Highlights up on the BBC site

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊









Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
55,970
Surrey
I agree. I was texting someone at the time so I missed it, but on that evidence, no way should that have stood.
 








Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
55,970
Surrey
Charlton had more chances on goal than I remember on the night, I like the one with the missed over head kick and spooner wide
That's what I felt. I think the truth is that we had a lot of possession without creating as many goal scoring chances as a team so in control of the game might expect.
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
55,970
Surrey
Completely disagree. He threw it into Elphick's lap. Elphick made no attempt to nick the ball out of his hands. I really think it should have been a goal.
But Elphick interfered with the goalkeeper while he had possession of the ball (the keeper is deemed to have possession even when the ball is in the air between his hands and kicking it). And Elphick ran right across him when he could have run straight back.
 




Monsieur Le Plonk

Lethargy in motion
Apr 22, 2009
1,873
By a lake
But Elphick interfered with the goalkeeper while he had possession of the ball (the keeper is deemed to have possession even when the ball is in the air between his hands and kicking it). And Elphick ran right across him when he could have run straight back.

Oh I dont know. I dont see it as Elphick running across him at all and I'm not sure that the keeper in this case would be deemed in possession of the ball. It would have taken a srong old ref to have given a goal and they dont exist.
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
55,970
Surrey
Oh I dont know. I dont see it as Elphick running across him at all and I'm not sure that the keeper in this case would be deemed in possession of the ball. It would have taken a srong old ref to have given a goal and they dont exist.
It's easy to have a pop at the ref and there are PLENTY of strong refs about, but as far as I can see the keeper is blatently impeded in this instance. i.e. he is physically prevented from kicking the ball up the field.

If Elphick had made that run, and the keeper had managed to complete his kick, hoofing it at Elphick's back from point blank range allowing Elphick to score, then I agree the goal should then have stood.
 






hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
63,456
Chandlers Ford
I am not up on the law with goalies kicking these days...howevever I don't think Elphick actually touched the keeper.


Thats the point - he doesn't need to touch him, for it to be considered an infringement.
 


Everest

Me
Jul 5, 2003
20,741
Southwick
Having seen it now, the ref was right. Even though it was accidental it was still a free kick.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
Oh I dont know. I dont see it as Elphick running across him at all and I'm not sure that the keeper in this case would be deemed in possession of the ball. It would have taken a srong old ref to have given a goal and they dont exist.

I am not up on the law with goalies kicking these days...howevever I don't think Elphick actually touched the keeper.

I posted this yesterday
Goal Keeper Possession/Elphick's - North Stand Chat

I understand there to be some debate about Elphick's disallowed goal. I wasn't there, nor was I able to listen to the game due to previous commitments, so am not totally sure this is relevant, but this is what the laws of the game have to say:

A goalkeeper is not permitted to keep control of the ball in his hands for more than six seconds. A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball:

• while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface
(e.g. ground, own body)
• while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand
• while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air

When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent.

Page 112 (114 of the pdf file):
Laws of the Game
 






Gully

Monkey in a seagull suit.
Apr 24, 2004
16,812
Way out west
...cracking finish for our second goal!
 




I think the truth is that we had a lot of possession without creating as many goal scoring chances as a team so in control of the game might expect.

That's my slight concern about a 4-5-1 formation - the lack of chances created - so far.

You really need your central midfield to support the lone striker and whilst away from home it gives us more midfield solidity, at home I would be inclined to go 4-4-2 - particulalry as it's Exeter who have 1 away point from 21.

They will probably defend deep and we really need to have numbers going forwards.
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
55,970
Surrey
That's my slight concern about a 4-5-1 formation - the lack of chances created - so far.

You really need your central midfield to support the lone striker and whilst away from home it gives us more midfield solidity, at home I would be inclined to go 4-4-2 - particulalry as it's Exeter who have 1 away point from 21.

They will probably defend deep and we really need to have numbers going forwards.
I raised this very point yesterday on that 4-5-1 thread.
 


Oscar

Well-known member
Nov 10, 2003
3,880
But then also playing with that much width is going to help with a packed defence. I would keep the 4-5-1 but it has to be more of a 4-3-3 in the way we play.

As for the highlights, great goal by Bennet and a great ...ahem..finish by Calderon too. That's the bit of luck we've all been moaning the lack of recently.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top