Half-time 1-1, Derby having scored first.

ESPN, "ex. Newcastle defender, Warren Barton, must be held responsible for allowing Giggs past him to provide the equaliser"

@untz :-(

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Answers

Asian Pretensions, dictionaries required, or wor Kegsy's email address?

;7)

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

I hate the way people start attributing fault to players who have to mark the likes of Giggs. Giggs is the best left-sided player on the planet. I'm struggling to think of a single defender who could stop him when he's in full flight.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Well said dougal and I concur.

Manure have hit the post twice and the bar once, still 32 mins. to go, come on Derby!!!

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Oh $h!t, Veron, schoolboy stuff :-(

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Derby commentators going spare over the havoc Veron caused with his goal celebrations. Saying he 'ruined' a good goal by acting that way. I only have the webcast, literally tuned in as he scored, so have no idea how bad it really looked. The Derby commentators may be just a tad biased. ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

'Rob Lee having a good game', according to commentators.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Really??? I was watching up till Veron scored. Hoping for a miracle but alas it's not to be. Lee has spend the match giving the ball away, so don't know which match the commentator is watching.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Great equaliser, come on Derby HANG ON!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Massive $uck up by Farthez and he got away with it + should have been a penalty to Derby :-(

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Derby commentators are going to have heart failure the way they're screaming every time Derby goes forward

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

UnF*CKING believabe Derby score in the last minute of Ferguson time - DISALLOWED, BASSSSSSSSTARDS!!!!!!!!

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Bud, what happened? Derby commentator went bezerk, as did the crowd. Nobody seems to know why the goal was disallowed

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

2-2, this league is not over. Christie 'had' a hat trick.

We NEED goals!!

Steve Dunn what a C*^T !!!

:-( and :-)

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Sounds like it was an entertaining match for a neutral!

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Managed to catch the last 10 mins- great stuff! Difficult to say for sure wether it was a foul for the goal- Barthez had both hands on it on the ground but does the keeper have to have full control of the ball?

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Ciara, sorry, I'm lost for words, professional referees my @$$.

That was a typical Manure let-off, and these things should NOT be allowed, 2nd. (un-biassed) ref, / television replays?

Christie's 3rd. goal disallowed, I suppose for a 'foul' = bollox, I hope you get to see it :-(

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

No mention of offside for Veron's goal either (Wozza gave him the ball!) - it should all be shown on TV tomorrow again?

As for Farthez's punch on Christie, a definite penalty :-(

Christie kicked the ball out of Farthez's hands when he didn't have it "under control" :-(

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Unbelievable, Sir Alex Ferguson (I normally refer to him as Taggart!) has admitted that Christie's 3rd.(disallowed) goal was fair!

He also agrred Steve Dunn very badly!

Is it a leap year? I know not.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

I think the coments on Wozza were very harsh. Giggs was in full flight. The only way Woza could have stopped him would have resulted in a red. Accept it - there are times when a forward gets the better of a defender. As for the 2nd, Barton cleared his lines with a difficult volley. The ball fell into the "middle ground" where Veron won the ball. However, Riggit (?) turned his back á la Farcelino and the Derby defence opened up like the Red Sea.

As for the disallowed goal, I'd have given it (obviously!!). However, Barthez did not have control. Christie took the ball and didn't touch Barthez's hands. If I was a Derby supporter, I'd be gutted. As Toon supporter, I am.

WRT the penalty, yes it was. But ManUre should have had one in the first half so it was even Stephen on that one.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

I think that disallowed goal was one of these decisions that a ref is never going to get right. Barthez and Christie got to the ball virtually simultaneously. If he'd given it he would have been criticised because Barthez had two hands on the ball, if he didn't give it he is criticised because Barthez does not have it "under control" This is what it actually says in the laws:

"The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hand or arms. Possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the ball, but does not include the circumstances where, in the opinion of the referee, the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper, for example after he has made a save."

On that basis the goal has to be disallowed. As it was Barthez though, I think the ref should have made an exception and given it!!

Would we have wanted the goal to stand if Van Horseyface had scored it against Shay? I feel a bit sorry for Dunn over this one but don't worry, it'll pass!!

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Steve Dunn is a legend. He awarded Peacock a goal when it took a full 25 minutes of whining and carping from SKY before they finally found a camera shot which totally exonerated the man (that'll make for a rivetting time in the stands all waiting while they huddle round the telly). Anybody remember the score that day?

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

If that's true Jacko, they should change the rules*. Had it been an outfield player with a 50/50 challenge, it would have been allowed.
*If the goalkeeper plays for Manchester United, the attacking player is allowed (expected) to kick seven shades of sh!te out of him. (Technical description).

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

What do you mean "if that's true"? Are your doubting the Football League website from whence I copied and pasted it Screacher? Or are you calling me a fibber? You bliddy media stars think you can say owt you like to folk!

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

The goal shouldn't have stood (so Dunn was right)

Derby should have had a penalty though.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Who cares - they lost two points. Well done Derby; well done Warren and Rob.

