****The Official Lapps Match Thread v Burnley (H/L) ****

[ricardo 7,347]

Certainly a clear penalty. The defender dived in and the hand came across to deflect the ball. No argument from me had it been against us.

[chicken 2,604]

3 hours ago, Ulfotto said:

To be fair the ref was consistent in terms of the cards. How in didn’t spot the ball went out after the Dowell chance is really poor. Plus the handball is a stonewall in my opinion. The penalty incident kinda of sums up our luck at the moment.

Kompany has leant from Pep in how he sets his team out and fair play they were good. The point though is rarely made that Pep teams and his those who copy his style are some of the most cynical and dirty teams you will ever see. Burnley today wasted no time kicking the ball away every chance they got and like Man City were kings of the tactical foul.

People never mention that side of those successful Barcelona sides either, including those Pep played in and then managed, but their "game management" was on point. Puyol, Basquets, Xavi, Iniesta et al... they all knew how to foul without getting a yellow card. Breaking up opposition play and even just preventing them getting a rhythm going was something they excelled at. Every and any way they could. Antagonising players, arguing with them and the officials.

Beautiful with the ball, ugly without it, and without having too many big, physical players either. That's successful teams for you though. Fergie had Man Utd doing similar though a lot more brute force with the likes of Keane. 

[ged in the onion bag 854]

30 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m not clear @ged in the onion bag. Are you saying it wasn’t a penalty by the current rules, or that it was, but it shouldn’t be? Two quite different things.

It wasn’t a pen by the rules!   Nor should it have been.   I then argue the rules bad anyway, reduces the integrity of the game as it makes it more about luck than fairness and the attacking teams prosper as for example, they will put in more crosses in a match.   Thus more likely to get lucky!    Benefits those rich clubs again!  
 

How natural is a person running (defending) with their hands behind their backs?    It’s not natural, looks odd and prevents them defending properly!

Nothing wrong with the original ‘intent’ rule!

Edited February 4, 2023 by ged in the onion bag

[ged in the onion bag 854]

45 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Certainly a clear penalty. The defender dived in and the hand came across to deflect the ball. No argument from me had it been against us.

What exactly is the defender supposed to do?    Given his effort to defend the goal / box / shot, his arm is attached to his body and the ball came off his leg.   What would you expect our defenders to do, let them have a free shot at goal! 
 

On todays evidence, that’s what we did I know, but we’d expect them to try to defend!    But yeh, what’s the lad supposed to do in the moment, amputate his arm!   Intrigued to know!   
 

You and every other Norwich fan would’ve gone berserk had that been given against us.

Edited February 4, 2023 by ged in the onion bag

[Capt. Pants 4,196]

VAR would have probably given it but the whole thing took less than a second. It would have been a harsh penalty, but we've seen them given.

The ref was totally awful tbh and proves why we need VAR in the Chump. If we score from that, who knows what would have happened, unless of course you feel Burnley were totally in command, which they were to be fair.

[......and Smith must score. 1,336]

6 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

. If we score from that, who knows what would have happened, unless of course you feel Burnley were totally in command, which they were to be fair.

You’ve answered your own question.

On today’s display us nicking anything from that would’ve been daylight robbery.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

4 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Exactly. People need to take a breath and get a little perspective. We’ve just lost to the league’s runaway leaders. We have a new manager who’s trying to turn things around after a difficult period. Plus we are struggling at home for some reason. It’s hardly a massive surprise that we didn’t compete. Let’s see where we are after the next six games before deciding to sack the whole back five and all the recruitment team.

Perspective? I look at want Burnley have done selling their assets and I compare that to the job Webber has done. It's not a one off lose is it....

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

People saying we lost it the 1st half .. what about conceding 2 corner kicks with the most pathetic of defending. 

[ricardo 7,347]

1 hour ago, ged in the onion bag said:

What exactly is the defender supposed to do?    Given his effort to defend the goal / box / shot, his arm is attached to his body and the ball came off his leg.   What would you expect our defenders to do, let them have a free shot at goal! 
 

On todays evidence, that’s what we did I know, but we’d expect them to try to defend!    But yeh, what’s the lad supposed to do in the moment, amputate his arm!   Intrigued to know!   
 

You and every other Norwich fan would’ve gone berserk had that been given against us.

