Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ken Hairy

Kevin Friend

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

They clattered each other which is why VAR didn't intervene, so Lakey is, right on this one. 

That is not the argument you were making before, which was only that because you say Krul gets the ball it could not be a penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

That is not the argument you were making before, which was only that because you say Krul gets the ball it could not be a penalty.

Again you're wrong, I was always arguing that he got the ball to those who said he didn't. I countered your argument of dangerous play, which could have been a pen if it was deemed so, as it wasn't dangerous play, for the reason I've then stated in the later post. My stance on this decision, and argument as to why it wasn't given hasn't changed one iota, and won't do. 

In conclusion Krul got the ball, they then clattered each other, so wasn't dangerous play. If it's deemed dangerous play then it's dangerous from both of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

That is not the argument you were making before, which was only that because you say Krul gets the ball it could not be a penalty.

I agree it’s not as simple as that, if you get a touch on the ball but still go in recklessly or dangerously it’s still a foul. That said Krul didn’t do that, he just went for a standard punch and only had eyes for the ball. 
 

we could learn a bit from the way Burnley players attack crosses at pace from crosses and set pieces. Thought they looked a constant menace although we defended them pretty well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

I agree it’s not as simple as that, if you get a touch on the ball but still go in recklessly or dangerously it’s still a foul. That said Krul didn’t do that, he just went for a standard punch and only had eyes for the ball. 
 

we could learn a bit from the way Burnley players attack crosses at pace from crosses and set pieces. Thought they looked a constant menace although we defended them pretty well. 

Jim, that is, for good or ill, how the law is interpreted. I have now seen the incident and it looks as if Krul gets something on the ball, although it is not completely clear, but I am assuming for the sake of this argument that he does.

What is certain is that Krul goes in with his fists together to try to punch the ball away and they do connect with Vydra's head. There is a bit of contact between their bodies and both end up falling to the ground, but Vydra certainly doesn't recklessly barge into Krul.

The only part of the incident that is potentially recklessly dangerous, as per the current interpretation, is Krul going in with his fists. Another day, with another referee or another VAR ref and that could have been a red card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 50/50 with no clear mistake by the ref, so no var intervention. As it should be.  MOTD pundits should rethink the way they talk about these kind of incidents.

For me a clearer penalty shout was when Hanley and one of their forwards clashed side by side in the penalty area. Fortunately they were running away from goal, but there was a definite coming together that I thought var might look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Jim, that is, for good or ill, how the law is interpreted. I have now seen the incident and it looks as if Krul gets something on the ball, although it is not completely clear, but I am assuming for the sake of this argument that he does.

What is certain is that Krul goes in with his fists together to try to punch the ball away and they do connect with Vydra's head. There is a bit of contact between their bodies and both end up falling to the ground, but Vydra certainly doesn't recklessly barge into Krul.

The only part of the incident that is potentially recklessly dangerous, as per the current interpretation, is Krul going in with his fists. Another day, with another referee or another VAR ref and that could have been a red card.

I don’t think a keeper going to punch the ball with his fists is reckless though Purple. It’s standard. Krul is looking at the ball. He wasn’t to know Vydra would be coming in at such pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jim Smith said:

I don’t think a keeper going to punch the ball with his fists is reckless though Purple. It’s standard. Krul is looking at the ball. He wasn’t to know Vydra would be coming in at such pace.

If he’d come out swinging haymakers in a vague attempt to punch it it’s different but he really just holds his arms out straight. The bulk of the momentum in the contact comes from the speed Vydra comes into it at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

A 50/50 with no clear mistake by the ref, so no var intervention. As it should be.  MOTD pundits should rethink the way they talk about these kind of incidents.

For me a clearer penalty shout was when Hanley and one of their forwards clashed side by side in the penalty area. Fortunately they were running away from goal, but there was a definite coming together that I thought var might look at.

That was outside the box 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rodrigues was very lucky to stay on for that cynical foul on Kabak. Maybe Burnley won't gain from the change in refereeing this year. Shouting for everything and trying to bully teams and referees. 5 yellows tells a story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

No, the one I'm talking about was well inside the area.

