Barnsley Vs Wycombe crazy winner

[phantom]

The game was goal less going into injury time when this happened 

Obvious contact? 

Keeper drops the ball? 

What the below doesn't show is the ref just gave a drop ball which is how the keeper got ball 

Goal is awarded, Wycombe also get a player sent off for arguing with the referee 

I'd be checking betting accounts after this one 

 

[Fordy62]

Clear foul for me. Soft, but defo a foul. 

[fanjita]

If that keeper ever goes shopping in Broadmead he would spend all his time on the ground, player barely touched him and he goes down, no foul

Edited November 29, 2023 by fanjita

[cidercity1987]

Keeper time wasting, baiting the striker to come and get the ball before grabbing it. A very soft barge and keeper goes over.

Its probably a foul but not that controversial to me

[Loco Rojo]

Keeper going down like that highlights everything wrong with this sport. Clearly over doing it and looking to influence the ref. If he'd stayed standing when he was barged, the ref would've probably given the foul for the contact. 

Keeper fell over like a toddler. Got what he deserved.

[ChubStixx]

Play silly games...

[LondonBristolian]

The goalkeeper definitely makes the most of it but I still don’t get how it wasn’t given as a foul as there was obvious contact and literally no way the forward could be trying to legally play the ball when it was in the keeper’s hands.

I do think there are certain circumstances where a foul should be given AND the fouled player be booked for simulation.

Edited November 29, 2023 by LondonBristolian

[fanjita]

Coming into contact with another player doesn’t constitute a foul, as said previously this is what’s wrong with today’s game, trying to con the referee at every opportunity, no other word for it but cheating, referees are criticised continuously but players need to take a long hard look at themselves, it’s embarrassing 

[Super]

Keeper didn't look overly bothered with the decision!

[Robbored]

It was legitimate goal. When two players come shoulder to shoulder (which frequently happens) no one notices. That’s what happened here.

Idiotic goalkeeping…………

[red panda]

Karma for a keeper playing silly buggers and a pretty pathetic team.  Totally his fault for letting go of the ball after throwing himself to the ground.  Why were Wycombe time wasting in injury time when the score was still 0-0?  Imagine if you travelled all the way up to Barnsley on a freezing midweek evening to watch your team give up trying to win.  Is a bore draw at Oakwell really the height of their ambitions??  Deserve everything they got 

[Super]

Just now, red panda said:

Karma for a keeper playing silly buggers and a pretty pathetic team.  Totally his fault for letting go of the ball after throwing himself to the ground.  Why were Wycombe time wasting in injury time when the score was still 0-0?  Imagine if you travelled all the way up to Barnsley on a freezing midweek evening to watch your team give up trying to win.  Is a bore draw at Oakwell really the height of their ambitions??  Deserve everything they got 

In fairness if its 0-0 tonight in injury time do you think we won't be wasting some time?

[ciderwithtommy]

30 minutes ago, Robbored said:

It was legitimate goal. When two players come shoulder to shoulder (which frequently happens) no one notices. That’s what happened here.

Idiotic goalkeeping…………

Wrong. 

law 12 - A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

 

 

[Redstart]

30 minutes ago, red panda said:

Karma for a keeper playing silly buggers and a pretty pathetic team.  Totally his fault for letting go of the ball after throwing himself to the ground.  Why were Wycombe time wasting in injury time when the score was still 0-0?  Imagine if you travelled all the way up to Barnsley on a freezing midweek evening to watch your team give up trying to win.  Is a bore draw at Oakwell really the height of their ambitions??  Deserve everything they got 

Yep, if you're gonna throw yourself to the ground like you've been shot, at least hang on to the ball til the ref blows his whistle

[TV Tom]

He got what he deserved but 99.9% of the time a foul would of been given

[Robbored]

7 minutes ago, ciderwithtommy said:

Wrong. 

law 12 - A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

 

 

You’re right - obviously the referee doesn’t know the laws either.

[red panda]

42 minutes ago, Super said:

In fairness if its 0-0 tonight in injury time do you think we won't be wasting some time?

I hope not.  And please leave fairness out of it, this is OTIB FFS 

[cityexile]

55 minutes ago, Super said:

In fairness if its 0-0 tonight in injury time do you think we won't be wasting some time?

If its 0-0 in the last minute of injury time and we have possession in their half, the thought 'take it in to the corner you silly bugger' might conceivably cross my mind...

[Robbored]

24 minutes ago, Robbored said:

You’re right - obviously the referee doesn’t know the laws either.

Unless the ref didn’t see the collision as a ‘challenge’

[Kingswood Robin]

I agree he got what he deserved for taking the mick, and I'd like to see referees let more of this go.

However, for 40 years at least, any sort of contact with a keeper is given as a foul. Sometimes just jumping in the air next to the keeper at a corner is a foul apparently. Given this, I am surprised the goal was allowed to stand. 

[A Horse With No Name]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

You’re right - obviously the referee doesn’t know the laws either.

When did it change from hands to hand? I was always taught that if a keeper had one hand on the ball it was still in play. 

[LondonBristolian]

56 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

When did it change from hands to hand? I was always taught that if a keeper had one hand on the ball it was still in play. 

I think the key phrase is “control of the ball” - as I understand it, the ball is in play if the keeper has one hand on it in a goal mouth scramble but not if the keeper is standing with it firmly in their hand.

[AppyDAZE]

The ref never gives that if it's the away side scoring.

Yes goalkeepers can be annoying, but you can't just push them over.

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 hours ago, Super said:

Keeper didn't look overly bothered with the decision!

I always look at players reactions as the reaction says a lot. 

In this instance it seemed as if the keeper knew he was to blame. Absolutely zero outrage from him for what people are calling a huge injustice. 

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think the key phrase is “control of the ball” - as I understand it, the ball is in play if the keeper has one hand on it in a goal mouth scramble but not if the keeper is standing with it firmly in their hand.

I seem to recall something along the lines of if the keeper has the ball in one hand but pressure on it, ie when it’s on the ground, he’s considered to be in control.  So a bit like a try in rugby when they have to apply pressure.

I might’ve got the interpretation wrong, but the old “two hands” shout wasn’t as defined as I thought.

[A Horse With No Name]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I seem to recall something along the lines of if the keeper has the ball in one hand but pressure on it, ie when it’s on the ground, he’s considered to be in control.  So a bit like a try in rugby when they have to apply pressure.

I might’ve got the interpretation wrong, but the old “two hands” shout wasn’t as defined as I thought.

Do you remember the Forest player who crept up behind the keeper who was holding the ball in one hand, and nodded it off him to score. Maybe that's when it was changed. 

[And Its Smith]

Well done ref.  That keeper should be ashamed of himself 

[italian dave]

3 hours ago, Super said:

In fairness if its 0-0 tonight in injury time do you think we won't be wasting some time?

Just thinking the same. And, if that got allowed against us, I think most of us would be fuming. 

[italian dave]

23 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I always look at players reactions as the reaction says a lot. 

In this instance it seemed as if the keeper knew he was to blame. Absolutely zero outrage from him for what people are calling a huge injustice. 

I thought that he just assumed he’d get a free kick. That was why there was no reaction - at least, not until he realised the goal was given. But who knows! 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Do you remember the Forest player who crept up behind the keeper who was holding the ball in one hand, and nodded it off him to score. Maybe that's when it was changed. 

Andy Dibble / Gary Crosby