What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official Soccer Discussion Thread*** (4 Viewers)

titusbramble said:
massraider said:
titusbramble said:
Chesterfield won promotion back to the Football League last weekend, unbelievably early given there's only the one automatic spot and it's still Match

Busy couple of weeks for me:

Tonight - Stockport Georgians v Cammell Laird (North West Counties)
29/3 - Bootle v Trafford (Northern Premier League)
30/3 - Sheffield United v Fulham (Premier League)
1/4 - Prescot Cables v Runcorn Linnets (Northern Premier League)
4/4 - Liverpool v Sheffield United (Premier League)
6/4 - Runcorn Linnets v Mossley (Northern Premier League)
7/4 - Sheffield United v Chelsea (Premier League)
13/4 - Brentford v Sheffield United (Premier League)
Click to expand...
You attend all these games??
Is there a vid blog or something? Instagram to follow?

Personally. I would like to know what the vibe and the scran is like @ Runcorn Linnets v Mossley
Click to expand...

I will be at all those games, yes. If I drove I would likely go to more than I do, but I don't and doing so would also negate part of the entertainment, i.e. having a beer at the game (at least from step 3 of non league down, which covers every non-Blades game I list), having a beer and watching the game at the same time is both permitted and encouraged. Was a great pint of Burrow Blonde from Black Sheep at Guiseley last Saturday.

I don't do anything social media other than post a handful of photos to X
Click to expand...
You absolutely should. I'd love to see, at least, pics from inside each stadium. Would be a very cool running blog
 
Being reported all over, looks to be very close to being certain

=================
Tom Bogert

@tombogert

BREAKING: LAFC is finalizing a deal to sign France all-time leading scorer Olivier Giroud, per sources.

Deal would start after EUROs & guaranteed thru 2025.
 
NewlyRetired said:
Being reported all over, looks to be very close to being certain

=================
Tom Bogert

@tombogert

BREAKING: LAFC is finalizing a deal to sign France all-time leading scorer Olivier Giroud, per sources.

Deal would start after EUROs & guaranteed thru 2025.
Click to expand...
That's a big get. Even though he'll be 38, watching his games this year in Milan, this guy can still play. I think he immediately becomes the best striker in MLS. Plus, the billboards in LA will look quite a bit better.
 
encaitar said:
NewlyRetired said:
Being reported all over, looks to be very close to being certain

=================
Tom Bogert

@tombogert

BREAKING: LAFC is finalizing a deal to sign France all-time leading scorer Olivier Giroud, per sources.

Deal would start after EUROs & guaranteed thru 2025.
Click to expand...
That's a big get. Even though he'll be 38, watching his games this year in Milan, this guy can still play. I think he immediately becomes the best striker in MLS. Plus, the billboards in LA will look quite a bit better.
Click to expand...

Ow!!





That was scoobs cross country boner knocking down buildings around the world
 
encaitar said:
NewlyRetired said:
Being reported all over, looks to be very close to being certain

=================
Tom Bogert

@tombogert

BREAKING: LAFC is finalizing a deal to sign France all-time leading scorer Olivier Giroud, per sources.

Deal would start after EUROs & guaranteed thru 2025.
Click to expand...
That's a big get. Even though he'll be 38, watching his games this year in Milan, this guy can still play. I think he immediately becomes the best striker in MLS. Plus, the billboards in LA will look quite a bit better.
Click to expand...
He really is pretty
 
El Floppo said:
encaitar said:
NewlyRetired said:
Being reported all over, looks to be very close to being certain

=================
Tom Bogert

@tombogert

BREAKING: LAFC is finalizing a deal to sign France all-time leading scorer Olivier Giroud, per sources.

Deal would start after EUROs & guaranteed thru 2025.
Click to expand...
That's a big get. Even though he'll be 38, watching his games this year in Milan, this guy can still play. I think he immediately becomes the best striker in MLS. Plus, the billboards in LA will look quite a bit better.
Click to expand...

Ow!!





That was scoobs cross country boner knocking down buildings around the world
Click to expand...
I was wondering how LAFC had his discovery rights when Scoob has been examining him for a solid decade at least.
 
I have never understood why hitting the woodwork does not count as a shot on goal. It is usually closer to a goal than a defender blocking it on the 6, or a diving save by the keeper. It hit the frame of the goal. It would make sense that it is a shot ON goal.

So could I score a goal without recording a "shot on goal" if it hits the post and goes in?
 
B Maverick said:
I have never understood why hitting the woodwork does not count as a shot on goal. It is usually closer to a goal than a defender blocking it on the 6, or a diving save by the keeper. It hit the frame of the goal. It would make sense that it is a shot ON goal.

So could I score a goal without recording a "shot on goal" if it hits the post and goes in?
Click to expand...
No. In that scenario it’s a shot on goal since it went in. If the ball hits the woodwork and is going to deflect in and the goalie stops it, that’d be a shot on goal and a save. I always think of it like this - would it have gone in if the defense didn’t exist? If so, it’s a SOG.
 
