Manchester United

[Scratch]

It’s a foul as he doesn’t get the ball and prevents the keeper from getting to it in the process.

Not sure why making a ‘reasonable attempt’ to play the ball should make any difference on whether something is a foul or not?

I don't think those ever get given now a days. But the keeper should catch that anyway FFS

Reason the keeper can't catch it is the United player knocks the keeper's arms out of the way (accidentally, in the act of jumping). So he's impeded the keeper. It's soft, but easy to see why VAR didn't get involved.

[Kenneth]

It’s a foul as he doesn’t get the ball and prevents the keeper from getting to it in the process.

Not sure why making a ‘reasonable attempt’ to play the ball should make any difference on whether something is a foul or not?

I would suggest that there is no foul, just two players underneath the ball, jumping for it, who come into contact with each other. Much like the other 50 aerial duels that happen every game. Nobody even contemplates foul play unless one of the players happens to a goalkeeper, despite goalkeepers having the advantage of being able to stretch at the ball with their hands. It was a reasonable attempt at jumping for a header, the likes of which any player has a right to do. The rules say "It is an offence to restrict the movement of a goalkeeper by unfairly impeding him“, so even impeding isn’t enough for a foul, and I would suggest that jumping for a header in a 50/50 situation is not unfairly doing anything.

And the keeper doesn’t need to catch it, and doesn’t have a god given right to catch it, he was perfectly able to challenge for the ball and win it, but failed to do so because he jumped late and flapped a weak hand at it.

[Scratch]

I would suggest that there is no foul, just two players underneath the ball, jumping for it, who come into contact with each other. Much like the other 50 aerial duels that happen every game. Nobody even contemplates foul play unless one of the players happens to a goalkeeper, despite goalkeepers having the advantage of being able to stretch at the ball with their hands. It was a reasonable attempt at jumping for a header, the likes of which any player has a right to do. The rules say "It is an offence to restrict the movement of a goalkeeper by unfairly impeding him“, so even impeding isn’t enough for a foul, and I would suggest that jumping for a header in a 50/50 situation is not unfairly doing anything.

And the keeper doesn’t need to catch it, and doesn’t have a god given right to catch it, he was perfectly able to challenge for the ball and win it, but failed to do so because he jumped late and flapped a weak hand at it.

"Unfairly impeding", with respect to goalkeepers, would include knocking his arms down with yours as you jump, accidental or not. Which is what RH did.

[John Barnes]

Rodgers

[Buzzo]

Reason the keeper can't catch it is the United player knocks the keeper's arms out of the way (accidentally, in the act of jumping). So he's impeded the keeper. It's soft, but easy to see why VAR didn't get involved.

If the keeper is stronger he catches that.

I watch Rugby (not the same sport obvs) watch a line out, total disruption, but they retain the ability to catch under pressure.

Letting keepers off with that is a one way road to basically the soft as ****e, chucking yourself about, rolling on the turf game that we witness just now.

It was Man U tho so.....

[danperkins]

What do you think about utd’s disallowed goal?

https://dubz.co/v/6t87fd

For me, it is a reasonable attempt to challenge for a header against a fanny of a goalkeeper.

Yeah it was a perfectly good goal. They have to be one of the worst coachedbteamdnin the league. Still baffled as to how we couldn't beat them on three different occasions. What the actual ****.

[Le Chef]

The INEOS purge is continuing - Loads of people are leaving, even in non footballing departments, the mood is caustic. they sent an e-mail around last week warning everyone not to leak to the media as each e-mail was worded differently so they could root out any leakers. Problem was, they were all worded the same -!

[Mr Pink]

watch a line out, total disruption, but they retain the ability to catch under pressure.

Is a different sport, mate

[Buzzo]

Is a different sport, mate

[ric.williams]

I watch Rugby (not the same sport obvs) watch a line out, total disruption, but they retain the ability to catch under pressure.

are you allowed to make contact with the catchers arms?

[Doc_Piptorious]

They like handling odd shaped balls though.

[Cerbie]

The INEOS purge is continuing - Loads of people are leaving, even in non footballing departments, the mood is caustic. they sent an e-mail around last week warning everyone not to leak to the media as each e-mail was worded differently so they could root out any leakers. Problem was, they were all worded the same -!

Did they seriously think the staff wouldn’t compare each others emails?

Makes the new management look untrustworthy and dumb as **** with a single email.

[Le Chef]

Did they seriously think the staff wouldn’t compare each others emails?

Makes the new management look untrustworthy and dumb as **** with a single email.

They are looking worse than the Glazers in most staff eyes - The return to office working was met with - Where are we working ? there is no space etc, etc.

Some of things coming out are hilarious, teams review with Ronny (the rat) was one I had heard, loads of others.

[Buzzo]

are you allowed to make contact with the catchers arms?

You are allowed to prove that it’s possible to catch a ball under a robust challenge without collapsing to the ground - that was more my point

[rudedog]

I would suggest that there is no foul, just two players underneath the ball, jumping for it, who come into contact with each other. Much like the other 50 aerial duels that happen every game. Nobody even contemplates foul play unless one of the players happens to a goalkeeper, despite goalkeepers having the advantage of being able to stretch at the ball with their hands. It was a reasonable attempt at jumping for a header, the likes of which any player has a right to do. The rules say "It is an offence to restrict the movement of a goalkeeper by unfairly impeding him“, so even impeding isn’t enough for a foul, and I would suggest that jumping for a header in a 50/50 situation is not unfairly doing anything.

And the keeper doesn’t need to catch it, and doesn’t have a god given right to catch it, he was perfectly able to challenge for the ball and win it, but failed to do so because he jumped late and flapped a weak hand at it.

Reasonable attempt he jumps way too early and misses the ball completely - his arm then comes down and knocks the keepers hand out of the way preventing him from getting to the ball.

He's effectively barged the keeper out of the way without getting anywhere near the ball.