Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: Donnywolf on January 24, 2020, 10:06:37 pm
-
... Shirt the bloke obviously thinks hes a Keeper
Cheating cynical g*t
-
Taylor should have done a lot better after he handled it.
-
Didn’t he do same in home game?
And should have given a blatent pen away last year away?
-
Didn’t he do same in home game?
And should have given a blatent pen away last year away?
Yup he was the handball at our place as well. Under the totting up process he should now have a red. 2 yellows. Same thing. Same spot. 3 weeks apart against the same team.
-
Home game was worse
Can’t blame the ref today though, the advantage was the correct decision
-
Didn’t he do same in home game?
And should have given a blatent pen away last year away?
He got 2 hands to the Ball at Keepmoat at full stretch with 2 players streaking towards goal
-
But ten yards in our half with a covering defender.. wasn’t a dogso - tonight’s was a closer call..
-
No question whatsoever that was a DOGSO moment tonight.
I wonder what the card would have been if the ball hadn't landed with Taylor.
I also wonder whether there'd have been a red if their lad hadn't got a toe on the ball at the end of the first half, before he went studs-deep into Taylor's knee. Shocking challenge, that one. And he won the free kick!
-
How is it DOGSO when we went on to have a goal scoring opportunity?
-
No question whatsoever that was a DOGSO moment tonight.
I wonder what the card would have been if the ball hadn't landed with Taylor.
I also wonder whether there'd have been a red if their lad hadn't got a toe on the ball at the end of the first half, before he went studs-deep into Taylor's knee. Shocking challenge, that one. And he won the free kick!
My thoughts too BST (about the handball).
Ozturk can count himself very lucky that the ball fell to Taylor because Ennis would have been clear through on goal had Ozturk not stopped the ball with his hand.
-
What the he was doing falling over a blade of grass though? I like him and he clearly likes playing for DM but..............
-
Kitson should have been off.
-
How is it DOGSO when we went on to have a goal scoring opportunity?
Reyt. THESE are the exchanges I like.
It is self evident that the emergence of a second GSO does not preclude the existence of a prior DOGSO. Ozturk denied A GSO. The fact that a second GSO emerged from that action is, philosophically, of no import.
-
Actually this is a REYT philosophical can of worms.
Are you saying that, if I go out tomorrow and randomly shoot someone, and, having struck them, the bullet ricochets and hits the doorbell of a doctor who rushes out and saves their life, I shouldn't be prosecuted?
-
How is it DOGSO when we went on to have a goal scoring opportunity?
Reyt. THESE are the exchanges I like.
It is self evident that the emergence of a second GSO does not preclude the existence of a prior DOGSO. Ozturk denied A GSO. The fact that a second GSO emerged from that action is, philosophically, of no import.
Reyt.. But we got the advantage, went through on goal and cocked it up. The ref gave Ozturk the correct punishment at the next stoppage in play (a yellow card).
What’s the issue? Other than the lack of overlap between philosophy and the rules of the game?
Let’s hope for a different ref next time. Perhaps Freud, Lacan, Plato...
-
Actually this is a REYT philosophical can of worms.
Are you saying that, if I go out tomorrow and randomly shoot someone, and, having struck them, the bullet ricochets and hits the doorbell of a doctor who rushes out and saves their life, I shouldn't be prosecuted?
Have a day off Billy seriously.
-
He should have been sent off and then sent off again.
-
+++++++++++++++ Breaking news ++++++++++++++++
Doncaster Knights put bid in for Ozturk
Obviously spotted his Line out abilities after the Games v them this Season and his tackling ability after last Season at SOL
-
A DOGSO is a Red card offence. That was a textbook DOGSO.
-
I think the yellow was correct only because the handball then put Taylor through. Shame the lad stumbled..
Another example - two examples in a couple of seconds - of the very fine margins in football..
-
Ozturk handled the ball in order to stop a scoring opportunity. That is a Red card offence. If the ref had blown for the foul instantly the player would (or should) have been sent off. Irrespective of ref's decision to play advantage, it was clear intent to deny a scoring opportunity.
Besides that, had Ozturk not handled the ball there would probably have been a better chance to score.
-
Yes and no, one opportunity was stopped but immediately another was created. In one immediate piece of action.
Ball doesn’t fall to Taylor, it’s a red.
Doesn’t matter, we can agree to disagree..
-
In my opinion, for what it's worth, I'd have played advantage, and if Taylor had scored I'd have then sent Ozturk off because although the DOGSO attempt failed, there was still intent.
