Ref watch on Sky

[bumba]

Who knew you were allowed to do tactical blocks in football??maybe we should start lining up from kick offs like we are in the NFL then and “tactically block” the opposition till we get the ball.Never heard as much ******** in my life.

You aren't allowed to pull shirts but it happens every set piece, if you take a spot and stand in front of the keeper/defender your blocking the pathway they will take but your not doing anything wrong are you? Your just standing your ground.
Every team does it we do it a lot when we are taking corners but I've never seen any of our fans say we should stop.

[Grimsdale]

You aren't allowed to pull shirts but it happens every set piece, if you take a spot and stand in front of the keeper/defender your blocking the pathway they will take but your not doing anything wrong are you? Your just standing your ground.
Every team does it we do it a lot when we are taking corners but I've never seen any of our fans say we should stop.

But he didn't stand in one spot, he moved about 5 yards towards the keeper and then backed into him.

[Jakubclaret]

But he makes a deliberate move into that space with one intention only. Tho block Trafford from getting to the ball. No other reason.

I agree wholeheartedly he knew exactly what he was doing & played a blinder in doing so, unfortunately 2 players can compete for the same space nobody has a divine right to be there & that was the interpretation, it never helped our cause with trafford floundering all at sea had he imposed himself more perhaps it would been a different story.

[Robbie_painter]

But he didn't stand in one spot, he moved about 5 yards towards the keeper and then backed into him.

Exactly,Bumba and and his mates won’t accept this though because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

[bumba]

But he didn't stand in one spot, he moved about 5 yards towards the keeper and then backed into him.

Or Trafford moved 7/8 yards in to Adebayo?
He was moving in the direction of goal anticipating a cross, Trafford comes in to the attackers space

[bumba]

Exactly,Bumba and and his mates won’t accept this though because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

What narrative would that be?
Because I'll speak up and say it how it is?

[Jakubclaret]

The impression I'm getting is that some people think adebayor shouldn't have been where he was allowed to go.

[Benson]

What narrative would that be?
Because I'll speak up and say it how it is?

You don’t “say it how it is” though, you say it how you saw it which is miles away from how it was.

[RammyClaret61]

Or Trafford moved 7/8 yards in to Adebayo?
He was moving in the direction of goal anticipating a cross, Trafford comes in to the attackers space

Have you actually watched it?

“He was moving in the direction of goal anticipating a cross” No he wasn’t. He had his back to the cross, never looked at the ball. His only glance was to see where Trafford was, who was moving to collect the ball. He made 2 steps backwards then stuck his backside into Trafford, whose only crime is being slightly built.

Don’t worry yourself. I will not reply again.

[Nori1958]

Exactly,Bumba and and his mates won’t accept this though because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

They are the same person

[bumba]

You don’t “say it how it is” though, you say it how you saw it which is miles away from how it was.

Miles from how it was?......but it played out how I saw it

[bumba]

They are the same person

Wondered how long it'd take you, bet you've been sat rocking on your sofa dying to reply

[bumba]

Have you actually watched it?

“He was moving in the direction of goal anticipating a cross” No he wasn’t. He had his back to the cross, never looked at the ball. His only glance was to see where Trafford was, who was moving to collect the ball. He made 2 steps backwards then stuck his backside into Trafford, whose only crime is being slightly built.

Don’t worry yourself. I will not reply again.

He's moving towards goal he turns his back as Trafford gets near him at the last minute, Traffords crime is coming for a cross he gets no where near then crumbles like a pack of cards leaving the referee with a decision to make.
If he comes he should take everything.
Take your claret tinted specs off next time you watch it. You'd be crying if we got a goal disallowed for the same scenario

[claretonthecoast1882]

What are the chances that someone who has cried all season about Trafford getting picked over his pin up boy thinks it wasn't a foul.

The only way bumba would have that as a foul is it Muric was the goalie. Still least there is no agenda on here

[roperclaret]

He's moving towards goal he turns his back as Trafford gets near him at the last minute, Traffords crime is coming for a cross he gets no where near then crumbles like a pack of cards leaving the referee with a decision to make.
If he comes he should take everything.
Take your claret tinted specs off next time you watch it. You'd be crying if we got a goal disallowed for the same scenario

Both things can be true here. It was a foul because the Luton player was making absolutely no attempt to get to the ball and Trafford was. However, Trafford looked to have misjudged it and may not have got it anyway, and did go down easily. That still doesn’t stop it being a deliberate foul though.

[bumba]

What are the chances that someone who has cried all season about Trafford getting picked over his pin up boy thinks it wasn't a foul.

The only way bumba would have that as a foul is it Muric was the goalie. Still least there is no agenda on here

Wrong id still say the same.
What are the chances Traffords fan boys defending an error.....works both ways

[TheFamilyCat]

What are the chances that someone who has cried all season about Trafford getting picked over his pin up boy thinks it wasn't a foul.

The only way bumba would have that as a foul is it Muric was the goalie. Still least there is no agenda on here

I find it amusing that certain posters who have spent all season slating Trafford for not commanding his box and claiming crosses are now slating him for trying to do so (while trying to rewrite the rules on what is a foul).

