Jump to content
cambridgeshire canary

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

Recommended Posts

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 by Branston Pickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Chelm Canary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by PurpleCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by ged in the onion bag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...