IMO, Barton and Lee had canny games against a rampant ManU. Barton was indeed beaten for pace by Giggs on the first goal, and was beaten once or twice more, but generally did OK. Rob Lee was solid if unspectacular in m/f - where I thought Derby were really weak. However, he is desperately short of pace these days, and must surely be close to the end.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Jacko - I wasn't questionning you. It was more a turn of phrase to express my surprise. I'd previously thought that the ball had to be more in the keeper's hands to be "in control". Simply touching the ball with his hand doesn't constitute "control" (oftem more like lack-of) to me.

So, in true Pit Bill mode, I'm gonna ask if a foul could take place if a keeper deliberately parries to ball and a challenging forward subsequently kicks it away from him?

I think being a goalie must be the easiest job on the pitch these days. Gone are the days when you could actually challenge the keeper. Nee wonder Gus plays in goal.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

The rule I learned as a kid was that the keeper had to have both hands on the ball, regardless of control.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

Don't know the letter of the law for this one, and haven't seen the incident, but see below from Soccernet:

"Ferguson and Gregory argued that Malcolm Christie had scored a perfectly good goal after Barthez made such a mess of dealing with Branko Strupar's 90th-minute shot.

Barthez did not, they insisted, have control of the ball and in allowing Christie to release it from his grasp he should have been punished with a Derby winner.

That, however, is where two Premiership managers would appear to be wrong. According to the International Board guidelines, 'the goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hand or arms'.

When Christie raced in to challenge Barthez, the France World Cup- winning goalkeeper actually had both hands on the ball and was therefore in control. Referee Dunn had made the right call. "

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2002

This is directly from the FIFA rules.....

The goalkeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hand or arms. Possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the ball,but does not include the circumstances where, in the opinion of the referee, the ball rebounds acidentally from the goalkeeper, for example after he has made a save.

So, the goal should not have stood. Also something I didn't know, you cannot be offside from a goal kick. Not sure if they mean from the oppositions goal kick, as it doesn't say.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

That's a silly rule which should be changed, imo. How can anyone be in control of a ball by merely touching it?

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

Agreed Ciara - though again, I haven't seen this particular incident. There's no way mere contact should be viewed a control.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

"The Law is an ass", I'm afraid.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

If the keeper has two hands on the ball id say he has CONTROL over it , one hand then no. If thats not the case then you could head the ball out the keepers hands ....

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

How can anyone be in control of a ball by merely touching it?

Ciara, I think the reasoning there is that if the goalkeeper parries the ball and the instant it's left his hands, he's bundled over and an opposing player gets to the parried ball before a defender and wacks it into the net over the keepers prostrate body, a free kick would probably given rather than a goal to the opposing team, on the assumption that if the goaly had been upright, he might have saved it.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

I still think it's silly. Penalize for a late tackle on the keeper, in that case. Though there could then be argument that the player couldn't stop his forward momentum fast enough to avoid the keeper, but that's another issue.

Maybe it's my American footcarryball background but to me the keeper (player) cannot have control of the ball unless he's got both hands on it and isn't juggling it trying to bring it under control, or using the ground as a 'third' hand, so to speak. Might be the rule, but doesn't mean I have to agree with it. ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

Actually, KB, there was a case in a US women's soccer match a few years ago where a goal was allowed to stand in similar circumstance. I never did understand it, but maybe someone on here could explain?

Ref had blown for an indirect fk in the penalty area. Keeper had the ball tucked under her arm while arguing the decision. Oppo player literally grabbed the ball away, put it on the ground, tapped it to a teammate who stuck it in the net.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

Hmmm...the bit about using the ground...that is in American football and would obviously be allowable in the real football as the keeper is allowed to save balls on the ground.

Must learn to fully engage brain before using keyboard. ;-))

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

I'm sure there have been several instances of attackers playing the ball out of the keeper's hand with their head and scoring a goal. In fact I'm sure there's been a few on You've Been Conned.

As for your instance, Ciara, I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a free kick quickly providing the ref allows it. The goalie was preventing quick play by holding the ball after a fk was awarded, so the attacker was within rights to take the ball. Probably got this wrong, so forget the above...

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

Remember Big Al getting carded during the last World Cup for taking a free kick too quickly?

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

One thing that this incident does show is that neither Ferguson or Gregory know the rules. Both accused the referee of being wrong, but, regrdless of what you think about the law, it would appear that his interpretation of the law is the correct one. Can anybody see an apology to the referee coming from either of these two?

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

Had to giggle at Fergie's latest rant. Not only saying he thought Derby's goal should have stood, but also saying he felt poor refereeing might cost them the title. Also went on to say Arse have nothing to fear from Derby cause they're knackered after yesterday. Pleasant guy.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

Yeah - but he conveniently forgot about the penalty at the other end which wasn't given. Slight difference to YBR's attitude after games.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

If Bobby doesn't make it as a football coach he might want to think about training managers in the art of losing (or drawing!) with grace. ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

Screach, I play in goal because I am old and fat and it is the only place I can get a game!

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2002