[TheFamilyCat]

What are the chances that someone who has cried all season about Trafford getting picked over his pin up boy thinks it wasn't a foul.

The only way bumba would have that as a foul is it Muric was the goalie. Still least there is no agenda on here

Muric would have dealt with it much better. He'd have had Adabeyo shot, then simply stepped over his body.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I find it amusing that certain posters who have spent all season slating Trafford for not commanding his box and claiming crosses are now slating him for trying to do so (while trying to rewrite the rules on what is a foul).

Yeah strange isn't it, almost like they have the mindset I don't like him so I will spend my time slating him at any time a chance arises. They can't help themselves, when he has a good game the comment is along the line of "made saves any keeper should"

Still be grateful there is no agenda or normal folk would have to read a constant stream of drivel ...... oh wait

[Roosterbooster]

It is quite phenomenal just how many people skew the context, manipulate the events, and actually describe a different scenario, just to try and justify an opinion, rather than observe and assess, before then formulating an opinion

And no logic, rationale, or even presentation of fact will change their minds. There is no point arguing with these people

[Nori1958]

Wondered how long it'd take you, bet you've been sat rocking on your sofa dying to reply

Rocking on a sofa?.... What on earth does that mean?

[Big Vinny K]

The lack of self awareness as to what they are saying is unbelievable

[KRBFC]

Why is anybody surprised an anti Burnley poster thinks it wasn’t a foul?

Ben Foster said it’s one of the worst VAR decisions he’s seen btw

[Goliath]

He doesn't have too, look at every set piece there's blocks going on everywhere.
He is always moving in that direction, 30 years ago the striker would have been flattened and going off wishing he didn't stand there, Trafford played for a foul a keeper should take everything there.

Its not just a block. He changes direction and rams Trafford who was focussed on the ball so wasnt expecting it from an absolute unit if a player, of course it knocked him over. If thats nkt a foul then every set piece would be an absolute free for all

[ottclaret]

The AVAR spells out exactly why it's a foul. And they just ignore him

From IFAB VAR protocol :

• The VAR is connected to the communication system being used by the match officials and can hear everything they say; the VAR can only speak to the referee by pushing a button (to avoid the referee being distracted by conversations in the VOR)
• If the VAR is busy with a ‘check’ or a ‘review’, the AVAR may speak to the referee especially if the game needs to be stopped or to ensure play does not restart

From this, it seems like the ref could not hear that the AVAR was pointing out that there was a foul on the goalkeeper - only hearing VAR blathering on and saying nothing, barely able to finish a sentence. Therefore, the ref was not aware there was some doubt over validity of the onfield decision, and did not request an onfield review, which would have made it clear Trafford was impeded (which is a foul).

If AVAR could not be heard by ref, the 'evidence' presented & Howard Webbs' performance the other night needs to be called in to question.

[South West Claret.]

Both Trafford and the Luton player were both watching the ball and there for no foul was committed.

[ottclaret]

Just about every foul ever committed is by a player watching the ball!!

[Roosterbooster]

Both Trafford and the Luton player were both watching the ball and there for no foul was committed.

I've checked the rules. And this is not in them. Why do people keep making things up?

[South West Claret.]

It’s a simple fact that if your looking at where the ball is you can’t be looking at another player at the same time.

[Robbie_painter]

It’s a simple fact that if your looking at where the ball is you can’t be looking at another player at the same time.

Adebayo was not looking at the ball though,it’s a simple fact that you can’t just make things up to suit your agenda.

[Roosterbooster]

It’s a simple fact that if your looking at where the ball is you can’t be looking at another player at the same time.

Why is this relevant?

And also its untrue. If a player and the ball are in the same field of view then it's obviously untrue. But you can still know where a player probably is even if you aren't looking at them. Adebayo knew where Trafford was because he had seen his position and his movement

With regards to the rules, there is nothing to suggest you need to deliberately cause the obstruction. In fact, part of the rules explicitly describes a "lack of attention or consideration" being part of an offense. So not knowing where the opposing player is cannot be grounds for considering this fair play

[Big Vinny K]

Watched it many times and Adebayo was looking at the cross initially and then when he realised it was going over his head he deliberately moves towards Trafford and blocks him.
Trafford is looking at the ball all of the time and moving towards it ready to jump.
Adebayo actually takes a step in the other direction. Why on earth would he make a move away from the ball if he was not trying to obstruct the keeper ?

The movements of the players involved are just facts.
The contact is also a fact.
Who instigated the contact is a fact.
Trafford getting knocked over is a facts

The subjectivity and opinions are whether you believe it to be a deliberate obstruction. So then you ask yourself why did the player move in the direction he did when the ball was going in the other direction ?
I’ve not seen anyone justify or explain why he did.

[South West Claret.]

Whether he new where the other player was or not is irrelevant.

I view it as an accidental collision so play on.

