Chris Wood (now playing for Nottingham Forest)

[madras]

Just now, ManDoon said:

Sure, but say he does do that. The keeper is still On a trajectory straight to him? If those aren’t fouls then keepers may as well come flying into any attacker they can. 

Wood could even attempt to step over the keeper like he would a sliding tackle but no, because of the position he buys the foul. 

[Happinesstan]

Just now, madras said:

Wood could even attempt to step over the keeper like he would a sliding tackle but no, because of the position he buys the foul. 

It was on special offer like.

[madras]

1 minute ago, huss9 said:

why didnt the keeper pull out of the tackle?

Momentum. Why didn't Wood try to step over the keeper. Its the drag on the right left that gives it away 

[Theregulars]

Aye it’s one of the most blatant penalties you’ll ever see.

[Hanshithispantz]

1 hour ago, ManDoon said:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ManDoon said:

Personally thought the way he won the pen was class. It absolutely was a penalty, and he did the right thing. Best think he’s done here. Also:

 

 

Aye. Sa overcommitted and lunged in. Not sure why Wood is expected to not take advantage of it? 

 

Stone wall pemalty and always has been.

[TRon]

Worth every penny.

[Pata]

10 hours ago, Thiago said:

As I said elsewhere, still crazy to me that VAR won't think to involve itself at Stamford Bridge but will chirp up when Wood scores the most Wood goal possible. 

 

You want them to allow an offside goal stand because VAR fucked up at Stamford Bridge? Horrible take and as you said, crazy.

[Optimistic Nut]

10 minutes ago, ManDoon said:

I fail to see why Chris wood should move to avoid a dumb keeper who made a ridiculous decision? 

Yeah, he shouldn’t have to take the full impact just to get the decision.

[Slim]

26 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

That's not how it works.

 

If the first one wasn't offside and had stood, everything after that point would have happened differently.

No way to really prove that.

[maze]

11 hours ago, Thiago said:

As I said elsewhere, still crazy to me that VAR won't think to involve itself at Stamford Bridge but will chirp up when Wood scores the most Wood goal possible. 

Because, VAR is mainly in place to ensure the top 6 sides always get a second chance to secure a win.

[madras]

8 minutes ago, ManDoon said:

If he does that he’s getting nowhere near the ball (can debate if he would hav anyway) and SA has forced him into a position via a foul. You actually do see these fouls a lot in a game where a player gets a toe to a ball before a challenge. 

Just keep an eye on the right leg, he drags it in to initiate contact, it was just  poorly done. 

[MrRaspberryJam]

Can't believe this is an actual discission. Blatant penalty and Wood did zero wrong. 

[number37]

If Wood goes down in the box and there's no ref to give it, does it mean a foul? 

[Tsunami]

I didn’t have a great view of it at the game, read some things and expected to see some kind of questionable decision. Nowt of the sort, great centre forward play, keeper would have made contact anyway, Wood just made sure. The contact was heavier than I was expecting to see.

[Conjo]

For all his limitations, we'd be 4 points shorter without his 2 goals. If we go on a poor run for the rest of the season those 2 goals could prove to be worth the £25m we paid for him alone. I don't think we'd be better off if we played Gayle (if he had managed to stay fit for the same number of minutes Wood has played, which I doubt) instead.

[54]

Real discussion point time, would you be for or against a rule being introduced to football of "whoever wins it, takes it"? Would change the game in a way.

 

Also, glad we strengthened Burnley. 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by 54

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, 54 said:

Real discussion point time, would you be for or against a rule being introduced to football of "whoever wins it, takes it"? Would change the game in a way.

 

 

I usually hate that because it seemed (based on no evidence whatsoever) that players were more susceptible to missing. 

[madras]

28 minutes ago, ManDoon said:

I agree he made sure of it, but I don’t see anything wrong in that. If he doesn’t he won’t get the decision and for me that’s a blatant foul. Sa is never getting there. 

Then you're getting into "there's contact so he has every right to down" territory. Was there enough contact to bring him down  ? Was there hell was there enoughbto impede him enough for it to be a foul ? Possibly. 

 

 

Was it a pen ? They are given every time regardless of the rights or wrongs.

[Chris_R]

2 minutes ago, ManDoon said:

I think there was easily enough to bring him down yeah, but even if not, say I’m sprinting through on goal, a defender comes flying out at me, no where near the ball, I have to jump to avoid getting clattered. In that process the ball gets away from me, and the chance goes. Is that not a foul? To me it is. 

 

It should be, but they're never given. Hence why Wood was absolutely right to go down.

[Chris_R]

And yes if it was the other way I'd be saying the same. There was contact, it's a penalty. If this was given against us, I'd be raging at Dubravka or whoever was in goal for being so stupid but I'd assign very minimal blame to the striker, if any at all. I'd be annoyed, yes, but that's different. I'm annoyed every time we concede a goal.

[madras]

And that's all I was saying, he bought the penalty and for all they are always given it wasn't a stonewaller........and we've had some stonewallers this season that weren't given

[TRon]

45 minutes ago, 54 said:

Real discussion point time, would you be for or against a rule being introduced to football of "whoever wins it, takes it"? Would change the game in a way.

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting point, would quite like that tbh.

[Guest neesy111]

Just now, TRon said:

 

 

Interesting point, would quite like that tbh.

 

Easily copped out by faking a injury.

[TRon]

1 minute ago, neesy111 said:

 

Easily copped out by faking a injury.

 

 

Realistically you are probably right unfortunately.

[macphisto]

53 minutes ago, 54 said:

Real discussion point time, would you be for or against a rule being introduced to football of "whoever wins it, takes it"? Would change the game in a way.

 

Also, glad we strengthened Burnley. 

 

 

 

And the player who committed the foul went in goal???