Martin O'Neill Is STUNNED That Luton's Goal Vs Burnley Was Given, But Simon Jordan Disagrees! 🤯🤔
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- Football fireworks ignite as Martin O'Neill expresses sheer disbelief over Luton's goal against Burnley, but sparks fly when Simon Jordan disagrees!
Subscribe: / talksport
Enjoyed this RUclips video? 😍
🖥️ talkSPORT's Website: talksport.com/
📲 talkSPORT's Twitter: / talksport
📷 talkSPORT's Instagram: www.instagram....
👤 talkSPORT's Facebook: / talksport
📱 talkSPORT's Tik Tok: / talksport
🔴 Download the talkSPORT app HERE! - talksport.com/...
🔎 Want to see if you feature on our RUclips channel? Check out our Best talkSPORT callers playlist: • The BEST talkSPORT Cal...
#burnley
#lutontown
#talkSPORT
#PremierLeague
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
The problem is we all know the next time somone pushes into a goalkeeper to stop him getting to the ball a foul will be given so consistency is the problem.
Lol, Crystal Palace v Man United
Whether you think it was a foul or not a foul, the bigger problem is the lack of consistency. We all know goalkeepers are a protected species and the slightest bit of contact typically goes in their favor. But to then reverse course, particularly in stoppage time with the game on the line, and not award a foul just makes a mockery of what is and isn’t a foul against a keeper. Because we have all seen fouls awarded to keepers for much, much less all the time. Personally, it’s the consistency that is the bigger issue for me and what is and isn’t a foul against a keeper in the first place.
So based on what Simon is saying the rule we have is stupid. How come when if a player that is in an offside position blocking the view of the keeper, even few yards apart, can cause a goal to be disallowed while in this case the keeper gets knocked down and not awarded a foul, even though the player isn’t in an offside position. My point is that the rules go far enough to protect the keeper’s view but not protect him from an intentional contact to impede him, that’s BS.
The goalkeeper was going for the ball and the player was going for the goalkeeper, it is as simple as that
ha ha ha
The rules do provide for keeper exceptions, it states that keepers have extra protection and understanding given the risk the position naturally incurs
Disagree for the sake of it .. point of talksport unfortunately. Simon Jordan must be a nightmare personally 😭
Simon Jordan would probably argue that it's warm at the moment 😂😂😂
It also happened in the 1958 Cup Final, Man U vs. Bolton, Nat Lofthouse bundled Harry Greg over the line, that one was blatant and the goal stood
what did var say
Clear goal. Keeper shat his pants
That’s a blatant foul .
I think the point they're missing is that 3rd part of the law relates to a goalkeeper and attacker challenging for the ball, in this case the attacker's actions were purely to prevent the goalkeeper from challenging the attacker who was going to score the goal. It was a clear obstruction (not challenge for the ball)
No mate. The keeper In this incident was never gonna get the ball. He missed judge the cross, knew he wasn't gonna get it and played for the foul. If he stayed on his line, he collects the ball easily.
@@grahamgibbins8071 if he wasn't going to get the ball he wouldn't have challenged for it. Trafford saw the cross, knew he could get it above the striker who scores, but is clearly and deliberately obstructed by another player - all the Luton players thought it was obstruction because they didn't celebreate like they'd scored a late equaliser, did they?
Good goal. Nothing wrong with it. Serves that keeper right for collapsing on the ground every time he caught the ball with no opponents anywhere near him
Good logic genius, “the GK deserved to be fouled because he went to ground to catch the ball” 🤦♂️🤣
Trafford went over like a bag in the wind 💨
Except it will work next week. If the City keeper goes down in the same situation it's getting chalked off as a foul and there will be no explanation from VAR or the ref why the situations differ.
@@robertodamsOnly because that dirty cheating Luton player deliberately barged into him.
If it had been Alisson or Ederson, the goal would have been disallowed. The double standards between the top 6 and bottom 6 is clear and obvious...unlike the VAR decisions!
I am a Liverpool fan and I find it very hard to disagree with that
I can't help think that part of it was " It's little old Luton. Their a good story and that player had a heart attack, let's let them have that one."
@@chriswilkinson7636 Bottom line is, the VAR decision won't cost City or Liverpool the Title. In VAR minds, no one cares about a relegation battle...it won't be scrutinised as much!
@@garywallace5602 That's exactly the attitude." It's only Burnley, it doesn't matter." Well it bloody does matter.
