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

[Boris 56]

no way this to be foul .bless no VAR anymore!

Zimbo push Stoke player to McGovern and this help us from disaster as looking as a foul but is not imo.

[Midlands Yellow 3,985]

Very soft, depends which team you were supporting on the night.

[Essjayess 307]

Ref gave it as a foul, no VAR so end of. Does not matter if anyones opinion thinks its a foul or not, the ref gave his verdict, so yes it was a foul.

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

Obvious foul - it is ridiculous we are even discussing it.  Would I be a bit annoyed if it was us in that same situation? Probably - because getting back to 3-3 would have capped a fantastic comeback, but it would still have been a foul.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Branston Pickle

[lharman7 39]

Its a soft one but not only is he backing into McGovern he's also leaning in with a slightly high elbow. From the ref's viewpoint it could look a lot worse than it does on telly! 

[Alex Moss 2,165]

8 hours ago, East Rider said:

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. 

 

1 hour ago, lharman7 said:

Its a soft one but not only is he backing into McGovern he's also leaning in with a slightly high elbow. From the ref's viewpoint it could look a lot worse than it does on telly! 

This was exactly what I saw too, their player (Gregory?) clearly leads with an elbow at chest height and I presume therefore that the linesman or even referee also saw this - at the end of the day leading with an elbow is a big no no and I wouldn’t mind betting that’s why it got chalked off. I don’t think he was intending to hurt McGovern or anything, but he’s probably worked out Micky isn’t exactly the biggest of keepers and so he’s perhaps thought in the moment that he’s got a good chance of sneakily bundling it in there. You can’t lead with an elbow, even if it’s only chest height.

[Six Pack 93]

McGovern - has the strength of a 70 year old !

[Alex Moss 2,165]

4 minutes ago, Six Pack said:

McGovern - has the strength of a 70 year old !

Don’t think it’s that, think it was more the momentum of the Stoke player plus a finely executed elbow in the chest that did it, 6🍺!

[Six Pack 93]

1 minute ago, Alex Moss said:

Don’t think it’s that, think it was more the momentum of the Stoke player plus a finely executed elbow in the chest that did it, 6🍺!

Trying to freeze the frame - all I get is Zimmermann pushing the Stoke player towards McGovern ! I'm not sure if Zimmermann (although) facing the wrong way could have headed the ball away from the goal. From my images Zimmermann is the closest player (from either side) to the ball. You guys must have pretty good images if you can see elbows etc.. in there !

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

It is a foul 

MM does not inspire confidence and isn’t very good 

[seanthecanary 168]

I think as others have said, given the situation within the game at the time and the fact that the Stoke players just pretty much accepted the decision is telling.  I think it's more a case again of the rules being hard to understand.  Literally any contact or impeding of the goalkeeper is going to be given as a foul UNLESS it's when a team deliberately have a player stand in front of the keeper at corners with the sole intention of obstructing them which seems perfectly fine.  Seems odd that purposely obstructing the keeper is accepted as ok.

[canarydan23 4,060]

It's a definite foul. The Stoke forward would have been raging if he genuinely hadn't done anything, as it was he just trottered off.

And if it was in the Prem VAR would have ruled it out for offside. If you pause the clip the moment of the first header, the Stoke player who scores is comfortably offside. Unless there are any Norwich players out of shot keeping him on, which seems unlikely, he was offside.

So, he was offside and he fouled McGovern. It could only be less of a goal if he poked it in with his hand.

[ged in the onion bag 855]

11 hours ago, Ian said:

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?

There is no foul, the Stoke lad has his eyes on the ball constantly and is getting his body into a position where he can get his right foot on it.... to do so, he is moving.... unfortunately McGovern didn’t move to the flight of the ball quick enough, was probably worried about fouling him and didn’t command.     I don’t see a foul there. McGovern has no right to the space....  Very soft, the keepers over-protected.    
 

You don’t have to agree but you clearly said ‘he made no attempt to play the ball and that McGovern didn’t fall over’!   Neither are correct.     Clear there’s great difference of opinion throughout this thread and perhaps some a tad partisan.

Would suggest it’s unwise to make assumptions on completely different scenarios.   You were wrong to assume those!

if that’s the level of goalkeeping we are stuck with for a while, it’s a worry.  More specifically that he can’t play out from the back.... it will disrupt our philosophy far too much.      I’d give Barden an opportunity to see what he can do.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

Why is McGovern just waiting for the ball to drop into his hands, can't he jump? 

