the Stoke player who was penalised, was actually offside at the point where his player heads the ball

Good point, actually. It would be interesting to see the camera angle that sees across the pitch.

[Capt. Pants 5,008]

Would have been interesting to see had the taller more imposing Krul been in goal whether the goal would have stood.

[ricardo 8,034]

He clearly stepped back into the keeper and not forward towards the ball. A definite foul and correct decision by the ref.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

Thank goodness we are in the Championship. Can you imagine VAR sorting that one? 

[cambridgeshire canary 7,797]

9 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Thank goodness we are in the Championship. Can you imagine VAR sorting that one? 

Would have been fun having to wait seven minutes for them to work it out 😉

[ged in the onion bag 961]

That’s not a foul... definitely not enough for a full grown person to end up on the floor.    If the forward hadn’t moved a muscle, McGovern would have still been flailing!    

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,615]

12 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Thank goodness we are in the Championship. Can you imagine VAR sorting that one? 

This is where VAR simply can't win. No matter what decision VAR had taken, one set of fans would've been seriously pissed off with it.

[Newtopia 573]

The attacker backed into the keeper, I thin’ he knew what he was doing, as with Emi he gave referee a decision to make.  Fortunately he did.

[Nuff Said 5,960]

13 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

That’s not a foul... definitely not enough for a full grown person to end up on the floor.    If the forward hadn’t moved a muscle, McGovern would have still been flailing!    

Hang on, McGovern did something right??? (For us at least)

[Nuff Said 5,960]

49 minutes ago, daisy said:

Didn`t see too many Stoke players complaining, that`s usually a sign the Refs got it right.

This! In the last few minutes of the game, with a draw close, surely they would have been all over the ref if they thought there was any merit in their case.

[Chelm Canary 404]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

Would have been interesting to see had the taller more imposing Krul been in goal whether the goal would have stood.

Krul would have commanded that area and punched the ball away (or probably have caught it and then be clearly fouled). The Stoke player may have tried to back into him but it would have been met with a more powerful force. 

At that point, it's no longer a talking point for either team. 

I'm not criticising Mcgovern's overall performance but that was precious goalkeeping and we got lucky. 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Chelm Canary

[PurpleCanary 6,381]

1 hour ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Beacause to be honest even I'm still not sure. Yes, the Stoke player did indeed back into Mcgovern.. But he clearly had his back to him and as far as I can tell he does not seem to know he's there.

Doesn't matter if it is unintentional, it is still a foul. And the look on the player's face immediately afterwards strongly suggests he wasn't at all surprised it was ruled out.

Just to add, as others have said, a more commanding keeper probably would have rendered it all moot by getting to the ball and probably fisting it away. And I imagine other teams will try to get the ball in very similar areas, because of what is seen as McGovern's weakness.

Edited November 26, 2020 by PurpleCanary

[Bill 1,788]

Odd how if a player backs into another to stop him getting to the ball it ius a foul, in this instance

but perfectly acceptable for a defender to just the same when the ball is going out for a goal kick

[Beefy is a legend 224]

For me there is a degree of obstruction of the goalkeeper and I think we all know that keepers tend to get the benefit of the doubt in those situations. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

The referees nearly always blow their whistle when a keeper and striker jump together - often there is no actual foul. It seems to be an automatic response more than anything. 

Although I do think there was enough from their player for a foul, he clearly backs McGovern away from the ball. 

Based on the usual reaction from the referees I definitely wouldn't have begrudged that decision at the other end. 

[East Rider 589]

It's a foul and it was correctly called, and yes it appears a soft one.

However, their player knew exactly what he was doing, not only did he obstruct the keeper he elbowed him in the chest whilst doing so. 

They can whinge and whine all they like, but that was a decision the ref got spot on. 

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,261]

I'd be mad if I was them too. Looked like Zimbo nudged McGovern to buy the foul, clever play by him but I think the goal should have stood. Saying that they had a bit of luck to get back into the game, we lost our 3 most vital and talismanic players. If we could have finished the game with Krul, Buendia and Pukki on the pitch they never would have gotten back into the game. This team simply doesn't function without those 3.

[Rolf Harris 33]

Course it is a foul. What if the keeper took our their player to claim the ball, wouldn't that be a foul? So same when they are backing into our keeper. 

[Mullet 293]

The Stoke player did seem to back in towards McGovern which looked like a deliberate attempt to block him off. I think McGovern would have had to jump into the Stoke player in order to catch the ball in which case the Stoke player would have fallen over to cheat a foul and penalty. Based on that right decision for me.

[Ian 1,211]

It came across as if McGovern was being a bit weak but actually I think used his experience. As others have said if he had jumped into the Stoke player to get the ball, I am almost certain he would have given the ref a chance to award a penalty.

IMO it's a foul, the Stoke player obstructs him whilst making no attempt to play the ball. Just because it's the much maligned McGovern and he doesn't fall over and roll around a bit doesn't mean it isn't a foul.

[ged in the onion bag 961]

4 minutes ago, Ian said:

It came across as if McGovern was being a bit weak but actually I think used his experience. As others have said if he had jumped into the Stoke player to get the ball, I am almost certain he would have given the ref a chance to award a penalty.

IMO it's a foul, the Stoke player obstructs him whilst making no attempt to play the ball. Just because it's the much maligned McGovern and he doesn't fall over and roll around a bit doesn't mean it isn't a foul.

But he does play the ball, he taps it into the net.... and McGovern falls over!   Great analysis there!

The Stoke play is entitled to get his body shape into the right position to shoot and if he takes up the space and turns to do so and makes it difficult for our keeper as a result, where’s the foul?     

Edited November 26, 2020 by ged in the onion bag

[Ian 1,211]

15 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

But he does play the ball, he taps it into the net.... and McGovern falls over!   Great analysis there!

The Stoke play is entitled to get his body shape into the right position to shoot and if he takes up the space and turns to do so and makes it difficult for our keeper as a result, where’s the foul?     

Sorry, my mistake. I thought it was fairly obvious that the ball landed on the Stoke player's foot AFTER the foul was committed, but I should have been clearer for the logically challenged.

Am I right to assume you also don't think it's a foul if a defender was to go through the back of someone as long as they end up playing the ball? Or that it's okay for a defender to give a shove in the back for a striker when they are going up for an aerial duel as long as they end up playing the ball?

I agree it wasn't the most blatant, physical of fouls, but it was clear what he was doing.  No doubt he knew McGovern would just punch the ball away given his height advantage, and as such tried to slyly move him out of the way with a little elbow.

Watching the video it's pretty clear the attacker moves into McGovern against the flight of the ball, the only reason for that could be to block him off. Obviously not an honest attempt to win the ball, which is why it was given IMO. The lack of protests is a bit of a give away don't you think?