If the slight touch on Ederson was disallowed then for consistency sake that goal should have been disallowed
Blatant foul all day long,,,pathetic,,could cost burnley end of season,,,,var a joke,,,,
I dont see the problem! If my keeper is going down like a sack of tatties and hes being sniped i would be raging at him being pathetic! Plus he was nowhere near the ball even if that player was nowhere near him hes not making that! Keepers made a meal out of it end of the day!
It’s as clear a foul as you’ll get. Terrible decision
Cry about.
Clearly not otherwise people wouldn't be arguing about it!
@@tommollett6710 they argue about it because a lot of people are idiots who don’t understand football
@thomasmuller6301 it's all about opinions. If someone has a different one to you doesn't automatically mean it's wrong. A lot of top pundits/ex players have agreed it isn't a foul.
@@tommollett6710no it’s not. It’s about knowing the rules which both pundits blatantly ignored and clearly @thomasmuller6301 also has no knowledge of. The rule that should be applied - as the goalkeeper is out of his 5m box - is ‘impeding progress of opponent’ which replaced the old obstruction rule in 1997. The rule sees to situations where there is no physical foul. Take away the ball and the intentions of both players and there is no argument to be made that the collision is the fault of the attacker as the goalkeeper moves towards the attacker just as much as the attacker moves towards the goalkeeper.
For those situations there is said rule.
For it to be a foul the rule requires “moving into the path of the opponent” (when neither player has the ball within reach which is the case here as the goalie needs to run towards the ball to get it)
For that to happen the player has to move sideways. In this case, the player is already in the line between goalkeeper and ball, so he isn’t moving into the goalie’s path, he’s taking two steps backwards (staying in the path/line he was already in) and collides with the goalkeeper because the goalkeeper is taking steps forward. So even though the player is doing it to block the goalkeeper’s reach and the goalkeeper is doing it to get to the ball, it’s irrelevant. The idea behind the rule is that when the goalkeeper ran for the ball the player was already in his path and therefore he should know he’s risking a collision. Physically the collision isn’t caused more by the attacker. On the contrary the goalkeeper is running towards him at a much higher speed. The intention of their movement isn’t decisive and neither is the fact that if the attacker would have stood still the goalkeeper might have reached the ball. It won’t be ruled in either player’s advantage if it’s a bodily collision because a bodily collision by itself isn’t physically a foul. If it isn’t physically a foul it can only be a foul by impediment which as explained it isn’t. Absolute perfect decision by the ref.
The goalkeeper and the player werent involved in 'simaltanious or similar actions' as only the goalkeeper was attempting to play the ball. Outfield players can shoulder barge each other when going for the ball which is fair, but you can't bodycheck someone off the ball which was what happened to the goalkeeper. It was a foul.
Rubbish.. you’re describing what happened and then make up rules that don’t exist. Just because you feel that what happened should make it a foul doesn’t actually make it one. For that to be so there should be an actual rule. And there is a rule for this situation which says the attempt to play the ball is irrelevant here..
@@hugobbo Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct. Offence: 'Charges'. Result: Direct free kick.
If you don't agree with 'charges'... how about, 'impedes an opponent with contact' or even 'strikes or attempts to strike [an opponent]' if you like?
So that's up to three rules that DO exist, broken. Pick your poison, or maybe just read the rule book!
You probably think shirt pulling or standing on the goalkeepers toes is fine too 🙄
@@JestAMinute this is too complicated for you, you need basic analyzing skills “you can’t bodycheck someone of the ball” maybe you can maybe you can’t, but to do it ‘someone’ needs to HAVE the ball. And none of them have it, so what you on about?
So.. whatever rule that may or may not be it doesn’t apply as at the moment of contact the ball is out of reach of both players (the goalkeeper is going towards it but it’s out of reach with no certainty either way he will get it)
You also mentioned ‘only the goalkeeper attempts to play the ball’
then you make a fool of yourself quoting me rules that are only applicable to physical fouls.
There is no physical foul, because both players move towards each other. Don’t try to squeeze one in now because you already brought the intention of both players into this. Take away the ball and it’s a collision. Just because the goalkeeper falls down like a swan doesn’t mean the attacker is the culprit. The goalkeeper is moving towards the attacker just as the attacker is moving towards the goalkeepers, so all your rules bye 👋 bye
So.. go look into your rulebook again and you’ll find there is only one rule that deals with situations like this. And to your astonishment you’ll find that the attacker in this case can actually take to steps towards the goalie, turn around with all the bad intent in the world and get away with it.