When Taylor fell over, I'd have then stopped the game, sent Ozturk off, and given Rovers a free-kick.
-
If football allowed an advantage play that can be brought back, as in rugby, that might have worked..
-
It's happened many a time.
-
If football allowed an advantage play that can be brought back, as in rugby, that might have worked..
Football does allow advantage to be played in that way. It's down to referee if they choose to or not.
-
Ennis would have been clean through on goal had he not committed the DOGSO, Taylor picked up the ball but had two defenders on him. Not nearly a clear advantage.
-
If football allowed an advantage play that can be brought back, as in rugby, that might have worked..
In terms of fair play and clarity the laws of rugby have been mentioned on more than one occasion on this forum and personally i've felt for a while that football could and should adopt some of them
-
If football allowed an advantage play that can be brought back, as in rugby, that might have worked..
In terms of fair play and clarity the laws of rugby have been mentioned on more than one occasion on this forum and personally i've felt for a while that football could and should adopt some of them
Agree.
1) Sin binning for yellow cards.
2) official timers
3) Multi-subs
-
If football allowed an advantage play that can be brought back, as in rugby, that might have worked..
Football does allow advantage to be played in that way. It's down to referee if they choose to or not.
Not to the same extent though. Theubpkay an advantage but rarely bring the play back for the free kick..
-
You’re just never going to get a red for handball on the halfway line when there are other defenders around. Fantasy island.
As for bringing it back after the advantage... defeats the object of advantage really. The advantage is played to give you the opportunity to play out a better attack than having a free kick. We played out that attack and failed to take advantage of it. Not the refs fault.
I agree Ozturk is a cynical bar steward but the ref got the decision absolutely spot on last night. Nothing you can do about it.
-
Didn’t he do same in home game?
And should have given a blatent pen away last year away?
Should have been 2 pens he gave away last season, 1 on Marquis 1st half and 1 on Butler 2nd half.
-
You should be given the advantage to score, and if you fail to do so the original free kick should be awarded.
-
Advantage isn’t about making sure the attacking team score, it’s about letting the attack play out.
Why should you get two bites at it for one foul?
-
You should get two bites of the cherry because it would reduce the effectiveness of persistent cheats like Ozturk.
-
Advantage isn’t about making sure the attacking team score, it’s about letting the attack play out.
Why should you get two bites at it for one foul?
The current approach to the Advantage thing is to let play continue and if an advantage doesn't develop, THEN you can bring the play to a halt and penalise the original infringement.
Last night was a debatable one. I think the ref was correct to apply the advantage, because Taylor bursting through was a better situation for us than a free kick for the handball. And I think the play went on long enough to justify the decision that an advantage HAD occurred, and that it was our error (Taylor's slip) that resulted in the move breaking down.
My point last night was that, had the ball not gone to Taylor, Ozturk was in serious trouble, because he had DOSGO'd. As it was, he was saved by the fact that, in denying one GSO, he inadvertently created another. That have the ref the opportunity to ignore the fact that the original offence amounted to DOSGO, and instead, to penalise him merely for deliberate handball.
There's a lot of comment on the Sunderland board essentially saying the same thing. Lucky lad.
I wonder if he's a serial cheat or if he saves it for us. That's three potentially game-changing, blatant infringements he's committed against us in the past 9 months.
-
I think we are in agreement here, ball doesn’t drop nicely to Taylor = red card.
Equally, Taylor doesn’t stumble and he gets a shooting chance to make it 1-0..
Fine margins.. again..
-
Advantage isn’t about making sure the attacking team score, it’s about letting the attack play out.
Why should you get two bites at it for one foul?
The current approach to the Advantage thing is to let play continue and if an advantage doesn't develop, THEN you can bring the play to a halt and penalise the original infringement.
Last night was a debatable one. I think the ref was correct to apply the advantage, because Taylor bursting through was a better situation for us than a free kick for the handball. And I think the play went on long enough to justify the decision that an advantage HAD occurred, and that it was our error (Taylor's slip) that resulted in the move breaking down.
My point last night was that, had the ball not gone to Taylor, Ozturk was in serious trouble, because he had DOSGO'd. As it was, he was saved by the fact that, in denying one GSO, he inadvertently created another. That have the ref the opportunity to ignore the fact that the original offence amounted to DOSGO, and instead, to penalise him merely for deliberate handball.
There's a lot of comment on the Sunderland board essentially saying the same thing. Lucky lad.
I wonder if he's a serial cheat or if he saves it for us. That's three potentially game-changing, blatant infringements he's committed against us in the past 9 months.
