Brighton v Palace

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Vegas Claret
Posts: 30273
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10916 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Brighton v Palace

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:33 pm

0-1 Gallagher again

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by KRBFC » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:38 pm

linked with £50m move to PSG :lol:

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30273
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10916 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:41 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:38 pm
linked with £50m move to PSG :lol:
when you consider Wood went for 25 at 30 years old..............
This user liked this post: Cubanforever

warksclaret
Posts: 6594
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
Been Liked: 1676 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by warksclaret » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:42 pm

Great player is Gallagher and on loan to Swansea 2 years ago. The time to have got him is before WBA signed him on loan. Wakey wakey recruitment. Almost identical to Reece James on loan to wigan and Mount on loan to Derby. I would almost work in recruitment for a free season ticket and expenses
This user liked this post: cockneyclaret

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by KRBFC » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:44 pm

Most of this messageboard suggested Gallagher on loan, same with Bowen 2 years before he went to West Ham

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by KRBFC » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:44 pm

Most of this messageboard suggested Gallagher on loan, same with Bowen 2 years before he went to West Ham

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by KRBFC » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:46 pm

Really really good side Brighton, the way they're coached to play, for whatever reason they just can't put the ball in the net on a regular basis.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by tiger76 » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:46 pm

How om earth are Brighton losing this, they've dominated yet are behind.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30273
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10916 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:49 pm

1-1

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30273
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10916 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:49 pm

calamitous OG

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by tiger76 » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:51 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:46 pm
Really really good side Brighton, the way they're coached to play, for whatever reason they just can't put the ball in the net on a regular basis.
They don't need to when CP have just gifted them an equaliser. :lol:

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by KRBFC » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:52 pm

that Tarique Lamptey is some player no idea why Chelsea let him go

MACCA
Posts: 15591
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:10 am
Been Liked: 4360 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by MACCA » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:53 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:44 pm
Most of this messageboard suggested Gallagher on loan, same with Bowen 2 years before he went to West Ham
Too young and too creative.

Better off sticking to the safety first approach in a 442.
You don't want any CM breaking the lines or into the box, that effects the "framework"
This user liked this post: cockneyclaret

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by taio » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:00 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:44 pm
Most of this messageboard suggested Gallagher on loan, same with Bowen 2 years before he went to West Ham
Gallagher is an excellent player and many people did refer to him. Problem is he wasn't an option for us because he made it clear that he wanted to stay in the South and in doing so turned down Leeds.

warksclaret
Posts: 6594
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
Been Liked: 1676 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by warksclaret » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:03 pm

Would not call West Bromwich the SOUTH.Thats when we should have moved for him, not 12 months later

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by RVclaret » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:04 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:46 pm
Really really good side Brighton, the way they're coached to play, for whatever reason they just can't put the ball in the net on a regular basis.
Agree, they play some excellent football and really control games. To say they went from Hughton’s snore fest 4-4-2 stuff to this is quite impressive from Potter. Quite a low net spend too.

warksclaret
Posts: 6594
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
Been Liked: 1676 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by warksclaret » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:07 pm

Really improved since they beat us first game of season. Only lost 4 this season

boatshed bill
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3137 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by boatshed bill » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:09 pm

warksclaret wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:07 pm
Really improved since they beat us first game of season. Only lost 4 this season
I'd say they have been improving since they got in the PL.
Progressive coaching, and i think a better budget.

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by KRBFC » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:10 pm

RVclaret wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:04 pm
Agree, they play some excellent football and really control games. To say they went from Hughton’s snore fest 4-4-2 stuff to this is quite impressive from Potter. Quite a low net spend too.
They've definitely wasted money on some shite but their main core are made up of low budget signings. Sanches, Burn, Lallana, Gross, Moder, March, Mac allister barely cost £10m between them.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30273
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10916 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:25 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:10 pm
They've definitely wasted money on some shite but their main core are made up of low budget signings. Sanches, Burn, Lallana, Gross, Moder, March, Mac allister barely cost £10m between them.
Brighton had spent well over 200 million in transfers half between them getting into the PL in 2017 and 2020 https://www.brightonandhoveindependent. ... ed-2546482

Wasted money is an understatement !!