I don't know why you're unable to keep your emotions in check while having this conversation, but I'm not going to spend any of my time trying to understand your point if I have to filter out your bitterness. You may even be correct, but you've lost my interest on the subject and in your opinion because of how you're acting. The poor people in your life must find you insufferable, but unlike them I can block you, which I have 👋bye @@hugobbo
What planet are these views and comparisons coming from ??? Of course it was a fowl ….. being physical on a goal keeper comparing this incident has no bearing….. the GK was blocked…
it was a foul! It was a basketball screen/block. Just wait and see what attack coaches work on in the next 2 weeks, there will be some amazing things appearing in set plays.
If Burnley try it in their next match I guarantee 100% it will not be allowed.
He was miles from the ball, if Elija wasn’t there he wouldn’t have got it
Trafford was falling about all night, he knew he couldn’t get the ball, and threw himself at Elijah. He was weak. Trafford spent the whole night time wasting, that’s real cheating
"Threw himself"??😂😂😂 There seems to be a problem with people's eyesight in Luton. . Also fouling an opposing player deliberately is cheating, and that's what the Luton player did.
Kompany has some cheek.... When other teams have been knackered because of VAR he said it was just a mistake and we should move on... Had the chance to stand up with others but chose not to because It helped his old team. Karma.
Oh wow. So now talk sport is siding with a manager who is criticising refs and calling them a joke. Where are the articles blaming arteta for the abuse on referees. Arsenal agenda is clearer than ever.
How did Adebayo look at the keeper? With the eyes in the back of his head? The Luton players celebrated the goal. The keeper threw himself at the Luton player and was never near the cross.
It's the lack of consistency, I am a Claret and obviously biased. However if I'd not seen some of the decisions already made this and last season my opinion might be different.
I also think Trafford should of been stronger, or better still stayed on his line.
So in short, in today's game I'd say foul........but it's done now and we're down. Might as well just enjoy the ride for the remainder of the season
The system is clear and obvious error leading to goal, there should be circumstance's which let him have another look at it on the screen. I also believe a challenge system similar to tennis should be brought in and VAR automatically come in on offsides and ball out of play ,,, not subjective things. Also on the panel should be two ex players.
Allowing that goal was one of the worst calls I can remember. It's honestly pathetic. I have zero rooting interest in either team. It's a joke. England refs are a joke.
If the keeper stays on his line and the striker is blocking a defender, this is not getting a mention. If the keeper comes, he needs to come with a bit of violence (obviously not going to try catch it) but far too timid. Blocking players goes on at every freekick and corner into the box....is it blocking or using the space smartly!
MON - “I thought…” subjectivity
And I thought that we wanted the referee to stick to their decision
And yes, Kompany, that’s why you’re languishing
And yes, knee to the body from the gk is fine, but the other way…
So easy to solve, but no one is listening; 2 VARs plus the ref, and 2-1 decision rules. The VAR staff should be officials in one room and ex-players in tother. Or even more economic, get the linesman to instantly vote plus the ref and same again, the 2-1 decision rules. No more arguing, no more inquests.
It’s a foul and VAR is the real joke! Fans who attend matches don’t want VAR. It’s that simple. I’m talking about the majority not everyone. Please give me back the game I once loved.
Martin O'Neil is one of the biggest 🔔 ends in football
What’s a 🔔 end?
So, when players, defenders, get between attacking players and the ball to let the ball go out for a goal kick is that also a freekick? The defender has no interest in touching the ball and os clearly blocking the attacking player from getting the ball 🤷🏻♂️
It’s a foul, the guy ran into the keeper.
Why haven’t talksport put a video up of where O’Neil said he was shocked Man City haven’t been brought to task over FFP?
Scared of a legal defamation 😂😂😂😂😂
What about your keeper falling on the floor with no one around him? Is that cheating?
For me that should never be given as a goal
When klopp complained, you sad get on with it. Life is full of hypocrites and irony. Get on with it mate
People need to re educate themselves of the rules and not what theyd like them to be or perceive them to be... Goal! COYH! kompany says elijah looked at the goalkeeper and blocked him....he actually didnt once turn or look at trafford the entire time he was in the box
06:21 Simon needs to learn how to pronounce common English words. What was that..