Moe. said:
B Maverick said:
I have never understood why hitting the woodwork does not count as a shot on goal. It is usually closer to a goal than a defender blocking it on the 6, or a diving save by the keeper. It hit the frame of the goal. It would make sense that it is a shot ON goal.

So could I score a goal without recording a "shot on goal" if it hits the post and goes in?
Click to expand...
No. In that scenario it’s a shot on goal since it went in. If the ball hits the woodwork and is going to deflect in and the goalie stops it, that’d be a shot on goal and a save. I always think of it like this - would it have gone in if the defense didn’t exist? If so, it’s a SOG.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
Moe. said:
B Maverick said:
I have never understood why hitting the woodwork does not count as a shot on goal. It is usually closer to a goal than a defender blocking it on the 6, or a diving save by the keeper. It hit the frame of the goal. It would make sense that it is a shot ON goal.

So could I score a goal without recording a "shot on goal" if it hits the post and goes in?
Click to expand...
No. In that scenario it’s a shot on goal since it went in. If the ball hits the woodwork and is going to deflect in and the goalie stops it, that’d be a shot on goal and a save. I always think of it like this - would it have gone in if the defense didn’t exist? If so, it’s a SOG.
Click to expand...
This is the same way in works in hockey as well I believe.
 
Moe. said:
B Maverick said:
I have never understood why hitting the woodwork does not count as a shot on goal. It is usually closer to a goal than a defender blocking it on the 6, or a diving save by the keeper. It hit the frame of the goal. It would make sense that it is a shot ON goal.

So could I score a goal without recording a "shot on goal" if it hits the post and goes in?
Click to expand...
No. In that scenario it’s a shot on goal since it went in. If the ball hits the woodwork and is going to deflect in and the goalie stops it, that’d be a shot on goal and a save. I always think of it like this - would it have gone in if the defense didn’t exist? If so, it’s a SOG.
Click to expand...
I agree with your interpretation, but change 'defense' to 'goalie'. Because a shot blocked by a defender is not usually considered a shot on goal. (I'm sure there are exceptions to this, e.g., when the keeper is out, and the defender clears it off the line.)
 
Poke_4_Life said:
Moe. said:
B Maverick said:
I have never understood why hitting the woodwork does not count as a shot on goal. It is usually closer to a goal than a defender blocking it on the 6, or a diving save by the keeper. It hit the frame of the goal. It would make sense that it is a shot ON goal.

So could I score a goal without recording a "shot on goal" if it hits the post and goes in?
Click to expand...
No. In that scenario it’s a shot on goal since it went in. If the ball hits the woodwork and is going to deflect in and the goalie stops it, that’d be a shot on goal and a save. I always think of it like this - would it have gone in if the defense didn’t exist? If so, it’s a SOG.
Click to expand...
I agree with your interpretation, but change 'defense' to 'goalie'. Because a shot blocked by a defender is not usually considered a shot on goal. (I'm sure there are exceptions to this, e.g., when the keeper is out, and the defender clears it off the line.)
Click to expand...
Actually if it would have gone in if the defender was not there, it would be a shot on goal. Keeper or defender it doesn't matter.

I just always found it funny that hitting the frame of the goal does not count as a shot on goal.
 
B Maverick said:
Actually if it would have gone in if the defender was not there, it would be a shot on goal. Keeper or defender it doesn't matter.

I just always found it funny that hitting the frame of the goal does not count as a shot on goal.
Click to expand...
Is this the case if the shot is from the 18 yard line and is blocked by a defender standing a few feet in front of the attacker, assuming the shot was on frame? Surely those are not considered a shot on goal.
 
Poke_4_Life said:
B Maverick said:
Actually if it would have gone in if the defender was not there, it would be a shot on goal. Keeper or defender it doesn't matter.

I just always found it funny that hitting the frame of the goal does not count as a shot on goal.
Click to expand...
Is this the case if the shot is from the 18 yard line and is blocked by a defender standing a few feet in front of the attacker, assuming the shot was on frame? Surely those are not considered a shot on goal.
Click to expand...
I don't know how proximity plays in (defender to the shooter or even shooter to the goal). Was looking it up and that's what I was finding.
 
Poke_4_Life said:
B Maverick said:
Actually if it would have gone in if the defender was not there, it would be a shot on goal. Keeper or defender it doesn't matter.

I just always found it funny that hitting the frame of the goal does not count as a shot on goal.
Click to expand...
Is this the case if the shot is from the 18 yard line and is blocked by a defender standing a few feet in front of the attacker, assuming the shot was on frame? Surely those are not considered a shot on goal.
Click to expand...

That is not a shot on target.

It has to be a goal, or a keeper save, or a goal-line clearance from a defender

Per Opta:

A deliberate attempt to score that is on target. Includes all Goals being scored and shots on target saved by the Goalkeeper.

