After recently seeing a few goals given for possible fouls on the keeper as below examples -

Arsenal v Palace foul on the Keeper for at least 2 of the goals.

Burnley v Luton foul on Trafford - Joke

Spurs v Citeh Foul on Keeper - Suspect?

Has the Goal Keeper Protection rule gone now ?, With that in mind and it look like VAR is looking at it that way, would you be tempted to start with Muric instead of Trafford, as we all know what's coming !!

I like Trafford and he will be a good keeper in years to come, But if your a defender you will be more confident with Muric who is a bigger presence in the box.

Persist with a cowardly keeper and you deserve all you get.

StayingDown4Ever wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2024 9:46 am

Persist with a cowardly keeper and you deserve all you get.

Think you may get a few replies to this

I thought I’d read somewhere after the dust had settled on the Trafford/ Luton episode that you can challenge the keeper as long as it’s not aggressive ( not sure that’s the right word), I didn’t think it was a foul in the game last night - Spurs - City on the spurs keeper, he was flapping and should have been more “aggressive” on the player backing into him.

With allowing the Luton goal to stand they have now set a new precedent. To be honest I thought they would disallow City’s goal last night as it was against another ‘big team’.

Westleigh wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2024 9:55 am

Think you may get a few replies to this

It’s true though. I don’t know how he can be that weak at 6ft5 or whatever he is. The way he dropped was cringeworthy.

I seem to remember other cowardly attempts at gathering crosses which cost us goals (Arsenal away, Everton at home?).

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2024 10:00 am

With allowing the Luton goal to stand they have now set a new precedent. To be honest I thought they would disallow City’s goal last night as it was against another ‘big team’.

Steve, I agree what you say about setting a precedent and think that’s why they allowed last nights goal.

We need Traff to watch old footage of Ray Clemence .Ray used to come for catches with one knee up to protect himself for fouls by forwards
As clearly all protection has gone perhaps this is a tactic Traff could usefully employ in future

StayingDown4Ever wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2024 9:46 am

Persist with a cowardly keeper and you deserve all you get.

Go on then I'll bite... He's YOUNG. People improve. The Luton game he dominated everything that was there to be taken - 5 minutes before I commented to a friend that he had been brilliant all game at it. Then that 'happened'.

Foul or not I would like him to have been stronger in that situation but when a 6ft+ and 14 stone striker deliberately backs in there really isn't much he can do!

StayingDown4Ever wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2024 10:01 am

It’s true though. I don’t know how he can be that weak at 6ft5 or whatever he is. The way he dropped was cringeworthy.

I seem to remember other cowardly attempts at gathering crosses which cost us goals (Arsenal away, Everton at home?).

Ok bumba.

Woodleyclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2024 5:38 pm

We need Traff to watch old footage of Ray Clemence .Ray used to come for catches with one knee up to protect himself for fouls by forwards
As clearly all protection has gone perhaps this is a tactic Traff could usefully employ in future

Probably a sending off offence. No goalkeepers employ that means of self defence now

I see nothing wrong with Trafford so stay with him.

beddie wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2024 9:55 am

I thought I’d read somewhere after the dust had settled on the Trafford/ Luton episode that you can challenge the keeper as long as it’s not aggressive ( not sure that’s the right word), I didn’t think it was a foul in the game last night - Spurs - City on the spurs keeper, he was flapping and should have been more “aggressive” on the player backing into him.

It's not aggression per se, but excessive force. According to the rules anyway. However this is only one element that could deem it a foul. There are numerous other actions a player can make that should have resulted in it being a foul on Trafford.

I don't see any issue with the City goal. The specific guidance related to this goal on challenging the goalkeeper is quite clear, and has been covered in other threads.

But it is in no way similar to the Trafford incident. One is a genuine attempt to challenge for the ball. The other is a deliberate attempt to impede the goalkeeper.

It's often very easy to come to a sensible decision if the rules are followed (not always). But more and more, I see the basic rules being ignored when it comes to VAR decisions. And incredibly, sometimes only discussing irrelevant factors, and not even discussing the rules at all.

Take the Toney incident for instance. This was a clear breach of the rules. And it was deliberate, with intent to deceive the referee. Some may call it clever. But it's cheating, and in my eyes, no different to diving. Had VAR applied the rules, then there isn't even a grey area - the goal should have been disallowed.

You may think it's petty for Forest to write a letter. But it's not the responsibility of the Forest players to ensure that Ivan Toney adheres to the laws of the game. That is the responsibility of Ivan Toney himself, the referee and his officiating team, and Ivan Toney's manager. Yet somehow, the only people being blamed here are the Forest defenders. Naive of them; maybe. But how we've ended up lauding Ivan Toney for cheating, on his first game back after a ban for rule breaking is just bizarre. Forest should rightly be annoyed, and it's a perfectly fair question: "why did the referee and VAR allow the goal to stand, when according to the rules, it should have been disallowed?".

The grey areas are part of football, and I can live with that. But we are in serious trouble when the rules are being deliberately ignored.

Robbie_painter wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2024 5:53 pm

Ok bumba.

What you bringing me in to it for?

GavlarClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2024 5:45 pm

Go on then I'll bite... He's YOUNG. People improve. The Luton game he dominated everything that was there to be taken - 5 minutes before I commented to a friend that he had been brilliant all game at it. Then that 'happened'.

Foul or not I would like him to have been stronger in that situation but when a 6ft+ and 14 stone striker deliberately backs in there really isn't much he can do!

Adebayor is thin & lanky it shouldn’t be that much of a mismatch it wasn’t Mike Tyson or evander Holyfield he was up against.

Be good to see a striker try that trick on Adam Blacklow. One fist on the ball and another in the strikers earhole.

Perhaps we should watch the Sheffield United v West Ham match to see what a goalkeeper should do. There is no doubt that the West Ham goalkeeper went hard at McBurnie, and that's presumably what Trafford should have done.

(The fact that the goalkeeper went off injured and the penalty cost them two points could be seen as a downside, though.)

I shouldnt bite I know but such buffoonery winds me up too much. Just watch it man !! …Trafford is watching the ball getting himself into position to jump when Adebayo backs into him and impedes him. WTF is that to do with being “cowardly” ? He was fouled (obstructed), it really is as simple as that.

I think generally goalkeepers are over protected.