Jhon Durán

[KentVillan]

Don’t think VAR should have got involved there. Not sure what the rules / guidance are, but it was in our own half, it wasn’t a counterattack, there were several passes subsequent to the handball, some backwards / sideways. That all makes it out of scope of VAR for me, as it’s not really a direct part of the buildup to the goal but whatever, realise that’s a matter of opinion. Shame as it’s such a beautiful goal.

[TreeVillan]

1 hour ago, Rightdm00 said:

Just curious is there anyone else out there who doesn't believe this kid will one day be, at worst, the 2nd best striker in the world behind Haaland. 

Me

[WHY]

1 hour ago, AndyM3000 said:

His connection with the ball when shooting is so pure. Don't think I've seen him scuff a shot.

Off the top of my head, Liverpool away last season. 

[AndyM3000]

46 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said:

If he does we'll know who to blame

It might still go in 

[Pongo Waring]

 

 

[Enda]

36 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Don’t think VAR should have got involved there. Not sure what the rules / guidance are, but it was in our own half, it wasn’t a counterattack, there were several passes subsequent to the handball, some backwards / sideways. That all makes it out of scope of VAR for me, as it’s not really a direct part of the buildup to the goal but whatever, realise that’s a matter of opinion. Shame as it’s such a beautiful goal.

Think the phrase is “phase of play”. Even though that’s ambiguous, the handball happened when we got the ball and there was no obvious interruption.

[Jas10]

 

[KentVillan]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

Think the phrase is “phase of play”. Even though that’s ambiguous, the handball happened when we got the ball and there was no obvious interruption.

For me, when the ball is knocked back to Konsa and he stops the ball dead, then plays it inside - that’s the start of a phase of play. That’s where the attacking move starts. A phase of play isn’t synonymous with a possession IMO. Otherwise you’d have 35-pass moves getting pulled back by VAR bc of a handball back to the keeper. Surely that isn’t the intention? 

[Hiney]

If it was against us and that goal stood we'd all be furious about the handball, its probably right it was ruled out. Its the inconsistencies with VAR that make it frustrating. 

Such a shame though as it's one hell of a finish 

[Tomaszk]

5 hours ago, AndyM3000 said:

His connection with the ball when shooting is so pure. Don't think I've seen him scuff a shot.

Such a shame that goal was ruled out. Was another one for the scrapbook.

If he doesn't absolutely bury it, his misses tend to be hooning it into the upper tiers. Very on brand daftness.

A start has to be coming...but it'll be when he does the required stuff off the ball. Everyone knows now he has no chance of starting v Bayern.

Not the running, he looks to have improved there. The positioning, covering the players he's meant to when out of possession.

With the ball. He's there already. May God have mercy on Wolves and Craig Dawson if that's where he gets the nod.

[a-k]

3 hours ago, Hiney said:

If it was against us and that goal stood we'd all be furious about the handball, its probably right it was ruled out. Its the inconsistencies with VAR that make it frustrating. 

Such a shame though as it's one hell of a finish 

Was the handball intentional? Did it cause us to win possession instead of Young Boys retaining it?

[Stevo985]

9 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

It’s a blatant handball where we literally took the ball up the pitch to score. It’s not like we lost possession or passed it 50 times afterwards. 
 

I agree it’s inconsistent and that’s massively frustrating. 
 

I just think it’s hard to be annoyed when it was extremely obviously the right outcome. There’s no way play should have continued. 
 

If that happened the other way round we’d all be applauding it

17 seconds and 5 passes between the handball and the goal by the way. 
 

Yeah nobody can be annoyed about that 

[Ponky]

Notice him being much more involved in link up play and finding space etc

Also, I was almost as excited by his pass to Ramsey to set up the "goal" as I was the finish itself - which you almost expect of him these days.

I think he's become far more integrated into the team and Unai-ball in general as the weeks go by.

The young guys like Rogers, Ramsey and even Onana seem to interact very positively with him.

Edited yesterday at 05:37 by Ponky

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

Strangely think his relationships with Onana and Rogers have helped make him feel more comfortable and settle.

Obviously also a good talking to from Unai, and the learning lesson in you can't get everything you wants when you want it, no matter how many tantrums you throw.

He seems so much more mature now in a short space of time.

[Panto_Villan]

He’s probably also realised that Chelsea don’t really want him, and that West Ham are shite.

Whatever’s happened, he was forgiven for his sins the moment that goal against West Ham went in.

[turvontour]

8 hours ago, Enda said:

Think the phrase is “phase of play”. Even though that’s ambiguous, the handball happened when we got the ball and there was no obvious interruption.

So it's not a time thing. It's the other team touching the ball thing? We could have had the ball for 5 mins and then Duran scored, but it would still have gone back to a free kick to them in our half?

[Stevo985]

13 minutes ago, turvontour said:

So it's not a time thing. It's the other team touching the ball thing? We could have had the ball for 5 mins and then Duran scored, but it would still have gone back to a free kick to them in our half?

It’s probably a combination of both. With a big heap of discretion. 
 

But in this case it didn’t need any of that. It was 17 seconds and 5 passes in what was very obviously the same phase of play. 

[turvontour]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

It’s probably a combination of both. With a big heap of discretion. 
 

But in this case it didn’t need any of that. It was 17 seconds and 5 passes in what was very obviously the same phase of play. 

But what does 17 seconds mean. What if it was 22 seconds or 27 seconds, are the seconds irrelevant?

Sorry, I just don't know the specific rule.

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

17 seconds and 5 passes between the handball and the goal by the way. 
 

Yeah nobody can be annoyed about that 

like i said, in the context of how they judge offsides and active / inactive i can

a guy is stood in the middle of the 6 yard box, miles offside, defenders are holding the line and playing him off, no problem, at no point during the attack does he move, attacking midfielder has the ball but instead of playing it to the offside player he plays it out to the winger who with the angle on the pass ends up at the byline and therefore his cross is played backwards to the attacker who scores - i'll ignore liverpool's goal vs us last season and use real madrids goal vs bayern in the CL semi final instead, madrid got to the final of the CL because of the ridiculous phase of play stuff meaning proper top class defending by kimmich stepping up and playing his man offside goes in the bin instead

1 second, 1 pass...and that's perfectly acceptable because its a different phase? its utter bollocks - but again that's the offside rule that's broken not the decision last night, the decision last night was correct, what's annoying is how they change it for offside

[blunther]

10 minutes ago, turvontour said:

Sorry, I just don't know the specific rule.

There isn't one, which is the problem with this. I've no real problem with that goal being chalked off, the referee made an obvious error not seeing the handball - but would that be applied 100% of the time using VAR? No, definitely not, there's the problem.