Reply With QuoteA goal every day of the week , never a foul in a month of Sundays , the keepers error was not that he failed in conning the ref it was that he dropped the ball , if he hangs on to it then we simply cannot score , I bet he never tries it again ,
Hall Of Fame
Irrespective of who deserved to win over the 90mins ( clearly Barnsley) should the Cosgrove goal as an individual incident have been allowed ?
In "the modern game" any opposition player contact with a goalkeeper when they have the ball under their control in their hands is deemed a foul. "Protected species" keepers may be but a foul is given in these circumstances.
From the replays i have seen the Wycombe keeper was time wasting ( almost on a par with Brad Collins in the Ismael season) stood holding the ball. Cosgrove approached him from ten yards away and stood next to him, moving his body forward to make contact with the keeper, not a heavy touch but definitely making contact to seek an advantage.
It doesn't really matter that the keeper then play acted a fall and messed up dropping the ball loose, in my opinion the first act by Cosgrove was a foul on the keeper and the goal should not have stood.
Just my opinion. How would I have reacted if Wycombe had scored the goal ?
What do others think ?
Hall Of Fame
A goal every day of the week , never a foul in a month of Sundays , the keepers error was not that he failed in conning the ref it was that he dropped the ball , if he hangs on to it then we simply cannot score , I bet he never tries it again ,
Hall Of Fame
Yes all day long.
Their keeper needs to apply for Equity Membership although I reckon he would get turned down on that performance.
Also may say was it a penalty on Cosgrove earlier. Yes all day long in opinion.
No intention in try to play football that outfit and got their just rewards.
Hall Of Fame
Goal for me. Keeper was being ridiculous and payed the price through his own ballax up.
Had it happened to us, I'd have shook my head and thought it was our goalie at fault and got what he deserved although it would've been hard to take I admit.
This time wasting lark should be better dealt with by referees anyway and goalkeepers get too much protection imo
Hall Of Fame
On first viewing I thought we'd got away with one but when tha watches it back a few times the contact from Cosgrove is minimal .
The bell end then let's the ball squirm out of his hands .
Good decision by the referee for me , abart time we had one go our way .
Hall Of Fame
First time of watching it I was of the opinion that it would be given as a foul. However, on second watch the touch was so soft it was just a very slight coming together in a contact sport. The keeper dropped the ball because he dived to the floor and the impact with the floor resulted in him losing the ball. Actually a very good decision by the referee after he'd made two howlers with the penalty and the tackle on De Gevigney.
Hall Of Fame
I’m playing Tommy opposite, no goal for me. Cosgrove laid his hands on him and regardless of if he made the most of it or not you can’t lay your hands on a goalie.
What would we be saying if they’d have won by that goal?
Hall Of Fame
Goal for me as well, minimal contact ref spot on.
Hall Of Fame
Well done the ref for havin the guts to give the goal.Too many soft "fouls" given in football nowadays.UTB
Hall Of Fame
When I looked at it again yes the keeper threw himself down pathetically in an attempt to waste time and dropped the ball when he hit the ground
Technically a goal imo
but I was absolutely staggered tb honest that it was allowed to stand in this day n age
We’ll take that one tho thank you very much
Posting Permissions