So was it a foul?


Status
Not open for further replies.
It wasnt a great ball in, hopeful at best. Berahino isnt great in the air. Pantillimon is massive and can use his hands. How can this scenario result in a goal without an infringement?!

Of course it was a foul. Yeah Pants should have been more assertive but without a series of fouls there's not a REMOTE chance of a goal.

We be going beserk if we had one disallowed for the same .
Why? They simply aren't given thesedays. I don't expect special treatment for my team.
 
It shows how shite we are when this is such a talking point. At the end of the day Pants conceded 1 goal in 90 mins. That's decent.

The reason it's a talking point is because we never managed or looked like scoring a goal ourselves. The least little mistake becomes such a big deal because his team mates aren't good enough to get him out the shit.

People also need to look at Larsson and Yedlin and see how they made a pigs ear of stopping the cross coming in in the 1st place
I think you have us mixed up with them. Even the edited highlights didn't show a single shot on target by WBA. I reckon Berahino couldn't believe his luck when 3 fouls were committed and the ref didn't blow. 99% of refs would have given that. Jesus that clown has been quick enough to give them for and against in the past. It was hand ball, barging when the goalie was off the ground and dangerous play kicking the ball when he had both hands on the ball.

Pants shouldn't of even taken the chance though and should have lead with his knee and gone for the punch.
 
Posted this on another thread:

If you make a challenge for the ball but don't get the ball but impede the other player it's a foul. The boy wasn't even looking at the ball, his sole intention was to play the man.

It was another awful refereeing decision we've been on the wrong end of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
f***ing hell man,what is the difference between us and West Brom like
I know. It doesn't matter on who it is, or it shouldn't. 3 infringements in a few seconds. The main one, jumping into pants, was clear as day. Voice of reason, do you admit its unusual for a goal of this nature to be given in 2015? Normally referees protect goalkeepers very well, too well if anything. Even the suggestion of any contact and the whistle normally goes.
 
Pants is a decent PL keeper, but he cost us the game. Needs to put it right next week.
 
Is football now a non contact sport? They collided in the air, the keeper for me should have been stronger, the jump wasn't into him directly which is what the ref probably saw
In 2015 when it comes to goalkeepers yes it is pretty much non contact whether we like it or not.
 
I know. It doesn't matter on who it is, or it shouldn't. 3 infringements in a few seconds. The main one, jumping into pants, was clear as day. Voice of reason, do you admit its unusual for a goal of this nature to be given in 2015? Normally referees protect goalkeepers very well, too well if anything. Even the suggestion of any contact and the whistle normally goes.

Yeah I do Voice of play by the way,often mistaken for voice of reason,must be because I talk so much reason!

But yeah agree was foul and they are normally given as such
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top