[Roosterbooster]

Here are the rules, just for clarity. Seems most people don't know them

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
•charges
•jumps at
•kicks or attempts to kick
•pushes
•strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
•tackles or challenges
•trips or attempts to trip
•If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
•Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
•Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
•Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
•a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
•holds an opponent
•impedes an opponent with contact
•bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object



IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

[South West Claret.]

Thanks for the link but I still think it’s “play on”.

Suggest we agree to disagree.

[Roosterbooster]

Whether he new where the other player was or not is irrelevant.

I view it as an accidental collision so play on.

An accidental collision can still be a foul if you impede the player, as it can be deemed careless

Have a look at the actual rules. Don't use opinion, or make anything up. Use only the rules. And tell me why it isn't a foul

[TheFamilyCat]

Thanks for the link but I still think it’s “play on”.

Suggest we agree to disagree.

Football must be a very frustrating game for you to watch if you sit there watching with your own set of rules.

[Burnley1989]

Football must be a very frustrating game for you to watch if you sit there watching with your own set of rules.

It’s actually made me laugh “I’ve considered all the evidence and whilst there’s no debate that you’re correct as the facts are there for all to see, I’m sticking with my original opinion”

[claretonthecoast1882]

It’s actually made me laugh “I’ve considered all the evidence and whilst there’s no debate that you’re correct as the facts are there for all to see, I’m sticking with my original opinion”

That makes him sound like a VAR official

[BurnleyFC]

It’s also OK to say that it probably is a foul, but Trafford made the wrong decision in trying to claim that ball.

I don’t think he’s getting to it regardless.

[Big Vinny K]

It’s also OK to say that it probably is a foul, but Trafford made the wrong decision in trying to claim that ball.

I don’t think he’s getting to it regardless.

That’s very hard to tell - he’d done pretty well all evening in collecting the ball or punching it and god knows the criticism he would have got if he had stayed on his line.
I don’t think he’s catching it but do think there’s a good chance he could have punched it away.

[TheFamilyCat]

That’s very hard to tell - he’d done pretty well all evening in collecting the ball or punching it and god knows the criticism he would have got if he had stayed on his line.
I don’t think he’s catching it but do think there’s a good chance he could have punched it away.

To be fair, had he stayed on his line it would have been the simplest of saves.

[BurnleyFC]

That’s very hard to tell - he’d done pretty well all evening in collecting the ball or punching it and god knows the criticism he would have got if he had stayed on his line.
I don’t think he’s catching it but do think there’s a good chance he could have punched it away.

He did - he’s had (almost) 4 superb displays in a row up until that point.

I just don’t think he needs to be coming for that.

[dansch]

Bumba thinks the majority of people view it as not a foul so you can't argue with that

[Big Vinny K]

Bumba thinks the majority of people who used to play for Blackburn view it as not a foul so you can't argue with that

Amended that for you

[Roosterbooster]

Trafford is only about 2 yds away from where Morris heads it before he makes contact with Adebayo. At this point, the ball isn't even in the shot. And Morris hasnt even jumped. It's also irrelevant according to the rules, but even so. Based on this, its extremely unlikely Trafford wouldn't be in the vicinity of the ball by the time it arrives. Or you could say, he timed his movement perfectly

[ClaretTony]

Did we ever lose 0-1 at home to Leicester via a John McGreal own goal - and if not, did John McGreal ever score an own goal on the turf?
I'm sure I remember a John McGreal OG to Leicester!

Just checked and he did during the following season - 20th Feb 2007

https://www.uptheclarets.com/fixtures-r ... 07-results

[Rick_Muller]

Trafford is only about 2 yds away from where Morris heads it before he makes contact with Adebayo. At this point, the ball isn't even in the shot. And Morris hasnt even jumped. It's also irrelevant according to the rules, but even so. Based on this, its extremely unlikely Trafford wouldn't be in the vicinity of the ball by the time it arrives. Or you could say, he timed his movement perfectly

also crystal clear from that freeze frame that Adebayo's ar5e is clearly backing into Trafford - which is the exact moment that he fouled him, and when watching in real time Adebayo is not looking at the ball, but looking at where Trafford is moving so he can block him - the freeze frame shown displays that clearly.

I honestly have no idea where people who think it isn't a foul are getting their opinion from - Can they demonstrate with a clear video or freeze frame that is isn't a foul? of course not, because that doesn't exist - all we have is a clear video and freeze frame showing and actual foul.

[Tackler49]

I agree with all CrosspoolClarets comments and the points we have been denied because of VAR incompetence plus VKs ridiculous subs against
W Ham will cost us 10s of millions of pounds as it seems likely we will be relegated (hope I am wrong) UTC

[Westleigh]

I agree with all CrosspoolClarets comments and the points we have been denied because of VAR incompetence plus VKs ridiculous subs against
W Ham will cost us 10s of millions of pounds as it seems likely we will be relegated (hope I am wrong) UTC

People think we’d would be halfway up the league without VAR ,on Jan 4th we would have had 13 points without it.

IMG_1453.png (435.99 KiB) Viewed 1024 times