[ncfcstar 292]

I'm not really sure why people are arguing about this.  Those kind of fouls are given every single game, it can't have been that much of a shock to Stoke fans (and seemingly our own fans too) to have seen the ref blow up for it.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

It would be interesting to see the opinions of the neutrals on this.

The majority in this thread have said the goal was correctly disallowed, with some saying it was an obvious, blatant foul, as is to be expected. 

Meanwhile the Stoke fans, as is to be expected, are up in arms that their equalising goal was disallowed for a non-existent foul.

What would the neutrals say? Both Jeff Stelling and Jamie Mackie, who was reporting on the game for Sky, felt that it was not a foul and I get the impression most neutrals would agree with them.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man

[ncfcstar 292]

There's a difference between 'feeling' it wasn't a foul, and whether or not it is a foul though.  I'm in agreement that it's soft, but fouls like that are given in favour of the keeper up and down the country each weekend and have been for years now.

[king canary 7,607]

2 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

There's a difference between 'feeling' it wasn't a foul, and whether or not it is a foul though.  I'm in agreement that it's soft, but fouls like that are given in favour of the keeper up and down the country each weekend and have been for years now.

Keepers are very overprotected in this sort of situation and while I might not think it should be a foul, I think 9 times out of 10 the decision would be free kick.

 

[hogesar 9,674]

3 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

There's a difference between 'feeling' it wasn't a foul, and whether or not it is a foul though.  I'm in agreement that it's soft, but fouls like that are given in favour of the keeper up and down the country each weekend and have been for years now.

Exactly, I don't think those should be fouls, in my opinion they're NOT fouls, but referee's clearly think they are fouls because they're given all the time.

I think it's clear by the lack of protest from Stoke players, including the one involved!

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

As others have said if it had gone the other way we would have been pretty annoyed, but what goes around comes around, think of all the VAR sickeners last season like the Pukki disallowed goal and penalties not awarded etc, its part of the game, at the moment we may be getting the rub of the green but long over due

[Ian 1,129]

1 hour ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

It would be interesting to see the opinions of the neutrals on this.

The majority in this thread have said the goal was correctly disallowed, with some saying it was an obvious, blatant foul, as is to be expected. 

Meanwhile the Stoke fans, as is to be expected, are up in arms that their equalising goal was disallowed for a non-existent foul.

What would the neutrals say? Both Jeff Stelling and Jamie Mackie, who was reporting on the game for Sky, felt that it was not a foul and I get the impression most neutrals would agree with them.

Ultimately if the referee decides it's careless to lead with the elbow and that the Stoke player was deliberately moving into the keeper, then he is well within his rights to give the foul. Those are the rules, and given that the Stoke player came across the flight of the ball into McGovern I can understand why the ref gave it.

Sure it wasn't aggressive or used excessive force, but the referee obviously classified it as careless and as such awarded the free kick. The pundits and fans can have a totally different interpretation, but people are acting as if the referee acted outside of the laws of the game which he obviously didn't.
 

[jaywick_canery 28]

When the crosses come in McGovern is 5'11' of solid jelly.

 

I justy hope Farke doesn't tolerate a run of defeats before he concedes and gives a youngster a run out.

[Red Rufus 56]

Have you ever thought of making a career in football punditry?

[Mr Angry 1,561]

4 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

So, he was offside and he fouled McGovern. It could only be less of a goal if he poked it in with his hand.

Fletcher had been taken off by this point 🤣

[ron obvious 1,502]

4 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

Fletcher had been taken off by this point 🤣

Yes, such a shame when Fletcher had to go off  😏

[ged in the onion bag 855]

If Krul is in goal that ball doesn’t cross the line!    

[Mark .Y. 352]

22 hours ago, Bill said:

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

Absolutely one of the worst parts of the modern game............. it's obstruction, it's a foul, it's deliberately manhandling somebody at times, and yet it is never penalised............. very strange.

[Petriix 2,835]

It was incredibly soft. I would be livid if that was given against us. What I can't figure out is how Zimmermann let it past him. It was a simple clearance for a defender but he moved out of the way.

I'm Christoph's biggest fan but I thought he looked pretty poor when he came on. He lost his man for the goal as well.

It's a moot point anyway: we won at the end of the day, but it was unnecessarily uncomfortable in the end.

[Michael Wynless Jones 161]

100%  a goal, appalling goalkeeping and a shocking decision, probably the worst I've seen in the Championship this season. Nice to see one go our way though in all honesty. 

[CDMullins 436]

On 26/11/2020 at 19:02, 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!    

That's just typical though isnt it?

Drogba used to be so strong outside the box,

Inside the box a gust of wind would blow him over!