He made the decision to throw himself in front of the ball risking the ball hitting an extended arm. If a defender takes that risk he shouldn't be surprised to be penalised if he gets it wrong, the same as if he went for the ball and clipped a player. Certainly a penalty that should have been given at either end. 

[ged in the onion bag 854]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

He made the decision to throw himself in front of the ball risking the ball hitting an extended arm. If a defender takes that risk he shouldn't be surprised to be penalised if he gets it wrong, the same as if he went for the ball and clipped a player. Certainly a penalty that should have been given at either end. 

That’s quite incredible!    That’s exactly what defenders do in their own box!   It’s what our defenders do in their better games!    
 

Like I said, answer the question, what should he have done instead?    Just stood back and let him shoot / cross!   Have you ever seen that happen and a player not receive the wrath of a baying crowd!   Of course not!    I would say that’s just ridiculous but intrigued to hear your expectations of a defender in that scenario.

[ricardo 7,347]

10 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

That’s quite incredible!    That’s exactly what defenders do in their own box!   It’s what our defenders do in their better games!    
 

Like I said, answer the question, what should he have done instead?    Just stood back and let him shoot / cross!   Have you ever seen that happen and a player not receive the wrath of a baying crowd!   Of course not!    I would say that’s just ridiculous but intrigued to hear your expectations of a defender in that scenario.

Its not incredible at all. Any tackle or block in the penalty is a risk, thats why defenders jockey rather than dive in and thats why you see them deliberately hold their arms close to their bodies. The defender in question took a risk and should have paid a penalty for getting it wrong.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

11 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

That’s quite incredible!    That’s exactly what defenders do in their own box!   It’s what our defenders do in their better games!    
 

Like I said, answer the question, what should he have done instead?    Just stood back and let him shoot / cross!   Have you ever seen that happen and a player not receive the wrath of a baying crowd!   Of course not!    I would say that’s just ridiculous but intrigued to hear your expectations of a defender in that scenario.

Irrelevant. If the last man accidentally fouls an oncoming player then he gets a red, accident or no accident, no ifs and no buts. That's a perfect and clear example of how there's not supposed to be any mitigation in the application of the rules of football as written.

As Ricardo points out, the rules were violated in a way that merited a penalty; there's no mitigation in that.

Edited February 5, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,492]

If that handball had have been by one of our defenders and a penalty had been given, I doubt many on here would have complained much. The action of the arm even looked unnatural on replays.

And anyway, it didn't (and wouldn't have meant much) change any aspect of  Burnley's dominance and the fact they deserved their win. Nor did Stroud's poor performance as a referee matter. There we are, he was quite par for the course in this league.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

At least Alastair Campbell seemed to be having a good day sat next to our current majority shareholding duo....

[Grumpy 122]

Wow Back to earth with a bit of a bang, although to be fair Burnley have shown they are a class above all the others in the Champs and they proved it today.

I guess that we,I,got a little bit carried away with our sudden success and encouraging change in attitude,style and commitment.Likewise the change in certain players who up until the time Smith left added pretty well nothing to our hopes of a return to the Prem.

Taking Burnley as an example,the likes of Zaroury,Tella,Maatsen and Benson (their attacking force)are invariably consistent in their performances,as they were today,whereas players such as Dowell,Sargent,Hernandez and even Pukki run hot and cold.

We were found out today.We can probably make the playoffs.A favourable outcome would be beneficial to all concerned in one way or another but at this moment in time promotion would be a short run thing.We are not ready and quite frankly i would be surprised if we ever are

 

[Midlands Yellow 3,939]

What was our xG yesterday? 

[shefcanary 2,388]

20 hours ago, canarybubbles said:

I don't agree with your last sentence. I think they will stay up. In a way I was a little disappointed with them, actually. They were not the flowing team I had imagined from what I'd read about them - they were a sort of Watford-type team who had the right mix of just about enough skill plus intelligent fouling to keep them afloat in the PL. I know I'm biased but I didn't think they were as good as either of our promotion sides as a Championship team. Or at least certainly not as exciting, although probably much more street-wise. 

They were a Burnley team. Their snide "tactical" fouls, the kicking away of the ball, the nudges every time they went up for a header, was pure Dyche. The ref really did not get to grips with that side of their game. No hard gripes though, they saw the way the game was going and kept on doing what they were doing. We never adapted!

