FULHAM (H) SUN OCT 9TH

Brother_Sledge

Kavanagh QC ( Quietly Competent )

Slacker

Slacker said:

I’m giving myself MOM for this one.
When they scored I said to the dog “We’re still gonna win this Arch”, Just before the second goal I told him “Scamacca’s gonna score in a minute “

You’re welcome.

Arch showing his excitement.

MrsGrey

Slacker said:

Slacker said:

I’m giving myself MOM for this one.
When they scored I said to the dog “We’re still gonna win this Arch”, Just before the second goal I told him “Scamacca’s gonna score in a minute “

You’re welcome.

Arch showing his excitement.

He was never worried.

Much like myself.

Dodger58

Yeoldhammer said:

both those goals could have been disallowed on another day.

We must be in the “Big Six”

claretandbluesky

I was very impressed with that performance. Fulham were better than Forest, Everton and Wolves and we lost two of those matches. We did get a little fortunate in that we had a ref willing to make a correct decision that most are not willing to do but we stood very firm and kept probing whenever we could. We deserved that win and the VAR that could have gone either way really only levels out the Chelsea one.

Scamacca is a proper striker as I mentioned after Anderlecht. It seems so long since we have had one, David Cross anyone? I feared he may be another Haller as in a couple of impressive aspects to his game but not enough to makes things happen. This guy can make things happen alright.

Slacker

It starting to look like Paquetta and Scamacca are developing a really good understanding , through balls that have delivered goals in the last two games but not just that it’s the awareness of each other.
Reasons to be cheerful Pt 1.

Ravel49

‘ Reasons to be cheerful Pt 1.’

We don’t do that round here slack man
Get with the programme 😜

jay_in_cpt

Exactly… Let’s be real, could be better and thanks to 3 VAR decisions that could have gone either way 😉😉🏃🏃🏃⚒️⚒️⚒️

alderz

The best result is Steve carries on match threads.

Slacker

Ravel49 said:

‘ Reasons to be cheerful Pt 1.’

We don’t do that round here slack man
Get with the programme 😜

I know mate, but one tries, one tries.

alderz

Michail Antonio now has 65 goals for the club, which makes him one equal 18th highest ever scorer, joint with Julian Dicks. He’s three behind Carlton Cole.

Lukerz

Goal was clearly correct. It was allowed to stand, no clear evidence to overturn it. Was onside & impossible to tell if it flicked his hand. Correct call & correct use of VAR (for once).

Irons

Hamstew

Slacker said:

It starting to look like Paquetta and Scamacca are developing a really good understanding , through balls that have delivered goals in the last two games but not just that it’s the awareness of each other.
Reasons to be cheerful Pt 1.

So when you changing your name to Scalacka?

Pengeman

The Paquetta and Scamacca combination for the goal was similar to one that Scamacca scored against Anderlecht, a lofted ball into the box.

Kuchinghammer

I really hope we don't lose Dawson in January. Our improvement started when he came back into the side.

OutcastLondoner

Pengeman said:

The Paquetta and Scamacca combination for the goal was similar to one that Scamacca scored against Anderlecht, a lofted ball into the box.

Yeah and there was a slipped through ball as well that Scamacca just pulled wide. They’re building a good partnership there. Scamacca makes the right run for the number 10 quite often.

buffybegood

Have just seen our highlights on MOTD2, and it appears Antonio was very shrewd rather than just poor at one-on-ones; apparently if he'd have scored with his initial shot it woulda been disallowed for handball (it did clearly strike his arm as he burst through), but, as both the defender and keeper touched the ball after the initial shot, it then became second phase so the accidental (and unavoidable) handball can be disregarded.

Very quick thinking by Antonio there (although by that logic, based on guidance provided to MOTD by, as Chappers says, "the powers that be", surely Rashford's goal shoulda stood as the keeper saves and Rashford scores with his second attempt).

Dion Dublin says Scamacca's was also clearly handball; I think he's really pushing it and if there isn't clear evidence (which I don't think there is) then it's fair for the goal to stand. VAR took a good while, and from different camera angles, trying to ascertain if there was contact with either hand or arm; if they couldn't say there was, then it's obviously not a clear and obvious error.

buffybegood

Btw, I thought this yesterday watching the match, and having seen the highlights again, does anyone think Fabianski shoulda done better with their goal? Ok, the guy struck it well, but I can't help feeling Fabianski was very slow to try and get up to it.

