By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Is the biggest sh#thouse of a goalkeeper I have ever seen he's afraid of getting hurt should have come and taken the centre half and centre forward with him while collecting the ball hesitated because afraid of getting hurt...never ever comes for crosses can't be giving no confidence to our centre halves ...I hope our analysts team pick up on it as every man and his dog has seen how terrible he is cost us against Ipswich and today unforgivable for a keeper it's bread and butter
Why did Fer turn his back on the cross inside of trying to stop it. Another sh1thouse.
I don't think he did turn his back, did he? I thought it was just a reflex action of putting his arms up to stop a mis-hit thunderbolt of a shot from 5 yards away from completely rearranging his face. It's often said about players having their hands in an unnatural position but I don't think there's anything unnatural about a self-preservation reflex action. As it was, it still knocked him off his feet and even their manager said they were extremely lucky to get that decision.
Never a penalty,at the game we thought it was an outstretched arm but after watching it on quest i couldnt believe it
His hands were in front of his face ffs whats he supposed to do let the ball smaah him and ruin his good looks,if he had his arm away from his body fair enough but in front of his fvck right off
Never a penalty,at the game we thought it was an outstretched arm but after watching it on quest i couldnt believe it
His hands were in front of his face ffs whats he supposed to do let the ball smaah him and ruin his good looks,if he had his arm away from his body fair enough but in front of his fvck right off
I've watched it 2 or 3 times and I don't think any of their players actually appealed or if they did it was very half-hearted and more in hope than expectation like players of both sides hopefully appeal every time a ball goes out for a throw.
Never a penalty,at the game we thought it was an outstretched arm but after watching it on quest i couldnt believe it
His hands were in front of his face ffs whats he supposed to do let the ball smaah him and ruin his good looks,if he had his arm away from his body fair enough but in front of his fvck right off
the ball comes down in his six yard area, and he steps back? WTF goalkeeping 101
No it didn't, it bounced just outside so if that's where it's actually bouncing considering it came down from the God's means he had little chance to come out from where he was.
Could he have done better, yeah, possibly, but it was a very difficult cross to know what's best to do. You see keepers come so often and get nowhere near it, there was two in the Arsenal, Liverpool game, and the rule is, if you come you need to make sure you get it.
There was no way of guaranteeing getting that looping, high ball from the God's.
And all that happened after was a coming together. There was so very little in that decision and let's face it 9 times out of ten they go the other way.
Ref had other ideas.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
No it didn't, it bounced just outside so if that's where it's actually bouncing considering it came down from the God's means he had little chance to come out from where he was.
Could he have done better, yeah, possibly, but it was a very difficult cross to know what's best to do. You see keepers come so often and get nowhere near it, there was two in the Arsenal, Liverpool game, and the rule is, if you come you need to make sure you get it.
There was no way of guaranteeing getting that looping, high ball from the God's.
And all that happened after was a coming together. There was so very little in that decision and let's face it 9 times out of ten they go the other way.
Ref had other ideas.
Being an ex keeper........he fooked up.....thats in my Day
But Modern day pansy stuff.......1.12sec......both in the air , kick usually given against attacker for challenging the keeper...ask Nev whose too blame.
Never a penalty,at the game we thought it was an outstretched arm but after watching it on quest i couldnt believe it
His hands were in front of his face ffs whats he supposed to do let the ball smaah him and ruin his good looks,if he had his arm away from his body fair enough but in front of his fvck right off
I thought it was very harsh in the context of the modern rules about intent, hand-to-ball all that guff. He clearly didn't intend to deliberately block the shot with his arm.
No arguments about the clusterfeck that was the first one though. Such a soft and stupid one to give away
I watched the highlights today. Should have defo come for the ball and not let it bounce for the first goal.
Steady on, do you have any idea of what you're asking? Leaving his line could result in long term psychological scarring. That line's his 'safe space'.
Never a penalty,at the game we thought it was an outstretched arm but after watching it on quest i couldnt believe it
His hands were in front of his face ffs whats he supposed to do let the ball smaah him and ruin his good looks,if he had his arm away from his body fair enough but in front of his fvck right off
Definately a penalty brought his hands up to his face to protect himself WTF, at least try and get your head on it or take the hit.
Being an ex keeper........he fooked up.....thats in my Day
But Modern day pansy stuff.......1.12sec......both in the air , kick usually given against attacker for challenging the keeper...ask Nev whose too blame.
It's that hesitation and letting it bounce. On his 6 yard box!
No it didn't, it bounced just outside so if that's where it's actually bouncing considering it came down from the God's means he had little chance to come out from where he was.
Could he have done better, yeah, possibly, but it was a very difficult cross to know what's best to do. You see keepers come so often and get nowhere near it, there was two in the Arsenal, Liverpool game, and the rule is, if you come you need to make sure you get it.
There was no way of guaranteeing getting that looping, high ball from the God's.
And all that happened after was a coming together. There was so very little in that decision and let's face it 9 times out of ten they go the other way.
Ref had other ideas.