Billy - can I ask when you last saw a player sent off for a foul or handball on the half way line with other defending players around them (even if stopped a promising attack or denied what you consider a goal scoring opportunity)? Genuine question, because I can’t remember if I’ve ever seen it happen.
I’ll just leave some snippets from the laws of the game here for anyone to interpret how they wish. I would pre-empt with my personal view that I would categorise the attack in question last night as “promising” rather than a clear GSO...
“Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs....
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders“
“ CAUTIONS FOR UNSPORTING BEHAVIOUR
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
- commits a foul or handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
- commits a foul which interferes with or stops a promising attack except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball”
-
Several Sunderland fans on their forum saying Ozturk was lucky not to get sent off.
That speaks volumes to me.
-
What about this one pib?
01:55.
https://youtu.be/YrEZD2hX4hg
The issue with distance from goal is that the referee must judge whether, in the absence of the infringement, the attacker would have had an obvious opportunity to be in a position to get a goalscoring chance. There is no hard and fast rule on the distance - what matters is the position of other defenders, and the likelihood of them being able to prevent an attempt at goal in a 1 Vs 1 situation.
That's why the example above was correctly judged to be DOGSO. And it's why Ozturk's should have been last night. Regardless of the fact that the offence took place 45 yards from goal, Ennis was sprinting through a static back line, and without the handball, there was very little chance of a defender being able to make a meaningful intervention before Ennis could have got off a shot from the edge of the box.
As I say, the ref was spared having to make that decision by the ball dropping to Taylor. But that doesn't change the fact that what Ozturk did was a clear and deliberate DOSGO.
-
PS.
The answer to problem 156 here in the book You Are the Ref by Keith Hackett is illuminating.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jh9eDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=dogso+2019&source=bl&ots=aZ_aVDuUkI&sig=ACfU3U3jSagtm_dhByvUfDZ_JIdgHGBBpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjc_pmO8p_nAhVWQEEAHbt2CEg4ChDoATAEegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=dogso%202019&f=false
Although this link doesn't tell you what problem 156 was, Hackett's answer makes it sound remarkably like the case last night. And Hackett indicates that he would consider it DOSGO, even though it occurred 40 yards from goal if
-The striker was moving towards goal (check, in last night's case)
- the striker would have been able to control the ball (check)
- the striker would have had a genuine chance to get in a shot before the defenders could have intervened (check).
The more in think about it, the worse a decision it looks.
-
Apart from the ball falling immediately to Taylor in as good a position. Otherwise it’s a dogso..
-
He's prevented Ennis from a clear goal-scoring opportunity. No defender anywhere near him. For me, the fact that it fell to Taylor is irrelevant. He played the advantage and when there was none he should have brought play back and sent Ozturk off. There's no real deterrent if the punishment is simply taking a yellow card to prevent a clear goal-scoring opportunity. It's professional foul play anf this c*nt is a repeat offender.
-
What about this one pib?
01:55.
https://youtu.be/YrEZD2hX4hg
The issue with distance from goal is that the referee must judge whether, in the absence of the infringement, the attacker would have had an obvious opportunity to be in a position to get a goalscoring chance. There is no hard and fast rule on the distance - what matters is the position of other defenders, and the likelihood of them being able to prevent an attempt at goal in a 1 Vs 1 situation.
That's why the example above was correctly judged to be DOGSO. And it's why Ozturk's should have been last night. Regardless of the fact that the offence took place 45 yards from goal, Ennis was sprinting through a static back line, and without the handball, there was very little chance of a defender being able to make a meaningful intervention before Ennis could have got off a shot from the edge of the box.
As I say, the ref was spared having to make that decision by the ball dropping to Taylor. But that doesn't change the fact that what Ozturk did was a clear and deliberate DOSGO.
That one in the link BST is a sending off all day and it doesn’t matter how many rules are quoted, the same should have applied to Ozturk.
He deliberately handled the ball to stop Ennis going clear.
.
-
If football allowed an advantage play that can be brought back, as in rugby, that might have worked..
Football does allow advantage to be played in that way. It's down to referee if they choose to or not.
Absolutely correct, advantage played, no idea what Taylor was doing tripping over and then trying to make out he was fouled but thats another subject, then the referee should have penalised Ozturk for the handball once that sequence of play had broken down and finished.
-
If football allowed an advantage play that can be brought back, as in rugby, that might have worked..
Football does allow advantage to be played in that way. It's down to referee if they choose to or not.