BubblesNeverDies

On MOTD2, it showed that Scamacca had touched the ball (the ball's rotation changed), and that Antonio had controlled the ball with his arm. It also showed that Dawson had instigated the initial foul leading up to the penalty.
All 3 goals could have been disallowed on another day by a different ref.
I've never liked winning by means of questionable goals especially when all of them are so.
However, we've had a shocking amount of bad decisions against us this season so should I just let it go?
I could accept it with a clearer conscience if it was Chelsea or Forest yesterday, but it just seems unfair on Fulham. Maybe they'll get the benefit of dodgy decisions when we play at their place.

buffybegood

BubblesNeverDies said:

On MOTD2, it showed that Scamacca had touched the ball (the ball's rotation changed)

It was borderline if it happened at all, and hardly clear and obvious given the number of times VAR looked at it and still couldn't be certain. Maybe BBC had different technology available; the clip supposedly showing the change in rotation is with the ball magnified; remember when they showed the ball at least 2ft maybe 3ft over the sideline when Man Utd were allowed to score against us last season yet supposedly VAR couldn't tell it was out.

Ravel49

I think it would have been extremely harsh to rule out scam the man’s 🔫 goal, his hand was right by his side. Literally couldn’t have done anything about it. No intent for me.

Talking of hands it looked like Fab went with the wrong one trying to save Pereira’s goal 🧤

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years

So since the controversial Chelsea loss its 5 wins in 6 in all comps

Feel like Moyes has finally figured out his preferred XI now the new signings have bedded themselves in

Ravel49

Winning

It’s what he does 🤷🏻‍♂️

buffybegood

Ravel49 said:

I think it would have been extremely harsh to rule out scam the man’s 🔫 goal, his hand was right by his side. Literally couldn’t have done anything about it. No intent for me.

Intent is completely irrelevant as is position of the arm when handball by the scorer in the same phase occurs; it's simply a matter of whether the ball strikes the hand or arm which then means the goal is disallowed as the rules currently stand.

OutcastLondoner

Bubbles, I just checked out MOTD because I hadn't seen the first foul during the game as I was looking at the corner and thought that might be what you're talking about.

MOTD have missed out that not only did Perreira do it the first time, he also did it again together with one of their other players a second time. And the idea that Dawson made the first contact is nonsense from Murphy, in my opinion. They've highlighted the first contact from a certain angle but you can see Perreira already has his body across Dawson yet again, so from another angle it might appear as the first contact. If there's any difference in when the contact was made its a fraction of a second and Perreira was clearly intending to foul yet again. It's absolutely a penalty and so stupid from Perreira.

BubblesNeverDies

Buffy, Outcast, thanks for easing my conscience, feel much better now

Slacker

That penalty wasn’t just down to the player,the manager/ coaches would’ve told them to stop Dawson at corners at all costs, and it did.
Hopefully we’ll see more pens given to stop the all in wrestling at corners now.

alderz

The ref literally went over to Pereira to tell him to stop wrestling Dawson, and then the corner came in and he wrestled him to the ground again. It's a blatant penalty, for me.

With Scamacca's, I didn't watch MOTD2, but I've watched the goal loads of times and I don't think it's clear whether it touches his arm at all. If he did, it's certainly not obvious.

OutcastLondoner

alderz said:

The ref literally went over to Pereira to tell him to stop wrestling Dawson, and then the corner came in and he wrestled him to the ground again. It's a blatant penalty, for me.

With Scamacca's, I didn't watch MOTD2, but I've watched the goal loads of times and I don't think it's clear whether it touches his arm at all. If he did, it's certainly not obvious.

They seem to be using one angle, where it's not clear, and saying the ball's spin very slightly changed. They haven't considered whether something else could've altered the spin, such as it slightly brushing the outside of his leg. People acting like its conclusive are exaggerating, in my opinion. Scamacca's lack of celebrations was suspicious but I though that was because he thought might be offside.

IronHerb

First goal was a definite pen, second goal probably was hand ball and third goal was hand ball but as the goal was scored in a different phase then the goal is good. Rashfords goal should have stood but that is down to the inconsistency of the officials.