Greenlizard0 Premier League Football Thread ** spoilers ** [15th - 17th December 2023]

I'll take a 1 nil win later today with the ball coming off someone's arse, doubt we'll see the sort of scoreline that has happened over the past few seasons and it will be a lot tighter than recent games.

Given this is Guardiola's and man city's lowest ever points tally after 17 games it does feel as if this season could be more of a 'normal' one compared to some of the high 90's the league winners have been getting.
 
adam cool dude said:
When we lose tomorrow. Technically Everton are only 1 point behind United.
Click to expand...
It’s mental that they would be 3 points behind Newcastle and just a few games from safety. I know we all hate Dyche but he’s managed more with that bucket of dross than anyone else the last 10 years.

He might even con someone into taking DCL for actual money. If he manages that he should get a statue.
 
I seem to be the only person that doesn't think it was a red. There wasn't enough in it for it to be serious foul play imo and given that he was running away from goal and City had players tracking back, I'm not sure it was a clear goalscoring opportunity either. At best he was having a shot from a very tight angle with City players on the line.
 
BaZ87 said:
I seem to be the only person that doesn't think it was a red. There wasn't enough in it for it to be serious foul play imo and given that he was running away from goal and City had players tracking back, I'm not sure it was a clear goalscoring opportunity either. At best he was having a shot from a very tight angle with City players on the line.
Click to expand...
The rule is denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity is it not? If the dude isn't wiped out by ederson he quite obviously has an opportunity to score a goal. Red all day long, well unless you play for man city.
 
C Kent said:
The rule is denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity is it not? If the dude isn't wiped out by ederson he quite obviously has an opportunity to score a goal. Red all day long, well unless you play for man city.
Click to expand...
The key word is obvious, which I don't think it was. The Palace player has knocked the ball away from goal and at best would have been taking a shot from a very tight angle, while running away from goal and with players on the line. That's enough for it not to be classed as an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
 
I'm sure Dale Johnson will cover it in his VAR review on Monday. Given what he's explained regarding other denial of obvious goalscoring opportunity incidents, I'm fairly sure he'll say that the fact the Palace player is running away from goal it wasn't an error to not send him off.

That was the explanation given by the PGMOL and Dale when Gross (?) wasn't sent off vs Liverpool when Szoboszlai was fouled and appeared a far clearer chance to score.
 
BaZ87 said:
The key word is obvious, which I don't think it was. The Palace player has knocked the ball away from goal and at best would have been taking a shot from a very tight angle, while running away from goal and with players on the line. That's enough for it not to be classed as an obvious goalscoring opportunity
Click to expand...
We'll have to disagree on this one then baz, the ball isn't travelling very fast from the palace players touch, Diaz (closest city player to the incident?) has slowed down due to ederson rushing out. If he isn't wiped out he's got an open goal to shoot at. I wouldn't say the anglevwas particularly tight either.

I think the terminology around obvious goal scoring opportunity has been watered down so much that folks now believe it means denying an obvious goal, which it isn't.
 
omnomnom said:
Im assuming there was a keeper in nets with the Gross one, i cant remember it tbh.
Click to expand...
And Szoboszlai was 12 yards out nearly within the width of the goal with the keeper in no man's land and it still wasn't given as a red by the ref, VAR or ruled a mistake by the independent panel because they judged that Szoboszlai wasn't in control of the ball and was moving away from goal.
F8Awlc8WkAA6_l1.jpeg
C Kent said:
We'll have to disagree on this one then baz, the ball isn't travelling very fast from the palace players touch, Diaz (closest city player to the incident?) has slowed down due to ederson rushing out. If he isn't wiped out he's got an open goal to shoot at. I wouldn't say the anglevwas particularly tight either.

I think the terminology around obvious goal scoring opportunity has been watered down so much that folks now believe it means denying an obvious goal, which it isn't.
Click to expand...
The issue is, what you think the rule is or should be, isn't what the rule is. I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't be classed as a goalscoring opportunity, but under the current interpretation of the rules, it generally won't be. As above, look at the Szoboszlai incident and they determined that it wasn't a red because he was moving away from goal and not in control of the ball at the time of the foul - he was literally about to slide the ball into a near empty net with his next touch had he not been fouled. That was far more obviously a goalscoring opportunity than the chance Palace had and still not given.
 
BaZ87 said:
The issue is, what you think the rule is or should be, isn't what the rule is. I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't be classed as a goalscoring opportunity, but under the current interpretation of the rules, it generally won't be. As above, look at the Szoboszlai incident and they determined that it wasn't a red because he was moving away from goal and not in control of the ball at the time of the foul - he was literally about to slide the ball into a near empty net with his next touch had he not been fouled. That was far more obviously a goalscoring opportunity than the chance Palace had and still not given.
Click to expand...
yes and they were wrong in that instance as well :p

I believe the DOGSO rule around having control of the ball stipules the "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball", if the palace player isnt taken out then I would say he likelihood of him gaining control of the ball is extremely high personally, especially considering the defenders have slowed down and the ball isn't traveling particularly fast.

I believe the screenshot above there could be some argument for the Brighton defenders being close to the ball as from memory there are one or 2 of them just out of shot.
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
yes and they were wrong in that instance as well :p

I believe the DOGSO rule around having control of the ball stipules the "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball", if the palace player isnt taken out then I would say he likelihood of him gaining control of the ball is extremely high personally, especially considering the defenders have slowed down and the ball isn't traveling particularly fast.

I believe the screenshot above there could be some argument for the Brighton defenders being close to the ball as from memory there are one or 2 of them just out of shot.
Click to expand...
But they weren't wrong. The independent panel who determine how our refs should interpret the rules decided they were right.

And no, there was no Brighton player close enough to challenge Szobo. As I said Dale Johnson, who is a qualified official and spends 90% of his time analysing decisions and VAR will cover this on Monday. He will say it could have been given but the reason why it wasn't is because the Palace player is moving away from goal and the VAR won't intervene in those instances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom