Wolves 2-3 West Brom: Verdict Thread

[GLASGOWOLF]

Both those goals we won deep in our own half and broke fast wirh Raul and Traore...classic counter attacking, no high press there

Both the goals yes....

Cutrone's 2 early chances, Jiminez's 2 early chances all won on the half way line, or pressured City into mistakes.

We used to press early in some cases, when the opportunity presented itself, not all the time.

Now we never press, we just sit and wait, we dont actually seem to try and win the ball at all now

 

[PuntsWolf]

Not sure Otamendi passing to our players repeatedly is pressing.

 

[b3h]

Both the goals yes....

Cutrone's 2 early chances, Jiminez's 2 early chances all won on the half way line, or pressured City into mistakes.

We used to press early in some cases, when the opportunity presented itself, not all the time.

Now we never press, we just sit and wait, we dont actually seem to try and win the ball at all now

I think the sitting and waiting has always been a thing. When a player goes on a mad run we often fail to stop it, make them look like Messi and it results in a chance

 

[MARKakaJIM]

I think the Evans challenge was a good foot outside the area and FK was the right decision.

The Boly challenge was a lot closer but in the scientific world of VAR was still outside.

As for the handball. It’s a really bizarre situation but I can handle it not given. I don’t really know why he’s got his hands there, and it hits them. But i can handle it not being given as it’s purely accidental, from close range and it’s not like if it hadn’t have hit them he wouldn’t have cleared it anyway.

Think Gibbs has got his arms up in anticipation of running into Fabio or Button, best guess I can make of it anyway, then when the ball is fumbled he's not got much time to pull them back out of the way.

Agree on the second point too, don't think it actually makes a material difference to the way that passage of play ends up, if his arms aren't there it probably hits him around the midrif/upper leg and drops at this feet just the same.

 

[Tony Towner]

The inconsistency is the issue. 2 months ago that's a penalty, now it isn't, so we are affected negatively both ways. Personally I think they should have carried on reffing with the stupid interpretation for the rest of the season to be consistent, but I appreciate others will think it's making a bad situation worse.

 

[PuntsWolf]

I think changing it was the right call. We’ve been on the wrong end of it, but could just have easily (and still could) benefit from it moving forward. It was making a mockery of every game.

Wasn’t the Kilman incident after they changed the sensitivity anyway!?

 

[Johnny75]

It's hand ball I don't understand how anybody can think otherwise.

He practically catches it.

 

[YoungWolf]

The argument I have seen is that it's a foul by Fabio on Button in the first place, but no idea if they took that into consideration

 

[Tony Towner]

I think changing it was the right call. We’ve been on the wrong end of it, but could just have easily (and still could) benefit from it moving forward. It was making a mockery of every game.

Wasn’t the Kilman incident after they changed the sensitivity anyway!?

No it was after Kilman and Matip on the same day

 

[Tredman]

The argument I have seen is that it's a foul by Fabio on Button in the first place, but no idea if they took that into consideration

I did think that at the time - he did a kinda hip bump. Kane gets away with much worse though..

 

[AndyWolves]

I thought Doc away at Burnley was unlucky to be handball as he was anticipating contact with someone performing an overhead kick. Fuck me, I just remembered Mepham playing basketball at Bournemouth too

I think if Docs is given then so should Gibbs

 

[Tony Towner]

I thought Doc away at Burnley was unlucky to be handball as he was anticipating contact with someone performing an overhead kick. Fuck me, I just remembered Mepham playing basketball at Bournemouth too

I think if Docs is given then so should Gibbs

Mepham's isn't a penalty because the ball came off another part of his body first

 

[Johnny75]

Mepham's isn't a penalty because the ball came off another part of his body first

That's rubbish and not in the rules. If I head the ball onto my out stretched hand it's handball.

 

[Tony Towner]

That's rubbish and not in the rules. If I head the ball onto my out stretched hand it's handball.

Yes it is and no it wouldn't be

www.goal.com/en/amp/news/how-does-the-new-handball-rule-work-football-rules-explained/baj7pi2kk191qyeu9ay8wlrn

 

[Jinky]

It's hand ball I don't understand how anybody can think otherwise.

He practically catches it.

I agree. But I've seen a lot of people saying it's the time he has to react, which is why it hasn't been given.

You can bet your bottom dollar if that had been the other way around they'd have given a penalty!

 

[Johnny75]

Yes it is and no it wouldn't be

www.goal.com/en/amp/news/how-does-the-new-handball-rule-work-football-rules-explained/baj7pi2kk191qyeu9ay8wlrn

From what I remember Mepham kneed the ball onto his arm that was outstretched so making his silhouette bigger.

That would be handball.

Gibbs retained control of the ball by catching it.

 

[Johnny75]

I agree. But I've seen a lot of people saying it's the time he has to react, which is why it hasn't been given.

You can bet your bottom dollar if that had been the other way around they'd have given a penalty!

That seems like a nonsense to me as Gibbs was on the line and so prevented the a goal scoring opportunity by catching it.

 

[Tony Towner]

From what I remember Mepham kneed the ball onto his arm that was outstretched so making his silhouette bigger.

That would be handball.

Gibbs retained control of the ball by catching it.

Yes, but the coming off another part of the body part takes precedence over the silhouette is my understanding. I thought the Gibbs one was handball, his hands were in an unnatural position. On MOTD like YW said they did suggest it might have been for a Fabio nudge though - which I didn't think was a foul, just holding his ground. No penalty because of...what have cleared it up even if we don’t agree with it but that would be common sense

 

[Haggstone]

Can I just ask what ‘in an un natural position’ actually means? Surely if the player isn’t deliberately trying to handle the ball then his arms/hands are simply where a players brain has (subconsciously?) told the body to move them to? If it ain’t voluntary it’s natural isn’t it?

I’m sure I’m being a bit thick.

 

[darlowolf64]

Can I just ask what ‘in an un natural position’ actually means? Surely if the player isn’t deliberately trying to handle the ball then his arms/hands are simply where a players brain has (subconsciously?) told the body to move them to? If it ain’t voluntary it’s natural isn’t it?

I’m sure I’m being a bit thick.

If you are standing still you would expect your hands/arms to be down, in line with your hips. If you are stood with your hands in front of your chest, they wouldn't "naturally" be there... Unnatural.

If you are jumping to head the ball your arms/hand would be raised to assist with the leap, about chest height. If you have jumped to head the ball but your hands are above your head and come into contact with the ball, unnatural.
Try jumping without arm leverage but also note where they naturally fall. Try turning and see where your hands naturally fall... If you extend them beyond your natural turn you are expanding your silhouette, not natural.

This is all a basic explanation but the best I can manage