He should have taken it as it came down As he let it bounce He should have taken it either on the way up or on the way back down ... it was is ball and he fluffed it. Have missed three opportunities to catch the ball he should than have got between the ball and the attacker - so close the chances are he'd have blocked any attempt on goal. Savvy 'keepers would have bumped into the attacker and fallen over for a free kick.
What he shouldn't have done was wrap his arm around the attackers back and drag him over.
Being an ex keeper........he fooked up.....thats in my Day
But Modern day pansy stuff.......1.12sec......both in the air , kick usually given against attacker for challenging the keeper...ask Nev whose too blame.
Nice to see the ref on the spot for the first penalty. He was roughly half a mile away
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
He should have taken it as it came down As he let it bounce He should have taken it either on the way up or on the way back down ... it was is ball and he fluffed it. Have missed three opportunities to catch the ball he should than have got between the ball and the attacker - so close the chances are he'd have blocked any attempt on goal. Savvy 'keepers would have bumped into the attacker and fallen over for a free kick.
What he shouldn't have done was wrap his arm around the attackers back and drag him over.
Disagree but would love a professional goalkeepers analysis to say whether I'm right or wrong
That wasn't a typical cross, like a free kick or corner coming in at the 'usual' trajectory, it was miskicked I'm guessing so went high and up quickly and it was a difficult cross to judge. It came down from the god's.
I'm not saying he couldn't have dealt with it differently or even better but it was far from the easy ball to collect most are trying to make out.
And I don't think he did much wrong with the actual infringement. Like I said, 99 times out of a hundred the ref let's play go on or gives it to the keeper.
Let's not slaughter our keeper and make him a nervous facking wreck is it because he's clearly Potters 1st choice.
I just don't get our fans, I can't facking fathom them out for love nor money.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Disagree but would love a professional goalkeepers analysis to say whether I'm right or wrong
That wasn't a typical cross, like a free kick or corner coming in at the 'usual' trajectory, it was miskicked I'm guessing so went high and up quickly and it was a difficult cross to judge. It came down from the god's.
I'm not saying he couldn't have dealt with it differently or even better but it was far from the easy ball to collect most are trying to make out.
And I don't think he did much wrong with the actual infringement. Like I said, 99 times out of a hundred the ref let's play go on or gives it to the keeper.
Let's not slaughter our keeper and make him a nervous facking wreck is it because he's clearly Potters 1st choice.
I just don't get our fans, I can't facking fathom them out for love nor money.
As someone who played as a goalkeeper at a fairly high level - I stand by my comments. If he had been a rookie or parks player subbing in goal I concede your points .. but he isn't. He had chances to collect the ball a got near it, he and the attacker were falling away from the ball with Naughton, Van Der Horn and even Rodon well placed to clear. Nordfelt could also have been in a position to block anything the attacker got on the ball. Nordfelt pulled the player down by the neck! A referee not giving the penalty would have been rightly hammered. Nordfeldt has always given me the heebie-jeebies and we always look vulnerable when he's between the posts. Believe me, Nordfeldt doesn't read these comments but maybe he should. If you can't understand why fans are spitting feathers over Nordfelt then there is nothing more to say.
As someone who played as a goalkeeper at a fairly high level - I stand by my comments. If he had been a rookie or parks player subbing in goal I concede your points .. but he isn't. He had chances to collect the ball a got near it, he and the attacker were falling away from the ball with Naughton, Van Der Horn and even Rodon well placed to clear. Nordfelt could also have been in a position to block anything the attacker got on the ball. Nordfelt pulled the player down by the neck! A referee not giving the penalty would have been rightly hammered. Nordfeldt has always given me the heebie-jeebies and we always look vulnerable when he's between the posts. Believe me, Nordfeldt doesn't read these comments but maybe he should. If you can't understand why fans are spitting feathers over Nordfelt then there is nothing more to say.
Quite. I’ve got more time to still do my Christmas shopping than he had to deal with that fairly standard deep cross.
I don’t like it when everyone jumps on his back though, not sure it helps anyone.
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.
The following must be considered:
* the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
* the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
* the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
So Fer"s crossed arms across his face ...as signalled by the ref ... Was not a deliberate act of making contact with the ball, and he did not move his arms towards the ball ... It was ball to arms!!
No Penalty
Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎
2
(No subject) (n/t) on 20:12 - Nov 5 with 1686 views
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.
The following must be considered:
* the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
* the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
* the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
So Fer"s crossed arms across his face ...as signalled by the ref ... Was not a deliberate act of making contact with the ball, and he did not move his arms towards the ball ... It was ball to arms!!
No Penalty
Always nice to see a reminder of the rules, as people still seem to talk about any contact as an immediate pen. The problem is that it's still open to interpretation. Was it a deliberate attempt to stop the ball? I don't think it was; I think it was an instinctive attempt to save his face.
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.
The following must be considered:
* the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
* the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
* the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
So Fer"s crossed arms across his face ...as signalled by the ref ... Was not a deliberate act of making contact with the ball, and he did not move his arms towards the ball ... It was ball to arms!!
No Penalty
Think the shot was going wide, and dont think any Rotherham players appealed,
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