Also the players you listed cost more than 10 million from the fee's I can see online - but still, by today's standards are deffo good buys. Christ knows what their wage bill must be

cockneyclaret
Posts: 1373
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 277 times
Has Liked: 3288 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by cockneyclaret » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:26 pm

And some were shocked they sacked Houghton. Amazing what a change can make

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by tiger76 » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:40 pm

cockneyclaret wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:26 pm
And some were shocked they sacked Houghton. Amazing what a change can make
True! however their hardest task could be keeping hold of Graham Potter come the summer.
This user liked this post: cockneyclaret

boatshed bill
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3137 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by boatshed bill » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:41 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:10 pm
They've definitely wasted money on some shite but their main core are made up of low budget signings. Sanches, Burn, Lallana, Gross, Moder, March, Mac allister barely cost £10m between them.
i doubt they'd see it as a waste, more an investment in progressing up the league.

FCBurnley
Posts: 9695
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:56 pm
Been Liked: 1967 times
Has Liked: 1132 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by FCBurnley » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:49 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:52 pm
that Tarique Lamptey is some player no idea why Chelsea let him go
A lot of good young players come out of Chelsea. They recruit tons and can’t keep em all

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by KRBFC » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:02 pm

FCBurnley wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:49 pm
A lot of good young players come out of Chelsea. They recruit tons and can’t keep em all
Broja at Southampton another, cracking player

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30273
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10916 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:16 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:02 pm
Broja at Southampton another, cracking player
our problem is Dyche refusing to play loan players - who in their right mind would send someone on loan to us ? It's annoying and counter productive
This user liked this post: cockneyclaret

superdimitri
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 725 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by superdimitri » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:19 pm

Brighton not spending much money, heard it all now!
These 2 users liked this post: Top Claret cockneyclaret

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:23 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:25 pm
Brighton had spent well over 200 million in transfers half between them getting into the PL in 2017 and 2020 https://www.brightonandhoveindependent. ... ed-2546482

Wasted money is an understatement !!

Also the players you listed cost more than 10 million from the fee's I can see online - but still, by today's standards are deffo good buys. Christ knows what their wage bill must be
For the 19/20 season, their wage bill was £103 million, 78% of turnover.

Their gross debt increased by £26m from £280m to £306m, very largely from owner Tony Bloom in the shape of an interest-free, unsecured loan of £304m (up £32m). Overdraft cut by £6m from £8m to £2m. Since accounts closed, have taken on £37m bank loan against future TV money.
Bloom has also converted £30 million of debt into equity in the past.

Interestingly they're looking at increasing capacity at their ground to 32k and they've got 8k on a waiting list for a season ticket, that's despite them not winning anything, nor appearing in Europe etc.
It would be interesting to find out why they've got such a large waiting list.

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by KRBFC » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:58 pm

superdimitri wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:19 pm
Brighton not spending much money, heard it all now!
Who said they haven't spent much money? can you please point me to the specific sentence where someone said that.

FCBurnley
Posts: 9695
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:56 pm
Been Liked: 1967 times
Has Liked: 1132 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by FCBurnley » Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:09 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:23 pm
For the 19/20 season, their wage bill was £103 million, 78% of turnover.

Their gross debt increased by £26m from £280m to £306m, very largely from owner Tony Bloom in the shape of an interest-free, unsecured loan of £304m (up £32m). Overdraft cut by £6m from £8m to £2m. Since accounts closed, have taken on £37m bank loan against future TV money.
Bloom has also converted £30 million of debt into equity in the past.

Interestingly they're looking at increasing capacity at their ground to 32k and they've got 8k on a waiting list for a season ticket, that's despite them not winning anything, nor appearing in Europe etc.
It would be interesting to find out why they've got such a large waiting list.
Bolton Wanderers Mark 2 ?

