Darren Drysdale - Barnsley

[Donnywolf]

Should this goal have stood

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/13018490/what-even-happened-wycombe-keeper-red-faced-after-comical-blunder

[normal rules]

We would take it at nil nil for sure

[drfchound]

Yes, the goal is good.
The keeper is being a bit of a dick with the time wasting, the contact by the Barnsley player is nothing more than a coming together, as happens all over the pitch all the time.
If that is a foul then the game would be stopped every few seconds when players bump into each other.
If the keeper had not dropped the ball it should have just been a play on situation.

[pib]

I think so yeah. Typical Wycombe theatrics, and the Barnsley striker plays to the whistle as you should.

[glosterred]

Good goal that, the keeper made a right ricket of that and deserves what he got. There again if it had been our keeper I’d have been calling for a foul but in all honesty that’s a good goal.

COYR

[tyke1962]

I thought at the time we'd got away with one but looking at the replays there's nowt  up with it .

Got what they deserved did Wycombe , kicked us all night , shytehousery and negative tactics .

Awful game it really was and we are shyte  too .

[i_ateallthepies]

Correct decision.  I'm sure the keeper deliberately let go of the ball trying to make the case for the foul.  Deserves what he got.

[MachoMadness]

Perfectly good goal. Keeper should be embarrassed, hope he got a group bollocking when he got back to the dressing room for good measure.

[Padge_DRFC]

It's a foul. The keeper is a bit of a drama queen mind.

[Monkcaster_Rover]

Be hanging him up by his Calvin Kleins in the changing room. What a clown.

[CJK]

I'll bet Wycombe had been doing that sort of stuff all night and it's cost them in the end, what an idiot.

[Bentley Bullet]

I thought the Barnsley player pushed him with his left arm, therefore a foul, but what do I know!

[Donnywolf]

A lot ... I thought foul dut Drysdale didnt

[Mike_F]

Tough one. I've watched it a few times and still not sure. The collision itself isn't a foul in my book but the 'keeper did have the ball in both hands at that point and spilled it so you could argue for the free kick but having read about his timewasting, it looks like the ref has seen the dropping of the ball after innocuous contact as an attempt to further waste time and let play continue.

I see the 'keeper was booked on 90+2, after the goal had been scored. Perhaps if he'd been booked earlier for his timewasting he wouldn't have tried it on so the ref maybe left himself in a difficult position through his own reluctance to deal with the problem.

[Spilsby Red]

A learning curve for all keepers

[BillyStubbsTears]

That's a gem. Goal all day long.

One of the key issues that needs dealing with is the ridiculous timewasting by keepers.

I'd pass a law that required all keepers to have an electric probe stuck up their arse, and for it to be connected if they wasted time to a daft extent.

Looks like the Wycombe lad was trialing that last night.

[Bentley Bullet]

The ball was in the keeper's arms. There was no way the Barnsley player could get the ball without contact with the keeper first. Therefore, the Barnsley player was going for the player. There was no way the Barnsley player could be going for the ball when he pushed the keeper with his left arm.

[scawsby steve]

Keepers have got to be protected by refs. Otherwise we might as well go back to the days when centre forwards could get away with anything; like the 1958 FA Cup final when Nat Lofthouse commited GBH against Harry Gregg and still got away with the goal.

[Metalmicky]

Good goal IMO - theatrics from the keeper and a good decision.  Darren Drysdale gets some dogs abuse at times, but he should be applauded in this case..

[MachoMadness]

Dingles have posted more angles on twitter. To be fair the Barnsley player does put both hands on him (you don't really see that in the main camera angle) but there's nowhere near enough contact for the keeper to fling himself across the six yard box and drop the ball. And if it's anything like the Wycombe sides of the past the ref will have seen 90 minutes full of it from them. Still think it's a good decision, the keeper tried to cheat and got punished. Wish we saw more consequences like that when players go down so easy.

[Bentley Bullet]

He didn't fling himself across the six-yard area, though. He looked unbalanced to me after being pushed, and fell on the spot, dispersing the ball. It was only when he tried to retrieve the ball that he scrambled across to get it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

He didn't fling himself across the six-yard area, though. He looked unbalanced to me after being pushed, and fell on the spot, dispersing the ball. It was only when he tried to retrieve the ball that he scrambled across to get it.

I had a serious vertigo problem a few years ago, and I was more stable on my feet that that keeper.

He's trying to make a meal of the slightest contact. It's an embarrassment that he'd even try to do that, but even more of an embarrassment that he makes such a prick of himself while trying to cheat, by dropping the ball.

He's got precisely what he deserved.

[Bentley Bullet]

I'm not a fan of the way Wycombe play, and he may well have deserved the outcome of the incident, but that should not have been a factor in the ref's decision.

The rules state that the goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with their hand(s).

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm not a fan of the way Wycombe play, and he may well have deserved the outcome of the incident, but that should not have been a factor in the ref's decision.

The rules state that the goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with their hand(s).

He wasn't "challenged". That's the point.

The Barnsley player barely brushed against him. Any player with an ounce of self-respect would have responded to that by standing upright ignoring the light contact. The keeper tried to play it for advantage by doing the dying swan thing and he f**ked it up.

The key issue is that there are degrees of contact.

By your logic, if the Barnsley player had stopped a quarter inch short of the keeper, then blinked and brushed his eyelash against the keeper's head and the keeper had fallen to the ground and lost the ball, that too would have been a foul by the Barnsley striker.

[Bentley Bullet]

Na, he was challenged.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1729635267416346812

[Padge_DRFC]

It's amazing how people's feelings and emotions get in the way of the correct decision. It's a foul simple as that

[andyst79]

It was a foul but the keeper got what he deserved

[i_ateallthepies]

And in a parallel universe BST says he thinks it was a foul and BB will argue it wasn't.

[Bentley Bullet]

And in a parallel universe BST says he thinks it was a foul and BB will argue it wasn't.

And in the real world, anyone who read this thread accurately will have realised that it was BST who disagreed with me!

As usual!

[Pancho Regan]

I'm not a fan of the way Wycombe play, and he may well have deserved the outcome of the incident, but that should not have been a factor in the ref's decision.

The rules state that the goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with their hand(s).

Have to agree with that BB, you’re quite right.