All the penalty shouts were 100% right for once. The second Hanley contact one was a foul but it was outside the area. The only one I was a bit concerned about was when Dimi turned his back to block a shot as you couldn’t tell if it hit his arm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way Krul could have got sent off is if there was a different interpretation of what a goalkeeper is allowed to do with their hands.  Is punching the ball a legitimate tool a keeper can use to clear the ball.  Currently yes.  Breaking it down, if punching is allowed, it's always going to be dangerous but the allowance of that technique as legitimate will override any collateral damage.  Whereas a follow through when out of control in a tackle is currently seen as illegal - hence Ward-Powse being sent off yesterday.  

So until concensus is that punching is illegal, then VAR got it right.

No heading, no goalies punching, making football a non-contact sport bit by bit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

If he’d come out swinging haymakers in a vague attempt to punch it it’s different but he really just holds his arms out straight. The bulk of the momentum in the contact comes from the speed Vydra comes into it at.

You can tell from Tim's immediate reaction that he thought a penalty was going to be awarded.  It was a guilty reaction.

Edited by Pugin
correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I don’t think a keeper going to punch the ball with his fists is reckless though Purple. It’s standard. Krul is looking at the ball. He wasn’t to know Vydra would be coming in at such pace.

Let's leave it there, Jim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a similar incident involving Lloris vs Switzerland during the Euros. I think it comes under the endangering an opponent bracket and that we got away with one there (Burnley are probably the only club that the powers that be want in the premier league less than us).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot understand why VAR didn't change Wood's yellow to a red as it was far worse than the tackle for which Ward-Prowse was sent off for against Chelski - it looked like W-P was going for a loose ball and he probably did touch the Chelski player - who then collapsed as if he'd been taken out with a rifle. Who was running VAR yesterday, because it was even worse than usual - were they having a party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

If you’re right it was a pen - but you aren’t, so it isn’t. And the fact that it wasn’t given backs me up rather than you. Watch it again, this time with your eyes open.

 

18 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

He clearly got the ball FFS 🙄

The replay I saw on match of the day this morning clearly showed vydra get to the ball first and head onto kruls gloves. All 3 pundits said it should of been a penalty and pointed out the lloris one for France in the euros that got given as an example 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

All the penalty shouts were 100% right for once. The second Hanley contact one was a foul but it was outside the area. The only one I was a bit concerned about was when Dimi turned his back to block a shot as you couldn’t tell if it hit his arm. 

I think Lakey is talking about the one involving Hanley and Vydra in the first half, it was right in front of us, definitely in the box-I think they both tangled with each other-although I was a bit apprehensive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

I think Lakey is talking about the one involving Hanley and Vydra in the first half, it was right in front of us, definitely in the box-I think they both tangled with each other-although I was a bit apprehensive!

He dived 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking specifically about the referee's performance, it was a good one for us generally. The Krul incident could have gone either way, but I thought Tarkowski and Wood were very lucky to not get sent off.

The clever "cynical foul" stuff is something we are not very good at. Tarkowski took Pukki out very early - as soon as he knew he'd been "done" for movement. We don't do that. We wait another couple of seconds before we commit the foul and it then looks ten times worse; or we don't commit the foul at all and lose a goal. 

That's why Burnley don't get relegated. We have to hope that referees will keep getting better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

 

The replay I saw on match of the day this morning clearly showed vydra get to the ball first and head onto kruls gloves. All 3 pundits said it should of been a penalty and pointed out the lloris one for France in the euros that got given as an example 

Seriously look at the angle in line with Krul, its clear as day for crying out loud. Pundits in talking crap shocker 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

1) he didn’t get the ball 

2) you can’t punch people in the face. 
 

if you’d like to attack a cross with me in goal and let me punch you in the face to demonstrate how this is a penalty happy to oblige 

Just a clash did not go up meaning to punch him in the face deliberately, went for the ball not the face just happens, 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...