To be honest, I’d much rather Max made a fool of himself like this instead of being a totally incompetent goalkeeper. At least this means we don’t need to worry about losing him in the January window. He might even sign a new deal now. He’s still a top goalkeeper for this level in my books.
I accept that this is subjective but Matt said that they'd had a long chat about how they want to conduct themselves. I'd much prefer it if they didn't conduct themselves in the manner of their goal.
All those on Gasroom, Twitter, facebook etc etc...calling for Max's head on a plate, please tell me if this law has been superseded in the last 4 years ...from Refs forum site in 2019:
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
Crystal clear, no ifs or buts, Max had the ball in two hands was touched by the Barnsley striker, therefore fouled by the simple rules of the game and the ref should have awarded a free kick as soon as contact was made - it doesn't matter how much - a feather touch or full on shoulder barge, it doesn't matter...Max had 2 hands on the ball and that is that.
What happened after...falling down , losing the ball etc etc is completely immaterial.
I don't get why anyone on this forum or anywhere else is not aware of this simple rule...unless of course it has changed ..in which case let the Refs . ex refs etc etc point me to the new clause in the rule book.
And on Saturday we will get Taylor to shoulder charge the Morecombe goalie for our first, second and third goal...simple as that!
I'm guessing this table is league only (so doesn't tally with your figure), but we don't appear to be doing too badly vs other teams.
I think mid-table is a reasonable place to be in the discipline league, I tend to think (without wanting to get into some sort of dumb-arse "come on - GET STUCK IN" mentality) that if you're not picking up any bookings at all, then maybe your holding midfielders and defenders are being too nice - but of course if you're winning every game at a canter then they maybe don't need to exert themselves much anyway, none of these stats should be interpreted in isolation.
Technically is a word that can refer to practical skills and methods used in a particular activity.
Therefore, technically he would be 4th in the list, behind our much vaunted signing KJV, Grimmer and McCarthy I would say. Hence him not getting anywhere near the lineup when the other 3 have been available.
However, like someone else said, he's certainly taken his chance. But I doubt he's starting if all are fit.
I hesitate to quote the laws of football in support of your argument after previous comments but Law 12 clearly states: ‘A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).’
Was Max foolish in the extreme to take the risk he did? Absolutely. Did the referee apply this law correctly? No, he didn’t.
There is no choice though is there - the ref blatantly got it wrong - did not know the rules of the game or missed the incident and guessed, no ifs or buts. It is either a rule or it isn't without any choice or interpretation . As soon as the opposition player touches the keeper it is a foul. There is no line to draw for offside or ball fully crossing the line for a goal ..., no choice to be made by the ref or VAR as to whether the defender was moving his hand to touch a ball for a penalty or not. It is simple as simple can be. If the goalkeeper is touched when he is holding the ball, it is a foul.
If the ref did not see the incident and guessed, as did the linesman in this case or the ref and linesman did not know the rule...they should apologise publicly to Wycombe football. Or the rule has changed , in which case a Ref reading this forum can show us all the new rule please - or one of you calling for Max's head. If this is the case Wycombe management should get clarification from the League about the rule change and we will all see goalkeepers getting balls knocked out of their hands from Saturday onwards after a drop ball or goal kick - a free for all.
Taylor actually reminds me more of Paul Read. Who we signed from Arsenal many moons ago.
Read also arrived from a big club with a big reputation as a goalscorer but ultimately offered very little as he had no standout feature.
Like Read, Taylor isn’t particularly quick, isn’t big, doesn’t hold the ball up effectively, doesn’t run in behind and isn’t scoring goals - just 3 in 20 matches - or creating them (1 assist all season).
Nothing against the lad as he’s still very young but he’s not offering enough in my eyes and I think Matt needs to look elsewhere (L Taylor, Tjay and Sadlier).
While the ball was on the ground, the opposition forward is entitled to challenge for the ball. The contact and Max picking up the ball were virtually simultaneous. I think the ref was entitled to judge the fact of the challenge legitimate and not contravening the ball in possession of the GK rule. Whether the actual contact amounts to a foul is a matter of judgement.
The "shithousery" of making the forward run in before the keeper picks up the ball is seen regularly. On this occasion we had a freak incident as a result which resulted in a winning goal. Just one of those things for me.