Was it a foul on trafford?? Talksport should just put old before the name so they can talk about their favorite club😂😂😂
The keeper wasn't fully committed .....it's crept into the game where they're doing the striker equivalent of a dive in the box, looking for obstruction before going for the ball
Not a simultaneous action.... Trafford was going for the ball, the strikers soul purpose was to block, no interest in the ball... and to anyone saying the keeper needs to be stronger, including all these attacking players, what happens if somone attempts to block them whilst timing a run to head the ball.. they may be able to bulldozer their way through but it will undoubtedly effect the timing of their jump, particularly if they were just a step or so from making the leap. The result is, they get under the ball and mistime the header.. same thing applies to Trafford... he could barge through the striker but will ultimately mistime his jump
Never a foul the keeper ran in to the forward
Not rule, law, and actually GUIDANCE
Good goal and great decision. Whats elija supposed to do? Get out of the way and roll out the red carpet? Keeper made a balls of it and knew it so fell to the ground dramatically expecting a foul. Not to mention the burnley player falling into elija moments before the collision
So you spotted NO deliberate shoulder charge on the goalkeeper? Take up league refereeing, mate...you got what it takes these days......
@peedee-zo1yq shoulder charge 🤣🤣 stick to non contact sport. Maybe golf.. you should be well able for it
PLAYING
DISTANCE
DEFINITION
Playing distance refers to when a player can touch the ball if they stretch their foot/leg or jump. For a goalkeeper, it includes how far they can stretch their hand(s)/arm(s).
When you have Ben Mee in your team, you have no room to talk. Guys a disgrace
good job he doesn't then
Trafford time wasting the whole game he deserved what he got.
The obstruction rule is not negated by the rules that Simon listed off. It was deliberate obstruction and therefore a foul anywhere on the pitch by any player.
@petesquads You’re spot on when it comes to the application of the rule which both pundits blatantly ignored, but it leads to the exact opposite decision. The rule* should indeed be applied as the goalkeeper is out of his 5m box. *Obstruction rule was banned in 97 and replaced by ‘impeding progress of opponent’. Based on the requirements for that it’s not a foul. It requires “moving into the path of the opponent” (when neither has the ball within reach which is the case here as the goalie needs to run towards the ball to get it)
For that to happen the player has to move sideways. In this case, the player is already in the line between goalkeeper and ball, so he isn’t moving into the goalie’s path, he’s taking two steps backwards and collides with the goalkeeper because the goalkeeper is taking steps forward. So even though the player is doing it to block the goalkeeper’s reach and the goalkeeper is doing it to get to the ball, it’s irrelevant. The idea behind the rule is that when the goalkeeper ran for the ball the player was already in his path and therefore he should know he’s risking a collision. Physically the collision isn’t caused more by the attacker. The intention of their movement isn’t decisive so it won’t be ruled in either player’s advantage if it’s a bodily collision because a bodily collision by itself isn’t physically a foul. If it isn’t physically a foul it can only be a foul by impediment which as explained it isn’t. Absolute perfect decision by the ref.
Trafford is a shithouse..
One person is an ex international player and manager, the is an idiot who likes to be controversial and shout his mouth off. Martin O'Neil knows what his talking about having been there and done that, Jordan just talks rubbish about everything. Martin is correct it is a foul, although Trafford like all modern day footballers made a meal of it, but gilding the lily is not a crime and doesn't take away the true fact that it was a foul. Get rid of var as its not getting rid of the bad decisions and controversies only making more. Putting an ex player in with the var referee I don't feel will help now. I think 3 assistant referees at each end (6 in total) covering, with the referee all compass points with the referee going box to box, east to west or vice versa. Lastly Mr Jordan please shut up with your silly comments and utter nonsense.
If someone in midfield sheilded the ball from an opponent for it to run to a teammate it wouldnt be a foul so whys it different for keepers
Moan moan! The all try it and don’t moan when they get away with it. 😂
The premier league is corrupt! End of
O'neil and Kompany need to go to Specsavers.
That keeper is awful for Burnley so weak
COYH !
The clear giveaway was the Luton player giving the goalkeeper the look and then bumping into him. Sure goalkeepers get way too much protection but that was clear as day a foul. Next week same thing and foul will be given.
Striker jumped for a ball the keeper came out and clashed into the striker.
That was a goal all day long. Keeper in no man’s land just jumps into the nearest player 😂😂😂😂
Are you having a laugh? Try watching the replay with your eyes open next time.
@@chriswilkinson7636 there is no way keeper was getting that ball. It was far too high and long. He fell down when he realised it
@@BridgeStamford He fell down when the cheating Luton player barged into him deliberately.
Wasn't a foul
trafford is just a weak keeper
Vincent Kompany is wrong about 4 Luton Players celebrate?
Burnley would be better with Vincent from Pulp Fiction leading them.