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:21 am

FCBurnley wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:09 am
Bolton Wanderers Mark 2 ?
It would take a major issue with Bloom for that to happen.
He's only 51, so they're fine for a while yet.

I think he's determined to get the A- established and then B- regularly in the top half and Europe.
If he can do that, then he's a better chance of being able to recoup most of the money he's put into the club.

FCBurnley
Posts: 9695
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:56 pm
Been Liked: 1967 times
Has Liked: 1132 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by FCBurnley » Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:03 am

That’s what Bolton thought with their benefactor!

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30273
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10916 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by Vegas Claret » Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:17 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:23 pm

It would be interesting to find out why they've got such a large waiting list.
thanks for the figures - they are screwed when Bloom goes, proper Jack Walker stuff.

As for season tickets, that's crazy considering how many empty seats they have

superdimitri
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 725 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by superdimitri » Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:09 am

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:58 pm
Who said they haven't spent much money? can you please point me to the specific sentence where someone said that.
You can see the post from RV. 'quite a low net spend'.
I guess if we had spent 80m in the 19/20 season we would also be doing as well.

They have done well this season so far but have massively under achieved until now. I'll judge their success after a few years not half a season. They are not a good example to us, just one of many teams that have big pockets who push us down the pecking order. Just like Villa.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by RVclaret » Sat Jan 15, 2022 7:53 am

superdimitri wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:09 am
You can see the post from RV. 'quite a low net spend'.
I guess if we had spent 80m in the 19/20 season we would also be doing as well.

They have done well this season so far but have massively under achieved until now. I'll judge their success after a few years not half a season. They are not a good example to us, just one of many teams that have big pockets who push us down the pecking order. Just like Villa.
Potter has a net transfer spend of under £60m, not bad. My point was to turn the football from the negative rigid stuff of Hughton to the possession based progressive football they can play is quite impressive. They frequently have a high xG, creating chances but probably lack that clinical touch the next wage/transfer bracket brings. I hope one day we can get back to being able to retain the ball and play a better brand of football.

cockneyclaret
Posts: 1373
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 277 times
Has Liked: 3288 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by cockneyclaret » Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:45 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:23 pm
Interestingly they're looking at increasing capacity at their ground to 32k and they've got 8k on a waiting list for a season ticket, that's despite them not winning anything, nor appearing in Europe etc.
It would be interesting to find out why they've got such a large waiting list.

I work in Brighton and since they went up it seems everyman and there dog here have taken them on a their second team.
It's embarrassing, you have Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd fans buying season tickets to watch them.
When questioned they reply "it's Brighton, there my local team" 🙄
Just waiting for them to do 50/50 tops, they'll make a killing here

quoonbeatz
Posts: 4488
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 757 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by quoonbeatz » Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:09 am

Great to see the complete lack of consistency in refereeing again.

Maupay's goal correctly ruled out as Butland had 2 hands on the ball. Could have done with a ref who knew the laws for our game at Newcastle.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by RVclaret » Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:35 am

quoonbeatz wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:09 am
Great to see the complete lack of consistency in refereeing again.

Maupay's goal correctly ruled out as Butland had 2 hands on the ball. Could have done with a ref who knew the laws for our game at Newcastle.
The difference surely was that Maupay went to play the ball and knocked it out of his hands into the net, whereas Pope dropped it onto the unbeknown head of the Newcastle player?

quoonbeatz
Posts: 4488
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 757 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by quoonbeatz » Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:58 am

Nah, doesn't matter. Two hands on the ball means he can't be challenged, accidental or not.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1179 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by Jakubclaret » Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:03 am

RVclaret wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:35 am
The difference surely was that Maupay went to play the ball and knocked it out of his hands into the net, whereas Pope dropped it onto the unbeknown head of the Newcastle player?
It was a joke really after the correct award of the spot kick which was saved & got knocked out for the second corner due to the reason for the award palace players were terrified of touching Brighton players which could have led to the second spot kick, a more accurate comparison to the Newcastle game would be I think krul floored somebody the other night in the West Ham game like he did with vydra & I think he got away with 1 again.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by taio » Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:04 am

quoonbeatz wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:58 am
Nah, doesn't matter. Two hands on the ball means he can't be challenged, accidental or not.
Pope wasn't challenged

quoonbeatz
Posts: 4488
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 757 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by quoonbeatz » Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:19 am

taio wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:04 am
Pope wasn't challenged
He was. As I said, it doesn't matter if its accidental.