It also includes shots on target that are Blocked by a last line defending player, preventing the ball from entering the Goal.
 
TennesseeJed said:
Poke_4_Life said:
B Maverick said:
Actually if it would have gone in if the defender was not there, it would be a shot on goal. Keeper or defender it doesn't matter.

I just always found it funny that hitting the frame of the goal does not count as a shot on goal.
Click to expand...
Is this the case if the shot is from the 18 yard line and is blocked by a defender standing a few feet in front of the attacker, assuming the shot was on frame? Surely those are not considered a shot on goal.
Click to expand...

That is not a shot on target.

It has to be a goal, or a keeper save, or a goal-line clearance from a defender

Per Opta:

A deliberate attempt to score that is on target. Includes all Goals being scored and shots on target saved by the Goalkeeper.

It also includes shots on target that are Blocked by a last line defending player, preventing the ball from entering the Goal.
Click to expand...
The bolded are not the same, a last line defending player doesn't necessarily mean goal-line.

But based on the Opta quote, it sounds like a shot from 18 yards, headed toward the goal, blocked by a defender with the GK or other players behind him would not be a shot on goal.
 
Leverkusen's treble is still alive.

Bundesliga looks certain
today, they advanced to the DFB Pokal Cup Final
And they are in quarter finals of Europa League

Still 0 losses across all comps. West Ham will have a chance to be the first to beat them.
 
NewlyRetired said:
Leverkusen's treble is still alive.

Bundesliga looks certain
today, they advanced to the DFB Pokal Cup Final
And they are in quarter finals of Europa League

Still 0 losses across all comps. West Ham will have a chance to be the first to beat them.
Click to expand...

They are also in an unprecedented run of title defences in the linear club world title stakes
 
guru_007 said:
I agree with this guy
Click to expand...
Meh. I get the point, but I agree with opposing view where the defender went to ground at the attackers feet without ever getting the ball. Attacker would have had to make some kind of acrobatic attempt to clear the tackle without guarantee of getting the ball again. The tackle missed and affected the player.

I'm saying all that badly... But hopefully makes enough sense to my point.
 
guru_007 said:
I agree with this guy
Click to expand...
Misses the ball... hits the attacker with his left knee and then also clips his right foot with his right thigh... I think it's a clear penalty.

Is it a foul outside of the box? 100% of the time. Therefore it's a penalty. He gets the ball first and it's not, but he missed the toe poke. Maybe you should instead be pissed at your defender for taking such a stupid chance at that point in time.
 
encaitar said:
guru_007 said:
I agree with this guy
Click to expand...
Misses the ball... hits the attacker with his left knee and then also clips his right foot with his right thigh... I think it's a clear penalty.

Is it a foul outside of the box? 100% of the time. Therefore it's a penalty. He gets the ball first and it's not, but he missed the toe poke. Maybe you should instead be pissed at your defender for taking such a stupid chance at that point in time.
Click to expand...
Which PK was this a video of? Can't open at work for some reason...
 
encaitar said:
guru_007 said:
I agree with this guy
Click to expand...
Misses the ball... hits the attacker with his left knee and then also clips his right foot with his right thigh... I think it's a clear penalty.

Is it a foul outside of the box? 100% of the time. Therefore it's a penalty. He gets the ball first and it's not, but he missed the toe poke. Maybe you should instead be pissed at your defender for taking such a stupid chance at that point in time.
Click to expand...
Yeah.

Take that BMab.
 
B Maverick said:
encaitar said:
guru_007 said:
I agree with this guy
Click to expand...
Misses the ball... hits the attacker with his left knee and then also clips his right foot with his right thigh... I think it's a clear penalty.

Is it a foul outside of the box? 100% of the time. Therefore it's a penalty. He gets the ball first and it's not, but he missed the toe poke. Maybe you should instead be pissed at your defender for taking such a stupid chance at that point in time.
Click to expand...
Which PK was this a video of? Can't open at work for some reason...
Click to expand...
The Liverpool one. Although I also thought both Chelsea ones were penalties too.

I hate the term "soft penalty". Its either a penalty or it isn't. Penalties should only be based on whether it was a foul in the box. If it was.... penalty. If it wasn't... no penalty. This whole notion of having to be an egregious enough of a foul to award a penalty is just wrong to me. A foul in the box takes away a scoring opportunity. Whether you scissor kick a guy from behind or lightly brush his foot causing him to trip is irrelevant, you've taken away his scoring chance by fouling him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gianmarco
***Official Links to Funny Posts***
Replies
1
Views
105
gianmarco
gianmarco
Joe Bryant
  • Sticky
FBG Memorial - Honoring Forum Posters Who Have Passed
2 3
Replies
120
Views
7K
Frostillicus
Frostillicus
Joe Bryant
How Can The Forum Be Better? Your Thoughts?
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Total: 5 (members: 1, guests: 4)
    Top