Incidentally as I read it, the referee could have stopped the game and awarded Barnsley an indirect free kick if he wished to stop the game to issue a yellow card (eg for diving). It would have been pretty poor refereeing, I can't see any case to award a direct free kick (or penalty).
The difference between a direct and indirect free kick can be useful to understand as Peter Spittle will no doubt testify. Was @micra in the home stands for that game I wonder?
You are 100% correct Twizz. He was cheating a minute earlier with his ‘injury’ which we’ve all seen on numerous occasions. The gentle touch on him, not a push by any means, causes him to theatrically fall backwards, but in his play acting he loses the ball. Utterly idiotic - just hope the lost point isn’t important later in the season.
Dale Taylor doesn't know what striker he is and therefore we are struggling to accomodate him. He's not strong enough to be a hold up target man. He's not quick enough to play on the last man and wait for a ball over the top. He's not skilful enough to drop deep and try and create from there. And his stats suggest he's no fox in the box tap in player. He joins the ranks of impotent strikers from higher levels that we have signed
We can’t change what happened last night but we can learn from it.
I’m sure Blooms, the squad and the keepers / keeper coach will clear the air over the next few days. That’s their job.
We as fans can also play our part by supporting Max, as castigating him will achieve nothing.
Also perhaps we should look to ourselves. Like many I’ve enjoyed our dark arts reputation, even celebrated with the ‘We Know What We Are’ chant. But I won’t be joining in again. Let’s end the time wasting and not condone it from the terraces. It achieves nothing.
For those above quoting law 12 as a reason to award a free kick to Wycombe for the challenge on Max (ignore for a moment the element of does he have control of the ball in his hands).
Law 12.1 states
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
I assume we can conclude the referee didn't conclude Cosgrove was careless, reckless or using excessive force?
I'd agree there was minimal contact with Max, it shouldn't have been enough to cause him to fall over as he did.
Turning to the element Max being the keeper and having control.of the ball in his hands.
Law 12.2 states
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player: ...
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
the ball is between the hands...
I think we can agree that Max had control of the ball between his hands having picked it up off the floor.
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
And now that is the question; did Cosgrove challenge the goalkeeper?
I can only conclude that the referee decided the minimal contact was not, in fact, a challenge for the ball but simply incidental contact.
I'd agree because he makes no attempt to play the ball until it's clearly no longer in Max's possession. Neither does he barge into Max with any part of his body, nor does he use his hands to push Max over - he simply touches his arm and Max over reacts falling to the ground quite theatrically and then loses control of the ball.
Those criticising Max - you are all completely missing the point - it doesn't matter a jot what happened after the Barnsley player just ' touched ' Max.
Doesn't matter either if it was a gentle push , a touch, or a loving caress across Max's cheeks, whatever.
Max had two hands on the ball and was touched by the opposition striker. In fact it was much more than a gentle brush too.
It was clear as day that Max had the ball in his hands before the incident and clear as day that the Barnsley striker challenged him. A once only split second look on the night, a real time review or a slowed down replay...the eyes do not deceive. And the rule doesn't give any room for interpretation. It is a foul, End of.
After that ...a theatrical fall backwards etc etc... Max could have dived backwards doing a double spin in the air, started singing Christmas Carols, whipped out a Christmas present and started wrapping it on the pitch, whatever, the foul came first. The rule is simple and clear.
You are wrong @blue67, it's not at all clear that Cosgrove challenged for the ball. And that is what matters - just touching Max isn't a foul nor would it, IMHO, if he'd lovingly caressed Max on the head.
How exactly, in your opinion, did he challenge Max?
Can't say I agree with that, @blue67 . The contact was almost simultaneous with the moment Max picked the ball up. The striker was perfectly entitled to challenge for the ball when on the ground. I don't see a breech of the rule there.
Whether the contact itself amounted to a foul is more open to judgement.
The easy option for the referee would be to give a foul. He was brave to trust his judgement that no foul had been committed. Was his judgement correct, a marginal one for me.
Overall Max did what many before him have done and a freakish combination of events on this occasion has lead to a goal. Not sure Max or the forward or the referee have done a lot wrong here.
Hopefully all goalkeepers learn from the incident and that annoying form of legal time wasting now becomes a thing of the past.