Absolutely correct, advantage played, no idea what Taylor was doing tripping over and then trying to make out he was fouled but thats another subject, then the referee should have penalised Ozturk for the handball once that sequence of play had broken down and finished.
he did he gave him a yellow card which was the correct decision
-
If football allowed an advantage play that can be brought back, as in rugby, that might have worked..
Football does allow advantage to be played in that way. It's down to referee if they choose to or not.
Absolutely correct, advantage played, no idea what Taylor was doing tripping over and then trying to make out he was fouled but thats another subject, then the referee should have penalised Ozturk for the handball once that sequence of play had broken down and finished.
he did he gave him a yellow card which was the correct decision
OK agreed, what I should have also said was that it was a deliberate handball preventing a goal scoring opportunity so that yellow should have been a red.
-
The thing that p1sses me off is it’s deliberate foul play. Ozturk knew that if he didn’t stop the ball, we had a clear goal scoring opportunity.
As a result of Ozturk’s actions, Ennis hasn’t had the opportunity on goal he would have, same as if Ozturk, as the last man, would have hauled Ennis down.
The outcome is the same.
The fact that it fell to Taylor is irrelevant. I’m sure if the ball had been a bit lower Ozturk would have caught it with both hands.
It really should be a sending off offence.
-
The thing that p1sses me off is it’s deliberate foul play. Ozturk knew that if he didn’t stop the ball, we had a clear goal scoring opportunity.
As a result of Ozturk’s actions, Ennis hasn’t had the opportunity on goal he would have, same as if Ozturk, as the last man, would have hauled Ennis down.
The outcome is the same.
The fact that it fell to Taylor is irrelevant. I’m sure if the ball had been a bit lower Ozturk would have caught it with both hands.
It really should be a sending off offence.
Morally, it is precisely the sort of "professional foul" that the DOGSO ruling was introduced to penalise.
-
For me It did not deny a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity,just wonder if you would say the same if one of our players did it
-
Well some Sunderland fans are saying he was lucky not to be sent off.
-
Vic. Why not?
-
For me It did not deny a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity,just wonder if you would say the same if one of our players did it
I would hope I would as I try to see both sides. For example I think Cam John could probably have been on an early Yellow Card cos that was clearly a foul early doors. Cant see why the Ref didnt give a foul
Sunderland Fans were saying Ozturk was lucky it was not a Red - so I wonder what they thought at our place when Ozturk got 2 hands on the ball and for me that was a clearer opportunity for us with 2 Players clean through on goal albeit on the half way line.
Get him a Keepers Shirt I say
-
I agree it wasn’t a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity he was about 45 yards from goal with other defenders around
-
I agree it wasn’t a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity he was about 45 yards from goal with other defenders around
He was breaking through a static line. If Ozturk hadn't handled, by the time Ennis would have picked up the ball, he'd have been 35 yards out, sprinting at goal with all the defenders behind him and no defender within 3 yards of him.
Stone cold DOGSO.
-
Agreed BST but in the split second that this happened a good chance opened up for Taylor.
Bearing in mind that’s all the ref had to make a call.
It’s borderline, and debate worthy, but for me the yellow card was the correct decision in both games.
-
Vic. Why not?
because for me he still had a lot to do(only seen it in real game time so same as the referee not seen any replays of it)but as fast as Ennis is would think still have had defenders level with or looked it so for me wasn’t clear and obvious.
-
I agree it wasn’t a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity he was about 45 yards from goal with other defenders around
He was breaking through a static line. If Ozturk hadn't handled, by the time Ennis would have picked up the ball, he'd have been 35 yards out, sprinting at goal with all the defenders behind him and no defender within 3 yards of him.
Stone cold DOGSO.
You did say all this after the home game but then changed after you saw the freeze frame?
Have you seen a freeze frame of this incident yet?
-
I did after the home game. And I was wrong when I saw the freeze frame.
That's why I ran the streaming video back and replayed it on Friday night before I gave my two pennorth.
When the handball occurred, Ennis was sprinting past a static Ozturk who would have had no chance whatsoever of recovering. He was the deepest defender.
Ennis had sprinted past a static Willis, who had woken up to the danger and had started to sprint back, but he was already a yard and a half behind Ennis when the offence happened and still had to get up to top speed.
The only other defender remotely in play was Lynch, who was 15 yards to the left of the play, and slightly ahead of Ozturk. He would have had to have jet boots on to have got anywhere close to Ennis.
In light of the narrative by Hackett that I posted on Saturday, that was a stonewall DOGSO.
