Search results

"The debt was substantial, it's only got bigger." As CEO of said company I'm not sure I'd be putting that on my CV.

That's gotta be one of our lot on the wind up surely?

Stockholm syndrome?

Yeah, that's another argument. Both that & our goal look very, very close & could have gone the other way. One thing I would say though is the angles of TV cameras & perspective can dramatically alter the true position. The only person who can tell for sure is the assistant (assuming he's up...

Discussed on the Match Thread but understandably got lost in there. Fadz's touch is not deemed to be a "Deliberate Play" as he does not have: "control of the ball with the possibility of: - passing the ball to a team-mate; or - gaining possession of the ball; or - clearing the ball (e.g. by...

Explained above.

Right. We can finally put it to bed once & for all.... Madley is RIGHT, I am WRONG. Law was updated again recently with an amendment which for some reason doesn't show on FA website. I guess as it's labelled a "clarification". @mark82 you are right: "deliberate play" is when a player has...

Yeah, he's not blocking a shot on goal or similar so can't be classed as a "save". I've just read what Mark Hudson claims Bobby Madley told him & I'm now even more confused... If that is genuinely what Madley said (and not Hudson misunderstanding) then that's not the law as shown above.

You might still have same opinion, it's very subjective, but personally I can't see how it isn't deliberate from Fadz. Fuck it though, the guy was phenomenal & led us to a massive win 👊🏻

Current interpretation of it is shit no doubt but yeah, if it's deemed Fadz deliberately plays the ball then the goal should stand.

That's the debate. You said he didn't mean to play it backwards but as mentioned that's not important. Neither is whether he makes proper contact, miscontrols it or whatever he simply has to make a deliberate play for the ball & there's plenty of examples of similar goals that have stood...

Irrelevant, he deliberately plays the ball.

Yeah, they're wrong. His mere presence isn't enough, he has to actually challenge for it or make some other action which disrupts Fadz's ability to play it. He didn't, Fadz misjudged it. Brave but correct call by the lino imo. As above I can only think Madley thinks Fadz hasn't touched it or...

That can be his only interpretation but he clearly means to play it imo.

He was in an offside position at that point but commited no offence. He only becomes active when playing the ball which came off Fadz - it should have stood.

Thought he & Palmer were very good when they came on.

Tbf, it wasn't offside. Dodged a bullet but who cares.

Good value for that in the end. Got very fortunate with the disallowed goal but Fadz was otherwise colossal.

When Rose was getting ready one of them genuinely thought we were going to bring on an extra defender in a tactical change to counter their "dominance". He honestly thought we were going to go 6 at the back with 4 CBs 🤦🏼‍♂️🤣