Butland had two hands on the ball and his momentum took him into Maupay. That's why the goal was disallowed. Same situation as with Pope.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by taio » Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:24 am

He wasn't challenged accidentally or otherwise because there was no challenge at all. The Newcastle player had his back to Pope and didn’t move. Pope landed on him which caused him to drop the ball. It was unfortunate for Pope but not an infringement against him. Different scenarios both resulting in the correct decision.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1179 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by Jakubclaret » Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:26 am

quoonbeatz wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:19 am
He was. As I said, it doesn't matter if its accidental.

Butland had two hands on the ball and his momentum took him into Maupay. That's why the goal was disallowed. Same situation as with Pope.
If you look back at the incident when the 2nd corner came in it was Brighton who were doing the grappling & palace were frightened to do anything which pretty much led to maupay having the freedom of the box even though the goal
was ruled out for direct action with butland. Wouldn’t be surprised if everything overall was taken into account.

quoonbeatz
Posts: 4488
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 757 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by quoonbeatz » Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:38 am

taio wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:24 am
He wasn't challenged accidentally or otherwise because there was no challenge at all. The Newcastle player had his back to Pope and didn’t move. Pope landed on him which caused him to drop the ball. It was unfortunate for Pope but not an infringement against him. Different scenarios both resulting in the correct decision.
You're missing the point. If the keeper has the ball in his hands, or between one hand and the ground, the ball is effectively dead. If the keeper drops or releases the ball on their own then fine, there's no infringement. If an opponent is involved, whether intentional or not, it's a foul every time.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by taio » Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:00 am

quoonbeatz wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:38 am
You're missing the point. If the keeper has the ball in his hands, or between one hand and the ground, the ball is effectively dead. If the keeper drops or releases the ball on their own then fine, there's no infringement. If an opponent is involved, whether intentional or not, it's a foul every time.
I don't believe I am missing the point as my point is in line with the laws of the game. The laws will state something along the lines of it is not permitted for the goalkeeper in control of the ball to be challenged. The Newcastle didn't challenge in any way and Pope dropped and lost control of the ball in unfortunate circumstances.

quoonbeatz
Posts: 4488
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 757 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by quoonbeatz » Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:10 am

You've just said there was contact with a Newcastle player. That's a challenge. That's the law. It's one of the simplest ones there is, strange you find it difficult to understand.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by taio » Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:18 am

quoonbeatz wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:10 am
You've just said there was contact with a Newcastle player. That's a challenge. That's the law. It's one of the simplest ones there is, strange you find it difficult to understand.
Where did I say the contact was initiated by the Newcastle player? I've explitly stated he didn't challenge in any shape or form accidentally or otherwise. The contact was as a result of Pope landing on him. That doesn't constitute a challenge by the opposing player.

I can understand there is an element of interpretation with such an incident in particular, so I won't go down the road of missing the point or finding things difficult to understand. If you want to, let's go "Outside now" :D

quoonbeatz
Posts: 4488
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 757 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by quoonbeatz » Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:21 am

How many free kicks to you see given where a player just runs into another, where the opponent imply can't get out of the way and there's nothing they can do about it? It's exactly the same, it's still deemed a challenge whether they knew anything about it or not.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Brighton v Palace

Post by taio » Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:24 am

That's somewhat abstract - I'm judging based on that specific incident. If I remember right there was a widely held view on here that Pope was not fouled.

Post Reply