-
You have a more favourable view of Ennis's pace, touch and composure in front of goal than I do.
Be interesting to know if there are any qualified officials on here and whether they have a view.
-
pib.
I take it you've not been watching Ennis that closely then? His touch to outwit Willis and force Ozturk into the handball was utterly exquisite, and the rate at which he turned and got up to full speed was very impressive.
As for his finishing, I'm not sure we've seen enough to judge, although his goal against Lincoln suggests that your judgement may be being influenced by the wish to make a point than by a sober appraisal of the lad's ability?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLhPOUUHiPY
In any case, Ennis's finishing ability wouldn't be assessed by the ref. The second "O" in DOGSO is the key word.
-
If Ozturk didn't handle the ball in order to deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO), why did he handle it?
-
You have a more favourable view of Ennis's pace, touch and composure in front of goal than I do.
Be interesting to know if there are any qualified officials on here and whether they have a view.
It doesn’t matter who the player was or is though pib.
Would it change your opinion if it had been Jamie Vardy breaking clear?
-
If Ozturk didn't handle the ball in order to deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO), why did he handle it?
He handled to stop Ennis getting the ball, dogso or not..
Wonder if Taylor hadn’t stopped immediately to appeal to the ref, whether a red card might have been given.?
-
pib.
I take it you've not been watching Ennis that closely then? His touch to outwit Willis and force Ozturk into the handball was utterly exquisite, and the rate at which he turned and got up to full speed was very impressive.
As for his finishing, I'm not sure we've seen enough to judge, although his goal against Lincoln suggests that your judgement may be being influenced by the wish to make a point than by a sober appraisal of the lad's ability?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLhPOUUHiPY
In any case, Ennis's finishing ability wouldn't be assessed by the ref. The second "O" in DOGSO is the key word.
It was a tongue in cheek comment Billy, but as it happens, yes I have been watching Ennis pretty closely, albeit the only time I've watched "the incident" was from about 400 yards away in the away end at the SOL.
I know I'll be shot down for this, but f**k it, since you asked here we go. I think the kid is doing OK for us, but I think his performances have been massively over-estimated at times by our fans because any alternatives we've had up front all season have been largely dreadful, and Ennis has been the best we've had.
I don't doubt he's an honest lad and has got some ability about him, but, especially in recent weeks, the more I've watched of him the more I've seen him look lethargic, clumsy and offering very little goal threat. No doubt there are mitigating circumstances for that with his age and level of experience, but having watched the rest of his performance on Friday, would I have expected him to burst through on goal from 45 yards and score? Probably not.
As for his finishing ability - I agree that we probably haven't seen enough, but I wouldn't say that's about the games he's played, more that he very rarely gets into scoring positions. He does bring other things to the team, but he's played 21 times this season and scored 2 which I think tells a story.
I am aware that he scored a fantastic goal against Lincoln - should I be rushing to judge that the lad is a great finisher off the back of that? Or is your judgement being influenced by the wish to make a point?
I think I'll call it a day with this thread now - if you believe that Ozturk denied a clear GSO and should've been sent off, fair enough.
-
You have a more favourable view of Ennis's pace, touch and composure in front of goal than I do.
Be interesting to know if there are any qualified officials on here and whether they have a view.
It doesn’t matter who the player was or is though pib.
Would it change your opinion if it had been Jamie Vardy breaking clear?
No. Hope that helps.
-
You have a more favourable view of Ennis's pace, touch and composure in front of goal than I do.
Be interesting to know if there are any qualified officials on here and whether they have a view.
It doesn’t matter who the player was or is though pib.
Would it change your opinion if it had been Jamie Vardy breaking clear?
No. Hope that helps.
Doesn’t make a scrap of difference to me.
-
If Ozturk didn't handle the ball in order to deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO), why did he handle it?
He handled to stop Ennis getting the ball, dogso or not..
Wonder if Taylor hadn’t stopped immediately to appeal to the ref, whether a red card might have been given.?
Ozturk handled to stop Ennis getting the ball and succeeded. He knew that if Ennis got the ball he would have an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
-
But at the same time creating one for Taylor..
We can go around in circles forever with this.. some of us think it was a red card, others think the yellow was correct.
-
Let me get this right pib. You've given your definitive take on the incident based on having only seen it from that distance, once, in real time? (That's tongue in cheek by the way.)