I got the figure from the club's site and using the card's total on each of the players' profile page which is why I also stated that it would include Bristol Street Motors Trophy, FA Cup, League Cup & League. Our main offenders at Luke Leahy (7 cautions), Joe Low (6 cautions) & Josh Scowen (5 cautions) which is understandable as they are in positions in the middle of the park that can often result in a caution. But having a goalkeeper on 4 cautions when he has limited opportunity of getting a cautions I find really weird and slightly worrying.
Looking at the highlights / this incident again, Cosgrove doesn't push Max, its more of a small chest bump. Max then goes down in stages (like small kids when they play football / kids acting on stage) and it's completely his fault for not securing the ball.
In my opinion, I believe the Referee made the right call as the ball was in open play as looks like there has been a drop ball in the area for Max to just pick up. It was nothing like any other challenge that you see fouls on keepers given (and in my opinion, they are WAY too over-protected) and nothing like Van Persie at Stoke.
December will be a very big month for Matt & Max and Max is now in a rut where he'll either sink or swim. He has been great for us in the last 17 months however, this last month has been a horror show. We have seen great keepers sink after 1 or 2 performances (Joe Hart for one) and hopefully, this will cause Max to come out with a point to prove and give us the secure performances we know and love from him.
Comments
To be honest, I’d much rather Max made a fool of himself like this instead of being a totally incompetent goalkeeper. At least this means we don’t need to worry about losing him in the January window. He might even sign a new deal now. He’s still a top goalkeeper for this level in my books.
Its called playing advantage. I'm sure that's somewhere in book of laws you have next to your keyboard.
cos I also said "and had Max held onto the ball".
If you cant stop digging, at least dig up
I accept that this is subjective but Matt said that they'd had a long chat about how they want to conduct themselves. I'd much prefer it if they didn't conduct themselves in the manner of their goal.
All those on Gasroom, Twitter, facebook etc etc...calling for Max's head on a plate, please tell me if this law has been superseded in the last 4 years ...from Refs forum site in 2019:
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
Crystal clear, no ifs or buts, Max had the ball in two hands was touched by the Barnsley striker, therefore fouled by the simple rules of the game and the ref should have awarded a free kick as soon as contact was made - it doesn't matter how much - a feather touch or full on shoulder barge, it doesn't matter...Max had 2 hands on the ball and that is that.
What happened after...falling down , losing the ball etc etc is completely immaterial.
I don't get why anyone on this forum or anywhere else is not aware of this simple rule...unless of course it has changed ..in which case let the Refs . ex refs etc etc point me to the new clause in the rule book.
And on Saturday we will get Taylor to shoulder charge the Morecombe goalie for our first, second and third goal...simple as that!
I'm guessing this table is league only (so doesn't tally with your figure), but we don't appear to be doing too badly vs other teams.
I think mid-table is a reasonable place to be in the discipline league, I tend to think (without wanting to get into some sort of dumb-arse "come on - GET STUCK IN" mentality) that if you're not picking up any bookings at all, then maybe your holding midfielders and defenders are being too nice - but of course if you're winning every game at a canter then they maybe don't need to exert themselves much anyway, none of these stats should be interpreted in isolation.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/league-one/fairnesstabelle/wettbewerb/GB3/plus/?saison_id=2023
Not sure you can lump JJ into the negative here, he's barely played this season.
And didn't seem to cause us problems when he's played left centre back before.
Exactly, you don't concede a pen for taking a while to release the ball/falling on it/time wasting etc.
Dale Taylor. He's very much a second striker, maybe Ian Stonebridge is a good example of a similar player from our past.
Not strong in the air, fast, a finisher, but good movement, fluid and touch.
While a few posters were moaning about Vokes and how we look better with Taylor, it clearly hasn't worked to any level the last few games.
Lovely, counts for nothing though. Should never have given the ref a choice to make.
Technically is a word that can refer to practical skills and methods used in a particular activity.
Therefore, technically he would be 4th in the list, behind our much vaunted signing KJV, Grimmer and McCarthy I would say. Hence him not getting anywhere near the lineup when the other 3 have been available.
However, like someone else said, he's certainly taken his chance. But I doubt he's starting if all are fit.
