Southampton 1-2 Wolves. Verdict Thread

[BillyDee]

It looks like shirt from the picture you posted...

 

[Tony Towner]

Wolves penalty much more obvious than the one we conceded against Leicester as arm in raised position. Southampton's claim far less obvious than handball against WBA. Looking at it from a Wolves perspective both seem reasonable decisions, especially as Bertrand was blocking a shot.

See above re Albion. They have given guidance since the Kilman one, basically concluding it was cobblers as his arm was in a natural position. I posted an interview a couple of weeks ago with Oliver admitting as such

 

[Tony Towner]

It looks like shirt from the picture you posted...

One of us needs new glasses then. The ball has a diameter of 9 inches, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like a corner where the outside of the ball needs to only overhang an element of the quadrant.

Basically shows that the whole thing is a sack of shit, made up for the benefit of VAR, but still not fit for purpose

 

[YoungWolf]

I am still genuinely unsure where the ball hits Donck but feel like we got away with one. Even if it didn't hit his arm I'd still have expected VAR to find a way to give a penalty

 

[BillyDee]

One of us needs new glasses then. The ball has a diameter of 9 inches, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like a corner where the outside of the ball needs to only overhang an element of the quadrant.

Basically shows that the whole thing is a sack of shit, made up for the benefit of VAR, but still not fit for purpose

Do you think this guy is actually pushing against the tower of Pisa..?

 

[Walnut]

The old way was best imv and that is intent. Why they changed it I don't know. Its caused too much confusion now.

 

[Tom Hark]

View attachment 3453
Do you think this guy is actually pushing against the tower of Pisa..?

Nah, I've seen the Tower of Pisa. It's much taller than that.

 

[Wolvensam]

If one was a pen the other had to be. We got very lucky.

 

[Throbber3]

If one was a pen the other had to be. We got very lucky.

I sort of agree, but all I need to do is think about the Leicester penalty that was given against Max Kilman, when the crosser was even closer to him than yesterday and VAR/ Taylor overturned it as corner and gave a penalty. So if its consistency the same type of incident attracted the same result - a penalty.
The second one with Dendonker was not given , hits much higher up the arm and comes over the top of another player. I dont think it was a penalty but certainly fits the saying that I have seen them given , especially this season. But we did need a break and got it.

 

[Paul]

I know they were penalties (inc. Kilmans) but the whole law is an ass, if any manager had got any sense he'd tell his players as soon as they were near the box just blast it in, especially if the defenders three feet away from you, because trust me if a balls going towards your face you're not going to keep your arms down (from experience)
The other option is to employ Michael Flatley the Riverdance bloke as a defensive coach, think about it !(I'm a good ideas machine this week)

 

[Walnut]

Going back a few years and the penalty law was ball to hand or hand to ball.

 

[AndyWolves]

My own view is that if a shot on target is blocked by a hand / arm then it's a pen, intentional or not. If it's not a shot on target then accidental can come into the equation.

The defender may not have meant to block the shot, but he's still used an illegal part of his body to deny the opposition a chance to score.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

My own view is that if a shot on target is blocked by a hand / arm then it's a pen, intentional or not. If it's not a shot on target then accidental can come into the equation.

The defender may not have meant to block the shot, but he's still used an illegal part of his body to deny the opposition a chance to score.

Damn you and your logical common sense approach.

cracking

 

[PuntsWolf]

I know they were penalties (inc. Kilmans) but the whole law is an ass, if any manager had got any sense he'd tell his players as soon as they were near the box just blast it in, especially if the defenders three feet away from you, because trust me if a balls going towards your face you're not going to keep your arms down (from experience)
The other option is to employ Michael Flatley the Riverdance bloke as a defensive coach, think about it !(I'm a good ideas machine this week)

If you managed to get your hands in front of your face when a balls struck at you then had enough time to either move out the way or ideally head it.
It would be an entirely unnatural position and therefore a penalty.

Bertrand Is unlucky because as he’s turned his body and his hand has come out. This is entirely natural mechanics so is a “natural position” but sadly makes his silhouette bigger. This is why defenders now take up the unnatural position of hands behind their back to prevent the situation.

I think it’s a pen because if that happens on the goal line no one would be saying it’s not a pen. As Andy says it’s blocked a shot at goal (albeit likely going over or comfortably saved).

 

[Pablowolf]

View attachment 3453
Do you think this guy is actually pushing against the tower of Pisa..?

It's fairly obvious that he is, his hands are on the tower.

 

[Pablowolf]

My own view is that if a shot on target is blocked by a hand / arm then it's a pen, intentional or not. If it's not a shot on target then accidental can come into the equation.

The defender may not have meant to block the shot, but he's still used an illegal part of his body to deny the opposition a chance to score.

Thing is, you can't tell from the first couple of yards travel if the ball is on target on not. Not always, at least.

 

[big mean bunny]

Bertrands stopped a cross, Dendockers was a ball missed by a player that then hits him, it's not under control or heading towards goal or a player in a direct way. Its stupid, but I presume that don't view that as a missed error.

The Southampton fans are right to be annoyed by it, I would be. Although I'd also be telling the player to just square up and let that smash you in the body.

 

[Tom Hark]

My own view is that if a shot on target is blocked by a hand / arm then it's a pen, intentional or not. If it's not a shot on target then accidental can come into the equation.

The defender may not have meant to block the shot, but he's still used an illegal part of his body to deny the opposition a chance to score.

This was pretty much Gary Taphouse's view in commentary and seemed logical to me, even with my Wolves bias. David Prutton, his 'analyst', couldn't get beyond 'But where else was he supposed to put his hand?', neatly missing the point entirely. Very disappointed to see MoTD2 acting like 12-year-olds last night rather than applying similar common sense.

 

[AndyWolves]

Thing is, you can't tell from the first couple of yards travel if the ball is on target on not. Not always, at least.

Nothings perfect but for me Semedos shot was on its way into the top corner

 

[Pablowolf]

Really? I thought it was missing by a country mile!