Aaron Ramsdale (1)

[Ach]

Its not a foul, someone tell me why it was a foul.

The attacker is not obligated to move out of the way. That was a mistake by Ramsdale

Yup

Poor positioning from Ramsdale

[Power n Glory]

I thought it was a foul when watching in slow mo... but watching at real time speed, I thought Ramsdale could have commanded his area better and showed some strength to get that guy out of the way.

[alexafc12]

When that happens a defender should stand between the attacker and Ramsdale.

Also should have been a player on the post - agree.

[jayramfootball]

Its not a foul, someone tell me why it was a foul.

The attacker is not obligated to move out of the way. That was a mistake by Ramsdale

Because he’s not just standing in front of the goal keeper. He is jostling him by pushing his weight back into him and also wrapping his arms around him.
When a corner is about to be taken a ref even stops play if two defenders are doing that.
I don’t mind that being allowed TBH, as long as it is ALWAYS allowed. I don’t want to see goals chalked off for jostling the keeper in future games before or whilst the the ball is coming in for a corner. I suspect we WILL see free kicks given for that in the future, however.

[Power n Glory]

When that happens a defender should stand between the attacker and Ramsdale.

Also should have been a player on the post - agree.

Yeah, we were caught napping. Responded well though.

[theHotHead]

Its not a foul, someone tell me why it was a foul.

The attacker is not obligated to move out of the way. That was a mistake by Ramsdale

Because he’s not just standing in front of the goal keeper. He is jostling him by pushing his weight back into him and also wrapping his arms around him.
When a corner is about to be taken a ref even stops play if two defenders are doing that.
I don’t mind that being allowed TBH, as long as it is ALWAYS allowed. I don’t want to see goals chalked off for jostling the keeper in future games before or whilst the the ball is coming in for a corner. I suspect we WILL see free kicks given for that in the future, however.

I disagree Jay. When you get pushed from behind you fall forwards, so the backing in you say you saw isn't backing in, its a result of the attacker being pushed in the back - making him bend over.

[swipe right]

Ramsdale has mistakes in him. He’s young and can get better but he needs to keep his head screwed on.

[Fran Solo]

Its not a foul, someone tell me why it was a foul.

The attacker is not obligated to move out of the way. That was a mistake by Ramsdale

Because he’s not just standing in front of the goal keeper. He is jostling him by pushing his weight back into him and also wrapping his arms around him.
When a corner is about to be taken a ref even stops play if two defenders are doing that.
I don’t mind that being allowed TBH, as long as it is ALWAYS allowed. I don’t want to see goals chalked off for jostling the keeper in future games before or whilst the the ball is coming in for a corner. I suspect we WILL see free kicks given for that in the future, however.

I disagree Jay. When you get pushed from behind you fall forwards, so the backing in you say you saw isn't backing in, its a result of the attacker being pushed in the back - making him bend over.

I won't say it was a big mistake or anything like that, but still weak goalkeeping for me. Just as weak as Danny Ward against William Saliba just before Gabriel scored last weekend. The attackers have the right to hold their ground. Whether it turns into an obstruction or not depends on the referee.

[jayramfootball]

Its not a foul, someone tell me why it was a foul.

The attacker is not obligated to move out of the way. That was a mistake by Ramsdale

Because he’s not just standing in front of the goal keeper. He is jostling him by pushing his weight back into him and also wrapping his arms around him.
When a corner is about to be taken a ref even stops play if two defenders are doing that.
I don’t mind that being allowed TBH, as long as it is ALWAYS allowed. I don’t want to see goals chalked off for jostling the keeper in future games before or whilst the the ball is coming in for a corner. I suspect we WILL see free kicks given for that in the future, however.

I disagree Jay. When you get pushed from behind you fall forwards, so the backing in you say you saw isn't backing in, its a result of the attacker being pushed in the back - making him bend over.

Nonsense.
You can clearly see the Villa attacker leveraging himself against ground and pushing back.
Regardless, like I said, if this is now a consistent approach by the ref when keepers are jostled like that then fine. We will see , though. I have my doubts.

[thebigbangtheo]

Until we get to the point when the powers that be decide to make football a no contact sport in homage to Neymar, the interaction with Watkins was correctly adjudged not to have been a foul.

Considering he doesn't come across as being slow on the uptake, it should be all good regards maintaining the upward trajectory of his development in having been taught an important lesson.

In that it was not as harsh a lesson as it ultimately could have been, my hope is that it proves a blessing in disguise by resulting in improved focus and command of his area.

[alexafc12]

The wording is open to interpretation but for me it's a foul:

"An indirect free kick is awarded if a player impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made.

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

A player may not shield the ball if it is not in playing distance. For example, if a player stands in front of the goalkeeper on a corner kick, and then moves to prevent the goalkeeper getting around them, this should be called as impeding."

[jayramfootball]

Fairly emphatic last paragraph.
Foul.
VAR got it wrong.

[thebigbangtheo]

The wording is open to interpretation but for me it's a foul:

"An indirect free kick is awarded if a player impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made.

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

A player may not shield the ball if it is not in playing distance. For example, if a player stands in front of the goalkeeper on a corner kick, and then moves to prevent the goalkeeper getting around them, this should be called as impeding."

Absolutely no disputing this ruling and definition of what constitutes a foul, especially the last paragraph as it pertains to the Villa goal. The issue muddying the water for me, is the action of Ramsdale in his grappling with Watkins to effectively impede himself.

Put the shoe on the other foot, and I think they'd be an uproar and outpouring of conspiracy theories had that been Saliba or Magalhaes being penalised and the goal chalked off.

[jayramfootball]

The wording is open to interpretation but for me it's a foul:

"An indirect free kick is awarded if a player impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made.

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

A player may not shield the ball if it is not in playing distance. For example, if a player stands in front of the goalkeeper on a corner kick, and then moves to prevent the goalkeeper getting around them, this should be called as impeding."

Absolutely no disputing this ruling and definition of what constitutes a foul, especially the last paragraph as it pertains to the Villa goal. The issue muddying the water for me, is the action of Ramsdale in his grappling with Watkins to effectively impede himself.

Put the shoe on the other foot, and I think they'd be an uproar and outpouring of conspiracy theories had that been Saliba or Magalhaes being penalised and the goal chalked off.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here… is it that if a player tries to stop another player obstructing him then the obstruction is ok?

[VCC]

This guy has to stay fit,