I didn't see a positive side to Burnley at all, just a side good at pressing whilst they had energy, then making the most of chances they got from playing percentage football as the energy ran down. For this reason they might well stay up next year. But boy it wasn't that great an improvement of what they dished out under Dyche.

Edited February 5, 2023 by shefcanary

[shefcanary 2,388]

18 hours ago, ricardo said:

Certainly a clear penalty. The defender dived in and the hand came across to deflect the ball. No argument from me had it been against us.

I agree, I saw one replay from an angle from behind the goal which clearly showed he swatted the ball over the goal line - very intentional movement of his hand! 

[ricardo 7,347]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

I agree, I saw one replay from an angle from behind the goal which clearly showed he swatted the ball over the goal line - very intentional movement of his hand! 

Indeed. I fail to see how any could argue against it. The ref obviously missed the handball.

[chicken 2,604]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

Indeed. I fail to see how any could argue against it. The ref obviously missed the handball.

FWIW I 100% agree. And that's as someone who has played in defence at amateur levels. If you throw yourself in front of a shot, whether it's deliberate or otherwise, and your arm prevents a ball from reaching a player in a goal scoring position or directly stops a goal - it's 100% a penalty all day long.

The only reasonable line of defence there has ever been is that the arms are by their sides. They have to be somewhere after all, and if a player is trying to be as unobstructive as possible then you'll tend to see a bit more leniency. But for that you'd have to be standing really.

[Foxy2600 297]

On 04/02/2023 at 13:53, king canary said:

 

Worth noting pre this game we were conceding the fewest goals from set pieces so not sure it's fair to place all the blame there.

Set pieces happen at both ends

[dsr-burnley 25]

12 hours ago, shefcanary said:

I agree, I saw one replay from an angle from behind the goal which clearly showed he swatted the ball over the goal line - very intentional movement of his hand! 

Impossible, I'm afraid.  the time taken for the ball to move about 5 feet from Barnes' foot (where it was deflected from) would be 0.05 seconds at 60 mph (average speed of a kicked football) and no human can react that fast.  World record reaction times are in the region of 0.1 seconds, average more like 0.2.  Whatever else the "handball" may have been, it certainly wasn't a deliberate movement.

[Mr Angry 1,545]

Regarding the handball, this is what the law says.

I think it’s quite easy to argue that, given that Barnes was sliding to block the shot/cross, you wouldn’t expect his arms to be by his sides, so the position of his arm/hand WAS in consequence of or justifiable by his body movement.

 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

19 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

Regarding the handball, this is what the law says.

I think it’s quite easy to argue that, given that Barnes was sliding to block the shot/cross, you wouldn’t expect his arms to be by his sides, so the position of his arm/hand WAS in consequence of or justifiable by his body movement.

 

For me he clearly had his arm/hand in a position that's unnaturally bigger i.e. he's holding it away from his body which is intentional and that should clearly make it a penalty.  If the defender was ours in that situation I would certainly expect that a penalty would have been given against us.

[FenwayFrank 2,457]

On 04/02/2023 at 18:27, ged in the onion bag said:

How natural is a person running (defending) with their hands behind their backs?    It’s not natural, looks odd and prevents them defending properly!

👍 Thumbs up from me

Edited February 7, 2023 by FenwayFrank

[Mr Angry 1,545]

6 hours ago, It's Character Forming said:

For me he clearly had his arm/hand in a position that's unnaturally bigger i.e. he's holding it away from his body which is intentional and that should clearly make it a penalty.  If the defender was ours in that situation I would certainly expect that a penalty would have been given against us.

I'd say that holding your arm away from your body when you're making a sliding block is totally natural-is he really expected to hold his arms behind his back when he makes the tackle?

Anyway, former referee Chris Foy reckons it probably should have been given.

Behind the Whistle: A look back at some of the key decisions - News - EFL Official Website

 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

1 hour ago, Mr Angry said:

I'd say that holding your arm away from your body when you're making a sliding block is totally natural-is he really expected to hold his arms behind his back when he makes the tackle?

Anyway, former referee Chris Foy reckons it probably should have been given.

Behind the Whistle: A look back at some of the key decisions - News - EFL Official Website

 

Yep the choices are not either/or - you can have your hand both not behind your back and not spread out in a way that helps you block the ball. If you keep it close to your side then you’ll be ok. That’s the valid comparison, no one is saying a defender has to have his hands behind his back.