Exactly that. A totally neutral club pal of mine sent me a message this morning, utterly astounded that the ref had given that.
Probably one of those calls that's a classic homer decision.
I hesitate to quote the laws of football in support of your argument after previous comments but Law 12 clearly states: ‘A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).’
Was Max foolish in the extreme to take the risk he did? Absolutely. Did the referee apply this law correctly? No, he didn’t.
Give it time
There is no choice though is there - the ref blatantly got it wrong - did not know the rules of the game or missed the incident and guessed, no ifs or buts. It is either a rule or it isn't without any choice or interpretation . As soon as the opposition player touches the keeper it is a foul. There is no line to draw for offside or ball fully crossing the line for a goal ..., no choice to be made by the ref or VAR as to whether the defender was moving his hand to touch a ball for a penalty or not. It is simple as simple can be. If the goalkeeper is touched when he is holding the ball, it is a foul.
If the ref did not see the incident and guessed, as did the linesman in this case or the ref and linesman did not know the rule...they should apologise publicly to Wycombe football. Or the rule has changed , in which case a Ref reading this forum can show us all the new rule please - or one of you calling for Max's head. If this is the case Wycombe management should get clarification from the League about the rule change and we will all see goalkeepers getting balls knocked out of their hands from Saturday onwards after a drop ball or goal kick - a free for all.
Taylor actually reminds me more of Paul Read. Who we signed from Arsenal many moons ago.
Read also arrived from a big club with a big reputation as a goalscorer but ultimately offered very little as he had no standout feature.
Like Read, Taylor isn’t particularly quick, isn’t big, doesn’t hold the ball up effectively, doesn’t run in behind and isn’t scoring goals - just 3 in 20 matches - or creating them (1 assist all season).
Nothing against the lad as he’s still very young but he’s not offering enough in my eyes and I think Matt needs to look elsewhere (L Taylor, Tjay and Sadlier).
You think what Cosgrove did was careless, reckless or used excessive force?
While the ball was on the ground, the opposition forward is entitled to challenge for the ball. The contact and Max picking up the ball were virtually simultaneous. I think the ref was entitled to judge the fact of the challenge legitimate and not contravening the ball in possession of the GK rule. Whether the actual contact amounts to a foul is a matter of judgement.
The "shithousery" of making the forward run in before the keeper picks up the ball is seen regularly. On this occasion we had a freak incident as a result which resulted in a winning goal. Just one of those things for me.
Incidentally as I read it, the referee could have stopped the game and awarded Barnsley an indirect free kick if he wished to stop the game to issue a yellow card (eg for diving). It would have been pretty poor refereeing, I can't see any case to award a direct free kick (or penalty).
The difference between a direct and indirect free kick can be useful to understand as Peter Spittle will no doubt testify. Was @micra in the home stands for that game I wonder?
Because it was a dive from Max.
Take your rose coloured glasses off @glasshalffull and ask your self this: -
If someone comes up to you in the bar after a game and touches your arm, do you fall over and throw your beer to the floor?
Yes Cosgrove jogs up to Max and touches his arm but no way is it a two handed push with enough force to throw him to the ground like that.
Normally I admire you for your reasoned views, but this time I can't agree with you.
You are 100% correct Twizz. He was cheating a minute earlier with his ‘injury’ which we’ve all seen on numerous occasions. The gentle touch on him, not a push by any means, causes him to theatrically fall backwards, but in his play acting he loses the ball. Utterly idiotic - just hope the lost point isn’t important later in the season.
Dale Taylor doesn't know what striker he is and therefore we are struggling to accomodate him. He's not strong enough to be a hold up target man. He's not quick enough to play on the last man and wait for a ball over the top. He's not skilful enough to drop deep and try and create from there. And his stats suggest he's no fox in the box tap in player. He joins the ranks of impotent strikers from higher levels that we have signed
"push"
We can’t change what happened last night but we can learn from it.
I’m sure Blooms, the squad and the keepers / keeper coach will clear the air over the next few days. That’s their job.
We as fans can also play our part by supporting Max, as castigating him will achieve nothing.
Also perhaps we should look to ourselves. Like many I’ve enjoyed our dark arts reputation, even celebrated with the ‘We Know What We Are’ chant. But I won’t be joining in again. Let’s end the time wasting and not condone it from the terraces. It achieves nothing.