For what it's worth, if you DO get a chance to see the video footage, the strength, intelligence and touch that Ennis showed to create that opportunity was simply breathtaking. As the high, 50 yard long clearance from Whiteman came down to him on the full, he had Willis up his arse, both of them running to where the ball was about to land. He glanced over his shoulder to see that there was 15-20 yards of space between the two of them and Ozturk in Sunderland's half. He then slowed and held Willis off, with the ball still falling and it looked like the very best he could do was hold the ball up. Instead, he flicked the ball, on the full, with his right heel, around the right hand side of Willis and into the gap between them and Ozturk. Simultaneously, he peeled off around the left of Willis, who grabbed hold of him with both hands. Ennis fought him off,left him behind and sprinted after the ball which had bounced and sat up to be nodded past Ozturk.
I'm not exaggerating a word of that. It was scintillating. If that had occurred in El Classico, it would be repeated as nauseum.
PS: For anyone who has an IFollow subscription, the footage of the whole match is available on-line and the action in question occurs at about 1:15:50 into the video. Well worth looking at. I've never seen that combination of strength, quick-wittedness, touch and speed of application from a Rovers player.
It also shows why the chance that fell to Taylor after the handball was significantly less clear than the one that Ennis would have had. Taylor had to make up a huge anount of ground to get to the loose ball, meaning that both Willis and Lynch were able to close in on him. He had a heavy touch as he was running flat out and stumbled as he did so.
-
Of the two incidents I thought the one in the home game was deserving of a red card because there was no defensive cover and there were two Rovers players in a position to get on to the ball with only the keeper to beat. The fact that the incident took place just inside the Sunderland half should have been irrelevant. In Friday's game the referee's decision to allow the advantage was correct and Taylor should have done better when he got clear than lose his footing.
-
Let me get this right pib. You've given your definitive take on the incident based on having only seen it from that distance, once, in real time? (That's tongue in cheek by the way.)
For what it's worth, if you DO get a chance to see the video footage, the strength, intelligence and touch that Ennis showed to create that opportunity was simply breathtaking. As the high, 50 yard long clearance from Whiteman came down to him on the full, he had Willis up his arse, both of them running to where the ball was about to land. He glanced over his shoulder to see that there was 15-20 yards of space between the two of them and Ozturk in Sunderland's half. He then slowed and held Willis off, with the ball still falling and it looked like the very best he could do was hold the ball up. Instead, he flicked the ball, on the full, with his right heel, around the right hand side of Willis and into the gap between them and Ozturk. Simultaneously, he peeled off around the left of Willis, who grabbed hold of him with both hands. Ennis fought him off,left him behind and sprinted after the ball which had bounced and sat up to be nodded past Ozturk.
I'm not exaggerating a word of that. It was scintillating. If that had occurred in El Classico, it would be repeated as nauseum.
PS: For anyone who has an IFollow subscription, the footage of the whole match is available on-line and the action in question occurs at about 1:15:50 into the video. Well worth looking at. I've never seen that combination of strength, quick-wittedness, touch and speed of application from a Rovers player.
It also shows why the chance that fell to Taylor after the handball was significantly less clear than the one that Ennis would have had. Taylor had to make up a huge anount of ground to get to the loose ball, meaning that both Willis and Lynch were able to close in on him. He had a heavy touch as he was running flat out and stumbled as he did so.
your saying that with help from a video replay but the ref only gets one look aswell albeit a lot closer to the action the the fans
-
Of the two incidents I thought the one in the home game was deserving of a red card because there was no defensive cover and there were two Rovers players in a position to get on to the ball with only the keeper to beat. The fact that the incident took place just inside the Sunderland half should have been irrelevant. In Friday's game the referee's decision to allow the advantage was correct and Taylor should have done better when he got clear than lose his footing.
there was,the left back would of got round and covered
-
The thing that p1sses me off is it’s deliberate foul play. Ozturk knew that if he didn’t stop the ball, we had a clear goal scoring opportunity.
As a result of Ozturk’s actions, Ennis hasn’t had the opportunity on goal he would have, same as if Ozturk, as the last man, would have hauled Ennis down.
The outcome is the same.
The fact that it fell to Taylor is irrelevant. I’m sure if the ball had been a bit lower Ozturk would have caught it with both hands.
It really should be a sending off offence.
Morally, it is precisely the sort of "professional foul" that the DOGSO ruling was introduced to penalise.
Exactly... if the ball was past Ozturk and then he hauls Enniss down as the last man, preventing a clear run on goal and a goal scoring opportunity, deliberate handball to prevent same goal scoring opportunity is surely worthy of the same punishment? To say otherwise is splitting hairs surely?