For those above quoting law 12 as a reason to award a free kick to Wycombe for the challenge on Max (ignore for a moment the element of does he have control of the ball in his hands).
Law 12.1 states
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent
in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:I assume we can conclude the referee didn't conclude Cosgrove was careless, reckless or using excessive force?
I'd agree there was minimal contact with Max, it shouldn't have been enough to cause him to fall over as he did.
Turning to the element Max being the keeper and having control.of the ball in his hands.
Law 12.2 states
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player: ...
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
the ball is between the hands...
I think we can agree that Max had control of the ball between his hands having picked it up off the floor.
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
And now that is the question; did Cosgrove challenge the goalkeeper?
I can only conclude that the referee decided the minimal contact was not, in fact, a challenge for the ball but simply incidental contact.
I'd agree because he makes no attempt to play the ball until it's clearly no longer in Max's possession. Neither does he barge into Max with any part of his body, nor does he use his hands to push Max over - he simply touches his arm and Max over reacts falling to the ground quite theatrically and then loses control of the ball.
If Max has been penalised for diving, it would have been a yellow / caution and an indirect freekick.
Those criticising Max - you are all completely missing the point - it doesn't matter a jot what happened after the Barnsley player just ' touched ' Max.
Doesn't matter either if it was a gentle push , a touch, or a loving caress across Max's cheeks, whatever.
Max had two hands on the ball and was touched by the opposition striker. In fact it was much more than a gentle brush too.
It was clear as day that Max had the ball in his hands before the incident and clear as day that the Barnsley striker challenged him. A once only split second look on the night, a real time review or a slowed down replay...the eyes do not deceive. And the rule doesn't give any room for interpretation. It is a foul, End of.
After that ...a theatrical fall backwards etc etc... Max could have dived backwards doing a double spin in the air, started singing Christmas Carols, whipped out a Christmas present and started wrapping it on the pitch, whatever, the foul came first. The rule is simple and clear.
You are wrong @blue67, it's not at all clear that Cosgrove challenged for the ball. And that is what matters - just touching Max isn't a foul nor would it, IMHO, if he'd lovingly caressed Max on the head.
How exactly, in your opinion, did he challenge Max?
Oh and it's a football law not a rule.
Can't say I agree with that, @blue67 . The contact was almost simultaneous with the moment Max picked the ball up. The striker was perfectly entitled to challenge for the ball when on the ground. I don't see a breech of the rule there.
Whether the contact itself amounted to a foul is more open to judgement.
The easy option for the referee would be to give a foul. He was brave to trust his judgement that no foul had been committed. Was his judgement correct, a marginal one for me.
Overall Max did what many before him have done and a freakish combination of events on this occasion has lead to a goal. Not sure Max or the forward or the referee have done a lot wrong here.
Hopefully all goalkeepers learn from the incident and that annoying form of legal time wasting now becomes a thing of the past.
I got the figure from the club's site and using the card's total on each of the players' profile page which is why I also stated that it would include Bristol Street Motors Trophy, FA Cup, League Cup & League. Our main offenders at Luke Leahy (7 cautions), Joe Low (6 cautions) & Josh Scowen (5 cautions) which is understandable as they are in positions in the middle of the park that can often result in a caution. But having a goalkeeper on 4 cautions when he has limited opportunity of getting a cautions I find really weird and slightly worrying.
Looking at the highlights / this incident again, Cosgrove doesn't push Max, its more of a small chest bump. Max then goes down in stages (like small kids when they play football / kids acting on stage) and it's completely his fault for not securing the ball.
In my opinion, I believe the Referee made the right call as the ball was in open play as looks like there has been a drop ball in the area for Max to just pick up. It was nothing like any other challenge that you see fouls on keepers given (and in my opinion, they are WAY too over-protected) and nothing like Van Persie at Stoke.
December will be a very big month for Matt & Max and Max is now in a rut where he'll either sink or swim. He has been great for us in the last 17 months however, this last month has been a horror show. We have seen great keepers sink after 1 or 2 performances (Joe Hart for one) and hopefully, this will cause Max to come out with a point to prove and give us the secure performances we know and love from him.